Bryan Kadzban wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 06:22:49PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
regarding the whole discussion on minimal builds and people wanting to
pick specific parts of the systemd build leaving out others, beyond what
the configure switches offer: Here are some
On Wed, 20.06.12 15:56, William Hubbs (w.d.hu...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 06:22:49PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
regarding the whole discussion on minimal builds and people wanting to
pick specific parts of the systemd build leaving out others, beyond what
On Wed, 20.06.12 22:23, Antonio Trande (anto.tra...@gmail.com) wrote:
'Offline System Updates' will come as feature for Fedora 18. Reading your
official page http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/SystemUpdates:
The system update script now creates a btrfs snapshot (if possible), then
On Wed, 20.06.12 21:26, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) wrote:
Hi Lennart,
Thanks for the advice, sounds like the right solution[*]. I managed
to get pam_script going. Right now it is at the end of postlogin in
/etc/pam.d/ (after several earlier choices) and it works. Half
Hi Lennart.
2012/6/21 Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net
On Wed, 20.06.12 22:23, Antonio Trande (anto.tra...@gmail.com) wrote:
'Offline System Updates' will come as feature for Fedora 18. Reading your
official page
http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/SystemUpdates:
On Thu, 21.06.12 12:31, Antonio Trande (anto.tra...@gmail.com) wrote:
BTRFS ? Will 'Offline Updates' be available only with BTRFS ?
Nope. But on btrfs we'll make a snapshot of the old system state. On
non-btrfs we won't.
Maybe BTRFS will be the default filesystem in Fedora 18,
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:45:02PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 21.06.12 12:31, Antonio Trande (anto.tra...@gmail.com) wrote:
BTRFS ? Will 'Offline Updates' be available only with BTRFS ?
Nope. But on btrfs we'll make a snapshot of the old system state. On
non-btrfs we
Am Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012, 11:48:29 schrieb Lennart Poettering:
On Wed, 20.06.12 15:56, William Hubbs (w.d.hu...@gmail.com) wrote:
It isn't for us, because, for example, if I use option 1, I have to do
the opposite of the second half of it. Our pm installs everything in the
place pointed
2012/6/21 Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net:
On Wed, 20.06.12 22:23, Antonio Trande (anto.tra...@gmail.com) wrote:
'Offline System Updates' will come as feature for Fedora 18. Reading your
official page http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/SystemUpdates:
The system update
On Thu, 21.06.12 17:31, Alexander E. Patrakov (patra...@gmail.com) wrote:
1) Can one configure the system to use kexec instead of the reboot?
(BTW, the only machine that I have access to and where kexec doesn't
work is a multi-CPU KVM guest)
Well, it doesn't really matter how you reboot, as
Heya,
just a quick heads up if you are hacking on a multi-seat aware display
manager: with current git there is a new property CanGraphical on each
seat, and you probably should update your display manager to care for
this field, so that you properly handle seats which lack graphical
support. The
On Thu, 21.06.12 14:06, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote:
Heya,
just a quick heads up if you are hacking on a multi-seat aware display
manager: with current git there is a new property CanGraphical on each
seat, and you probably should update your display manager to care
2012/6/21 Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net:
If source based distros want to implement this I'd probably recommend
them to compile everything in the system, and only do the final step,
the installation as part of the system-update step.
The problem is that your recommendation (if I
On Thu, 21.06.12 18:23, Alexander E. Patrakov (patra...@gmail.com) wrote:
2012/6/21 Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net:
If source based distros want to implement this I'd probably recommend
them to compile everything in the system, and only do the final step,
the installation as
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 04:42:54PM +0400, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
Hi,
I am running F17 in IPv6-only network (behind NAT64 gateway) and
would like to get rid of 127.0.0.1 address from lo interface.
Please, don't tell me, that this would break lots of stone-aged
software, because such
2012/6/21 Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net:
But this looks like a limiation of the build system, no? The build
system should be capable of building against a non-installed
version. The binary distro auto builders can do that...
In Debian, they do that by installing all dependencies of
On 06/21/2012 09:56 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Nope. But on btrfs we'll make a snapshot of the old system state. On
non-btrfs we won't.
Hmm weren't there ext4 snapshot patches floating around the web and what
about lvm snapshots support?
JBG
On 06/21/2012 10:45 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Snapshots only make sense really on CoW filesystems such as btrfs, and
they are not supported on ext4. That means the extra safety net that is
a snapshot will only be available on btrfs, and not on ext4, but the
snapshot is really just the cherry
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 09:49:37AM +0800, microcai wrote:
If you don't want to use systemd, then don't use udev, use some thing
else old too.
That is no argumentation.
most ARM-based machine actually don't use udev, they use busybox.
Not true.
rsc
--
Pengutronix e.K.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:50:14PM +0200, Malte Starostik wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012, 11:48:29 schrieb Lennart Poettering:
On Wed, 20.06.12 15:56, William Hubbs (w.d.hu...@gmail.com) wrote:
It isn't for us, because, for example, if I use option 1, I have to do
the opposite of the
'Twas brillig, and William Hubbs at 21/06/12 16:14 did gyre and gimble:
Well, maybe those who need a udev-only build could instead coordinate their
efforts so there only needs to be one set of patches/*.pc hacks/cherry
picking
scripts. Maybe the systemd maintainers could accept such a
On 06/21/2012 02:59 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 20.06.12 21:26, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) wrote:
Thanks for the advice, sounds like the right solution[*]. I managed
to get pam_script going. Right now it is at the end of postlogin in
/etc/pam.d/ (after several
On 06/21/2012 10:01 AM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On 06/21/2012 02:59 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 20.06.12 21:26, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
(na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) wrote:
Thanks for the advice, sounds like the right solution[*]. I managed
to get pam_script going. Right now it is
On 06/21/2012 10:01 AM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On 06/21/2012 02:59 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 20.06.12 21:26, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
(na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) wrote:
Thanks for the advice, sounds like the right solution[*]. I managed
to get pam_script going. Right now it is
As described in
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50184
the journal currently doesn't set fields such as _SYSTEMD_UNIT
properly for messages coming from processes that have already
terminated. This means among other things that systemctl status may
not show some of the output of
On Thu, 21.06.12 16:40, Eelco Dolstra (eelco.dols...@logicblox.com) wrote:
As described in
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50184
the journal currently doesn't set fields such as _SYSTEMD_UNIT
properly for messages coming from processes that have already
terminated. This
26 matches
Mail list logo
