> On Mar 12, 2015, at 1:04 AM, Richard Purdie > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 04:18 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Khem Raj <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 11, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Randy Witt <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> When the storage mode for the journal is "auto" if /var/log/journal >>>> exists then the journal will flush to /var/log/journal assuming that >>>> /var/log/journal is persistent. >>>> >>>> However /var/log -> /var/volatile/log in poky, so even though >>>> /var/log/journal exists, it is still volatile. >>>> >>>> Since this can cause ordering issues due to /var/volatile needing to be >>>> mounted before the journal actually writes to it, just specify that the >>>> journal >>>> should always be volatile and never try to write to "persistent" >>>> storage. The journal will exist in /run/log/journal only. >>>> >>>> This also disables the "After" of the journal on var-volatile.mount >>>> since the ordering is no longer necessary when the journal is only >>>> stored in /run/log/journal. >>>> >>>> [Yocto #7388] >>> >>> >>> This is not right. What if I want persistent logs.? the options is just >>> gone. Both cases should work. /var/volatile should only be used >>> when doing ro-rfs its not FHS specified anyway. Lets not go with this patch. >> >> Agreed. > > This isn't quite so simple as "agreed". Are we saying that we want to > rework volatiles handling after feature freeze? >
> My view on this is that yes, we do need to do something about it, but > right now during stabilisation is not the right time. Particularly when > the patches proposed aren't even tested with sysvinit. I usually send out patches early to take advantage of some community testing especially Yocto auto builders, Since not everyone has hefty machines to do all kind of builds for such changes. Meanwhile, keep doing it in serial order. > > So I'm interested in patches which make things work better without > making fundamental changes now. We can look at changing volatiles with a > properly thought out plan in the next development cycle. Whatever is decided I have already said thats fine, so lets just stop this thread here. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
