Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
On 06/08/2015 20:28, J. Roeleveld wrote: On Thursday, August 06, 2015 02:59:09 PM Mick wrote: On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 22:47:43 Alan McKinnon wrote: On 05/08/2015 23:12, J. Roeleveld wrote: On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 06:20:17 PM Mick wrote: On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote: Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP: The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write code. The bad thing about php is that they do. Your imagination[1] footnote didn't make it to the list. I thought for a minute that you used some php parser ... :p It's not that old for an old saying. I can't find a reference to that saying older then august 2014 using Google. And all those are links to the same email written by our own Alan McKinnon Ah! That's because it was I who made it up years ago and have told it to lots of people. About a year ago is obviously the first time I wrote it down :-) Run the same search for perl - it's probably more appropriate than php and may find older samples of the same ol' saying. Nope, can't find a single hit with either line. Also would surprise me, as the largest part of the massive amount of bad code (mostly copy/pasted from each other) arrived after PHP appeared. It works just as well for php, perl, basic, VB, J2EE frameworks and any draggy-droppy workflow thing that claims to produce runnable code. It seems that only C is immune, probably because of the high barrier to entry that must be climbed before writing something useful (and hello world is not useful :-) ) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
On Thursday, August 06, 2015 02:59:09 PM Mick wrote: On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 22:47:43 Alan McKinnon wrote: On 05/08/2015 23:12, J. Roeleveld wrote: On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 06:20:17 PM Mick wrote: On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote: Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP: The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write code. The bad thing about php is that they do. Your imagination[1] footnote didn't make it to the list. I thought for a minute that you used some php parser ... :p It's not that old for an old saying. I can't find a reference to that saying older then august 2014 using Google. And all those are links to the same email written by our own Alan McKinnon Ah! That's because it was I who made it up years ago and have told it to lots of people. About a year ago is obviously the first time I wrote it down :-) Run the same search for perl - it's probably more appropriate than php and may find older samples of the same ol' saying. Nope, can't find a single hit with either line. Also would surprise me, as the largest part of the massive amount of bad code (mostly copy/pasted from each other) arrived after PHP appeared. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 22:47:43 Alan McKinnon wrote: On 05/08/2015 23:12, J. Roeleveld wrote: On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 06:20:17 PM Mick wrote: On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote: Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP: The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write code. The bad thing about php is that they do. Your imagination[1] footnote didn't make it to the list. I thought for a minute that you used some php parser ... :p It's not that old for an old saying. I can't find a reference to that saying older then august 2014 using Google. And all those are links to the same email written by our own Alan McKinnon Ah! That's because it was I who made it up years ago and have told it to lots of people. About a year ago is obviously the first time I wrote it down :-) Run the same search for perl - it's probably more appropriate than php and may find older samples of the same ol' saying. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 6:18:07 AM Franz Fellner wrote: walt wrote: On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:19:37 +0200 Franz Fellner alpine.art...@gmail.com wrote: Fernando Rodriguez wrote: On Monday, August 03, 2015 6:41:22 PM walt wrote: That line declares *hostname as a constant and then the statement below proceeds to assign a value to the 'constant'. I wonder how many hours of frustration have been suffered by student programmers while trying to understand the logic behind that. Because it's not a constant, it's a pointer-to-constant :) Both of you are right, you can read the declaration in both ways: hostname is of type pointer to const char. *hostname is of type const char. But in this case it is not *hostname, that get's a value assigned, it's simply hostname. If you do not set hostname to NULL it stays uninitialised, which means its value is what the actual memory is set to - quite undefined. Correct initialization is really important and should be done consequently so it gets an automatism ;) (would avoid issues like this) const char *hostname; /* pointer to constant char */ char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to char */ const char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to constant char */ Is that confusing enough? confusing++ Thank you both for being patient enough to teach the ineducable :) Let me give you one more example of syntax that I find unreasonable, and then I'll ask my *real* question, about which I hope you will have