From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 19 09:04:07 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3328106564A for ; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 09:04:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jonc@chen.org.nz) Received: from chen.org.nz (ip-58-28-152-174.static-xdsl.xnet.co.nz [58.28.152.174]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594CA8FC0A for ; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 09:04:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jonc@chen.org.nz) Received: by chen.org.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5285A2840F; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 21:04:05 +1200 (NZST) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 21:04:05 +1200 From: Jonathan Chen To: Joe Marcus Clarke Message-ID: <20090419090405.GA3500@osiris.chen.org.nz> References: <20090418105855.GA61453@osiris.chen.org.nz> <1240080177.18976.63.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20090418204411.GA73963@osiris.chen.org.nz> <1240092470.18976.80.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20090418233629.GA89603@osiris.chen.org.nz> <1240109972.1354.6.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20090419063220.GA99153@osiris.chen.org.nz> <1240123521.1354.27.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1240123521.1354.27.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: console-kit-daemon leaking file descriptors? X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 09:04:07 -0000 On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 02:45:21AM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 18:32 +1200, Jonathan Chen wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 10:59:32PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: [...] > > > Then that means you have a deeper problem. Most likely you do not have > > > procfs mounted on /proc. The console or /var/log/messages should have > > > warnings. > > > > Hmm. Yes it does. I wasn't aware that GNOME required procfs mounted. > > It's in the general GNOME FAQ and HAL FAQ. You definitely need procfs > mounted. The wording in both the FAQs appear to imply that procfs is optional. Perhaps it should be changed to say that procfs is required for GNOME to function correctly? Cheers. -- Jonathan Chen ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "If everything's under control, you're going too slow" - Mario Andretti