В Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:42:37 +0200
Oliver Maurhart d...@dyle.org пишет:
#!/bin/hi *
I'm pretty sure it's a PEBCAK but I don't get it. I do have multiple
mounts of the same device over and over after boot and I don't know why.
Please could someone help me out.
Here some specs:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Oliver Maurhart d...@dyle.org wrote:
#!/bin/hi *
I'm pretty sure it's a PEBCAK but I don't get it. I do have multiple mounts
of the same device over and over after boot and I don't know why. Please
could someone help me out.
Those are very likely to be
Hi,
On a relatively average journal it can take a long time to page
through all the data collected.
With data stored from 5th August to 25th September and running
journalctl and pressing G to jump to the end in less, and it takes
several minutes before the end of the messages are
Le mercredi 25 septembre 2013 à 12:10 +0100, Colin Guthrie a écrit :
Hi,
On a relatively average journal it can take a long time to page
through all the data collected.
With data stored from 5th August to 25th September and running
journalctl and pressing G to jump to the end in
Hi Harald,
I have been looking at integrating kernel-install with Arch and I ran
across a few questions:
*) With /boot on fat, 'add' fails for me due to not being able to use
cp --preserve. How is this meant to work (or was it just not tested
on fat)? Dropping --preserve makes it work for me.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
[1mdiff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile [m
[1mindex 8d0668f..248d59c 100644 [m
[1m--- a/Makefile [m
[1m+++ b/Makefile [m
[36m@@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ [m [mOBJCOPY = $(CROSS_COMPILE)objcopy [m
OBJDUMP = $(CROSS_COMPILE)objdump
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
I have been looking at integrating kernel-install with Arch and I ran
across a few questions:
*) With /boot on fat, 'add' fails for me due to not being able to use
cp --preserve. How is this meant to work (or was it just not
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
*) With /boot on fat, 'add' fails for me due to not being able to use
cp --preserve. How is this meant to work (or was it just not tested
on fat)? Dropping
On 26 September 2013 00:20, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
*) With /boot on fat, 'add' fails for me due to not being able to use
cp --preserve. How is this
'Twas brillig, and Marc-Antoine Perennou at 25/09/13 16:26 did gyre and
gimble:
On 26 September 2013 00:20, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
*) With /boot on
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Colin Guthrie gm...@colin.guthr.ie wrote:
[root@jimmy ~]# cp --preserve /etc/hostname /boot; echo $?
0
[root@jimmy ~]# cp --preserve /home/colin/.bashrc /boot/test; echo $?
cp: failed to preserve ownership for ‘/boot/test’: Operation not permitted
1
So it
Force 0600 and root:root instead, to avoid problems with fat filesystems.
---
src/kernel-install/90-loaderentry.install | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/kernel-install/90-loaderentry.install
b/src/kernel-install/90-loaderentry.install
index
If 'kernel-install' is called as 'installkernel' it will be compatible with the
syntax used by the kernel's build system.
This means it can be called by doing 'make install' in a kernel build
directory, if the correct symlink has been installed (which we don't do by
default yet).
---
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
Force 0600 and root:root instead, to avoid problems with fat filesystems.
Sounds fine to me, to enforce root permissions.
If people want special permissions, they can always drop-in their own
install.d/ callout to mangle them.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
Force 0600 and root:root instead, to avoid problems with fat filesystems.
Sounds fine to me, to enforce root permissions.
Boot kernel was world readable, and
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
Force 0600 and root:root instead, to avoid problems with fat filesystems.
---
src/kernel-install/90-loaderentry.install | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Sébastien Luttringer se...@seblu.net wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
Force 0600 and
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Sébastien Luttringer se...@seblu.net wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org wrote:
On non UEFI systems, world readable rights set by kernel-install matter.
Why would that matter?
On non UEFI system your boot partition (when there is
I'm still observing timeouts stopping user@0.service on shutdown. It
appears to be some race condition, because enabling debugging of either
main systemd or user systemd, or even changing console from vt to
serial would hide it. Sometimes it also works using vt console as well.
Here is difference
On 09/25/2013 08:23 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 24.09.13 08:36, Gao feng (gaof...@cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
Some programs need to set the memory.use_hierarchy(such as libvirt),
Add this feature.
As mentioned already: this really shouldn't be configurable but simply
the unconditional
20 matches
Mail list logo