opinions. Okay, the statement I referred to above uses this notation: if (!link-network-hostname) this notation makes sense to me r = sd_dhcp_lease_get_hostname(lease, hostname); this doesn't The -operator returns the address of the object, in this case of hostname. If you would just pass hostname the function would receive a _copy_ of the object. hostname is an out-argument, the function writes to it. That is needed sometimes as C only can return one value, if you need to return more things you need to pass them as out-args. But for that to work you need to operate on the actual object and not a copy of it, so you need to pass the address to the actual object. The declaration of the function of course needs to specify the arg as pointer to the actual type, here pointer to a pointer to char. You can look at it like that, but more technically it's because C doesn't support out arguments, or reference arguments, or objects. All arguments are passed by value. You can return multiple values in a struct but it's not very convenient both in terms of usability (you need to store the result in a variable before you can use it unless you only care about one member) and performance since everything needs to be copied. Plus the implementation may vary significantly between compilers and architectures So in order to get a value back from the function (other than the return) you pass the address (a pointer) where you want that data to be written. Things like that make C seem primitive if your coming from a higher level language but it is what makes C so powerful. Once you get the hang of it and understand how everything works it's actually simpler than higher level languages because C doesn't do stuff behind you back (or does very little) so you can read C code a understand what's going on under the hood. Most Java and .NET developers for example have no clue about what goes on in their own programs under the hood. In this context does 'hostname' mean a-pointer-to-a-pointer-to-the- charstring we actually need? Doesn't this code seem needlessly complicated? okay, screed over, thanks for listening Somewhere I read that there was really only *one* java program ever written, and every subsequent java program was written by cut-and-paste from the first one. Is that how professional developers learn the art of programming? That's how you write bugs :) There's nothing wrong with it if you take the take to understand what it's doing but it's too often done blindly. I really would like to hear your opinions on that question because I feel it's an important topic. Thanks guys. -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
On 05/08/2015 10:18, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: You can look at it like that, but more technically it's because C doesn't support out arguments, or reference arguments, or objects. All arguments are passed by value. You can return multiple values in a struct but it's not very convenient both in terms of usability (you need to store the result in a variable before you can use it unless you only care about one member) and performance since everything needs to be copied. Plus the implementation may vary significantly between compilers and architectures So in order to get a value back from the function (other than the return) you pass the address (a pointer) where you want that data to be written. Things like that make C seem primitive if your coming from a higher level language but it is what makes C so powerful. Once you get the hang of it and understand how everything works it's actually simpler than higher level languages because C doesn't do stuff behind you back (or does very little) so you can read C code a understand what's going on under the hood. Most Java and .NET developers for example have no clue about what goes on in their own programs under the hood. Thanks for the reminder. I'd forgotten much about C (not needing to read or write it much these days) In this context does 'hostname' mean a-pointer-to-a-pointer-to-the- charstring we actually need? Doesn't this code seem needlessly complicated? okay, screed over, thanks for listening Somewhere I read that there was really only *one* java program ever written, and every subsequent java program was written by cut-and-paste from the first one. Is that how professional developers learn the art of programming? Looking back 12 months to some former colleagues, that is *exactly* how the Java ecosystem works. I haven't seen anyone write Java from scratch in *years* now, all of them seem to twiddle little bits inside some huge framework and have zero concept about what is going on. So you get anomolies like a giant payroll/compensation/commission reporting tool thingamagic from Oracle that does everything imaginable about sales commissions, except actually report on them. True fax - ask my wife That's how you write bugs :) There's nothing wrong with it if you take the take to understand what it's doing but it's too often done blindly. I really would like to hear your opinions on that question because I feel it's an important topic. Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP: The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write code. The bad thing about php is that they do. I suppose there's a place for that kind of thing, a lot of corporate systems are mostly boilerplate where a huge framework (and equally huge expensive over-specced hardware) gets the job done. The thing that really changes is the exact calculations in the business-logic middleware layer, someone else did the heavy lifting of joining all the modules together to resemble the real-world workflow. It's not my way of working though, and I suspect most Gentooers tend the same way if they get the chance. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote: Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP: The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write code. The bad thing about php is that they do. Your imagination[1] footnote didn't make it to the list. I thought for a minute that you used some php parser ... :p -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
On 05/08/2015 19:20, Mick wrote: On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote: Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP: The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write code. The bad thing about php is that they do. Your imagination[1] footnote didn't make it to the list. I thought for a minute that you used some php parser ... :p That's what happens when you make a typo after a thinko -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 12:47:58 PM Alan McKinnon wrote: On 05/08/2015 10:18, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: In this context does 'hostname' mean a-pointer-to-a-pointer-to-the- charstring we actually need? Doesn't this code seem needlessly complicated? okay, screed over, thanks for listening Somewhere I read that there was really only *one* java program ever written, and every subsequent java program was written by cut-and-paste from the first one. Is that how professional developers learn the art of programming? Looking back 12 months to some former colleagues, that is *exactly* how the Java ecosystem works. I haven't seen anyone write Java from scratch in *years* now, all of them seem to twiddle little bits inside some huge framework and have zero concept about what is going on. Only 12 months? Most IDEs and/or frameworks basically set up everything and just add bits like // Write your code here Problems start when these ama...eerh... programmers put there code in other locations... So you get anomolies like a giant payroll/compensation/commission reporting tool thingamagic from Oracle that does everything imaginable about sales commissions, except actually report on them. True fax - ask my wife Don't need to ask her, seen it with my own eyes... It keeps amazing me that the software actually does work most of the time. That's how you write bugs :) There's nothing wrong with it if you take the take to understand what it's doing but it's too often done blindly. I really would like to hear your opinions on that question because I feel it's an important topic. Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP: The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write code. The bad thing about php is that they do. Couldn't find that particular quote, but the following page should be required study for everyone starting with programming. (It's for PHP, but should work for ALL languages): http://code.tutsplus.com/tutorials/why-youre-a-bad-php-programmer--net-18384 I suppose there's a place for that kind of thing, a lot of corporate systems are mostly boilerplate where a huge framework (and equally huge expensive over-specced hardware) gets the job done. Well, when you have a big rocketbooster for propulsion, why not build a car from solid rock without wheels? The thing that really changes is the exact calculations in the business-logic middleware layer, someone else did the heavy lifting of joining all the modules together to resemble the real-world workflow. And then these same corporates want to add new features and such which means improving the codebase. Breaking the badly (or not at all) understood logic in the process. It's not my way of working though, and I suspect most Gentooers tend the same way if they get the chance. ++ this is why I still use Gentoo...
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 06:20:17 PM Mick wrote: On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote: Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP: The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write code. The bad thing about php is that they do. Your imagination[1] footnote didn't make it to the list. I thought for a minute that you used some php parser ... :p It's not that old for an old saying. I can't find a reference to that saying older then august 2014 using Google. And all those are links to the same email written by our own Alan McKinnon -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
On 05/08/2015 23:12, J. Roeleveld wrote: On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 06:20:17 PM Mick wrote: On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote: Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP: The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write code. The bad thing about php is that they do. Your imagination[1] footnote didn't make it to the list. I thought for a minute that you used some php parser ... :p It's not that old for an old saying. I can't find a reference to that saying older then august 2014 using Google. And all those are links to the same email written by our own Alan McKinnon Ah! That's because it was I who made it up years ago and have told it to lots of people. About a year ago is obviously the first time I wrote it down :-) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
[gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:00:36 +0200 J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: the following page should be required study for everyone starting with programming. (It's for PHP, but should work for ALL languages): http://code.tutsplus.com/tutorials/why-youre-a-bad-php-programmer--net-18384 Excellent article, thanks, and interesting website. I've been looking for a good javascript tutorial and I see they offer several of them.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 12:47:58 PM Alan McKinnon wrote: Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP: It may be that in recent years the trend has made it to the FOSS community, but I'd say it goes to the mid to early 90s with Microsoft's Visual IDEs. By the late 90s you could write a Windows GUI application in VisualBasic 6 mostly by drag and drop on the visual designer. With Visual Studio .NET in 2000/1 your could do it for a web application (ASP.NET) as well and you could design a database driven web app without writing a single line of code. In VS2008 they came up with a designer where you write the program by dragging blocks into a flowchart[1]. These tools are nice (at least the ones for GUI apps). I wish we had similar tools of the same quality in the FOSS world. The problem is that you'll get programmers that only know how to drag and drop and when it comes to the 10% of the program that needs to be coded they do a horrible job. 1. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg983474%28v=vs.110%29.aspx -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
Fernando Rodriguez wrote: On Monday, August 03, 2015 6:41:22 PM walt wrote: That line declares *hostname as a constant and then the statement below proceeds to assign a value to the 'constant'. I wonder how many hours of frustration have been suffered by student programmers while trying to understand the logic behind that. Because it's not a constant, it's a pointer-to-constant :) Both of you are right, you can read the declaration in both ways: hostname is of type pointer to const char. *hostname is of type const char. But in this case it is not *hostname, that get's a value assigned, it's simply hostname. If you do not set hostname to NULL it stays uninitialised, which means its value is what the actual memory is set to - quite undefined. Correct initialization is really important and should be done consequently so it gets an automatism ;) (would avoid issues like this) const char *hostname; /* pointer to constant char */ char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to char */ const char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to constant char */ Is that confusing enough? -- Fernando Rodriguez
RE: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
walt wrote: On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:19:37 +0200 Franz Fellner alpine.art...@gmail.com wrote: Fernando Rodriguez wrote: On Monday, August 03, 2015 6:41:22 PM walt wrote: That line declares *hostname as a constant and then the statement below proceeds to assign a value to the 'constant'. I wonder how many hours of frustration have been suffered by student programmers while trying to understand the logic behind that. Because it's not a constant, it's a pointer-to-constant :) Both of you are right, you can read the declaration in both ways: hostname is of type pointer to const char. *hostname is of type const char. But in this case it is not *hostname, that get's a value assigned, it's simply hostname. If you do not set hostname to NULL it stays uninitialised, which means its value is what the actual memory is set to - quite undefined. Correct initialization is really important and should be done consequently so it gets an automatism ;) (would avoid issues like this) const char *hostname; /* pointer to constant char */ char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to char */ const char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to constant char */ Is that confusing enough? confusing++ Thank you both for being patient enough to teach the ineducable :) Let me give you one more example of syntax that I find unreasonable, and then I'll ask my *real* question, about which I hope you will have opinions. Okay, the statement I referred to above uses this notation: if (!link-network-hostname) this notation makes sense to me r = sd_dhcp_lease_get_hostname(lease, hostname); this doesn't The -operator returns the address of the object, in this case of hostname. If you would just pass hostname the function would receive a _copy_ of the object. hostname is an out-argument, the function writes to it. That is needed sometimes as C only can return one value, if you need to return more things you need to pass them as out-args. But for that to work you need to operate on the actual object and not a copy of it, so you need to pass the address to the actual object. The declaration of the function of course needs to specify the arg as pointer to the actual type, here pointer to a pointer to char. In this context does 'hostname' mean a-pointer-to-a-pointer-to-the- charstring we actually need? Doesn't this code seem needlessly complicated? okay, screed over, thanks for listening Somewhere I read that there was really only *one* java program ever written, and every subsequent java program was written by cut-and-paste from the first one. Is that how professional developers learn the art of programming? I really would like to hear your opinions on that question because I feel it's an important topic. Thanks guys.
[gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:19:37 +0200 Franz Fellner alpine.art...@gmail.com wrote: Fernando Rodriguez wrote: On Monday, August 03, 2015 6:41:22 PM walt wrote: That line declares *hostname as a constant and then the statement below proceeds to assign a value to the 'constant'. I wonder how many hours of frustration have been suffered by student programmers while trying to understand the logic behind that. Because it's not a constant, it's a pointer-to-constant :) Both of you are right, you can read the declaration in both ways: hostname is of type pointer to const char. *hostname is of type const char. But in this case it is not *hostname, that get's a value assigned, it's simply hostname. If you do not set hostname to NULL it stays uninitialised, which means its value is what the actual memory is set to - quite undefined. Correct initialization is really important and should be done consequently so it gets an automatism ;) (would avoid issues like this) const char *hostname; /* pointer to constant char */ char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to char */ const char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to constant char */ Is that confusing enough? confusing++ Thank you both for being patient enough to teach the ineducable :) Let me give you one more example of syntax that I find unreasonable, and then I'll ask my *real* question, about which I hope you will have opinions. Okay, the statement I referred to above uses this notation: if (!link-network-hostname) this notation makes sense to me r = sd_dhcp_lease_get_hostname(lease, hostname); this doesn't In this context does 'hostname' mean a-pointer-to-a-pointer-to-the- charstring we actually need? Doesn't this code seem needlessly complicated? okay, screed over, thanks for listening Somewhere I read that there was really only *one* java program ever written, and every subsequent java program was written by cut-and-paste from the first one. Is that how professional developers learn the art of programming? I really would like to hear your opinions on that question because I feel it's an important topic. Thanks guys.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:56 PM, walt w41...@gmail.com wrote: Let me give you one more example of syntax that I find unreasonable, and then I'll ask my *real* question, about which I hope you will have opinions. Okay, the statement I referred to above uses this notation: if (!link-network-hostname) this notation makes sense to me r = sd_dhcp_lease_get_hostname(lease, hostname); this doesn't In this context does 'hostname' mean a-pointer-to-a-pointer-to-the- charstring we actually need? Doesn't this code seem needlessly complicated? Nope, looks like standard C to me. If you want a function to update an argument, you need to pass a pointer to said argument. If you want to update a pointer, you need to pass a pointer to a pointer.
[gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:23:18 -0400 Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:16 AM, walt w41...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 08:03:11 -0700 walt w41...@gmail.com wrote: Oops, journalctl tells me that systemd-networkd is segfaulting repeatedly during boot. I'm reverting back to systemd-222-r1 until this gets sorted out. Fixed in systemd-224-r1. Next time file a bug; I don't always read this list. Thanks Mike. The fix is amazingly simple but looking at the patch makes me realize how little I understand the c language after years of reading c code but not writing any :/ const char *hostname = NULL; (upstream apparently forgot the = NULL) That line declares *hostname as a constant and then the statement below proceeds to assign a value to the 'constant'. I wonder how many hours of frustration have been suffered by student programmers while trying to understand the logic behind that. coughing from the dust on my 40-year-old Kernighan and Ritchie I see that they didn't include the 'const' keyword at all. That was a later change introduced by some ANSI committee, bless them. sigh I truly don't understand how any working code get written. Anyway, thanks again for the fix :)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]
On Monday, August 03, 2015 6:41:22 PM walt wrote: That line declares *hostname as a constant and then the statement below proceeds to assign a value to the 'constant'. I wonder how many hours of frustration have been suffered by student programmers while trying to understand the logic behind that. Because it's not a constant, it's a pointer-to-constant :) const char *hostname; /* pointer to constant char */ char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to char */ const char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to constant char */ Is that confusing enough? -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:16 AM, walt w41...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 08:03:11 -0700 walt w41...@gmail.com wrote: I've been running systemd for a long time without needing to enable the dhcpcd service at boot time. Starting with systemd-224 that is no longer true. Oops, journalctl tells me that systemd-networkd is segfaulting repeatedly during boot. I'm reverting back to systemd-222-r1 until this gets sorted out. Fixed in systemd-224-r1. Next time file a bug; I don't always read this list.
[gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 08:03:11 -0700 walt w41...@gmail.com wrote: I've been running systemd for a long time without needing to enable the dhcpcd service at boot time. Starting with systemd-224 that is no longer true. Oops, journalctl tells me that systemd-networkd is segfaulting repeatedly during boot. I'm reverting back to systemd-222-r1 until this gets sorted out.
[gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior
walt w41...@gmail.com wrote: Oops, journalctl tells me that systemd-networkd is segfaulting repeatedly during boot. systemd has become very picky on cflags; e.g. -DNDEBUG and friends cause strange behaviour and segfaults.
