Bug#785457: marked as done (cloud.debian.org: AMI don't need getty)
unsubscribe
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 7:00 PM Debian Bug Tracking System
<owner@bugs.debian.org> wrote:
>
> Your message dated Tue, 15 Oct 2019 23:56:43 +0200
> with message-id <23974.16539.617817.34798@informatik.uni-koeln.de>
> and subject line closing
> has caused the Debian Bug report #785457,
> regarding cloud.debian.org: AMI don't need getty
> to be marked as done.
>
> This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
> If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
> Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
>
> (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
> message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
> misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
> immediately.)
>
>
> --
> 785457: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=785457
> Debian Bug Tracking System
> Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ognyan Kulev <ognyan@ognyankulev.com>
> To: submit@bugs.debian.org
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 17:57:22 +0300
> Subject: cloud.debian.org: AMI don't need getty
> Package: cloud.debian.org
> Severity: wishlist
> User: cloud.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: image
> Usertags: aws
>
> Hi,
>
> While fine-tuning the Debian 8.0.0 HVM AMI, I noticed that getty
> processes fill up space in the otherwise short default process list, so
> I disabled these with:
>
> systemctl mask getty@tty{1,2,3,4,5,6}.service
> systemctl mask serial-getty@{hvc0,ttyS0}.service
> systemctl mask getty-static.service
>
> I don't see any reason for having getty support in AMI. I think these
> should be disabled.
>
> All the best,
> Ognyan
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Thomas Lange <lange@informatik.uni-koeln.de>
> To: 785457-done@bugs.debian.org
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 23:56:43 +0200
> Subject: closing
> Using the new tools, this does no apply any more.
> --
> regards Thomas
--
Martin
Reply to: