Re: [fedora-arm] Re: Fedora Linux 39 Final blocker status summary #3

2023-10-25 Thread Adam Williamson
On Wed, 2023-10-25 at 20:51 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 7:33 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2023-10-25 at 22:02 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 04:55:57PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > 6. distribution -

Re: Fedora Linux 39 Final blocker status summary #3

2023-10-25 Thread Adam Williamson
On Wed, 2023-10-25 at 22:02 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 04:55:57PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > 6. distribution - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2242759 - NEW: anyone at > > all to come up with a genius fix, otherwise we'll likely have to > > document this

Re: Fedora Linux 39 Final blocker status summary #3

2023-10-25 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 04:55:57PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > 6. distribution - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2242759 - NEW: anyone at > all to come up with a genius fix, otherwise we'll likely have to > document this Happy to oblige ;--] Zbyszek

Re: Fedora Linux 39 Final blocker status summary #3

2023-10-21 Thread Gary Buhrmaster
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, 16:56 Adam Williamson wrote: > We're still kinda kicking around ideas for "fixing" this, but I think > if push comes to shove, we'll wind up revoting or waiving it as not > practically fixable. How about something of the form of an ExecStartPre expression (or script) that

Re: Fedora Linux 39 Final blocker status summary #3

2023-10-21 Thread Gary Buhrmaster
On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 4:08 PM Chris Adams wrote: > Certainly - I was just looking for a more general solution to non-RTC > systems going forward. Ideally, there could be something triggered by a > lack of an RTC, but it looks like systemd path units cannot work based > on a path (e.g.

Re: Fedora Linux 39 Final blocker status summary #3

2023-10-21 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Gary Buhrmaster said: > Personally, I have been using systemd-timesyncd for > quite some time on the vast majority of my systems > and am quite satisfied with it, but I believe that > changing from chrony to systemd-timesyncd was > considered too big of a last minute change

Re: Fedora Linux 39 Final blocker status summary #3

2023-10-21 Thread Neal Gompa
On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 8:12 AM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Sat, 2023-10-21 at 11:34 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 08:40:43PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > > > Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > > > > 6. distribution - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2242759 - NEW > >

Re: Fedora Linux 39 Final blocker status summary #3

2023-10-21 Thread Adam Williamson
On Sat, 2023-10-21 at 11:34 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 08:40:43PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > > > 6. distribution - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2242759 - NEW > > > dnf system-upgrade fails on some RPi4 due to system boot date

Re: Fedora Linux 39 Final blocker status summary #3

2023-10-21 Thread Gary Buhrmaster
On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 9:35 AM Tomasz Torcz wrote: > We already have systemd-timesyncd. On startup, it syncs the time to > the mtime of: > - /var/lib/systemd/timesync/clock file; or > - /usr/lib/clock-epoch file; or > - a time derived from the source tree at build time > > timesyncd is

Re: Fedora Linux 39 Final blocker status summary #3

2023-10-21 Thread Tomasz Torcz
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 08:40:43PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > > 6. distribution - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2242759 - NEW > > dnf system-upgrade fails on some RPi4 due to system boot date that pre- > > dates gpg key > > > > We're still kinda kicking

Re: Fedora Linux 39 Final blocker status summary #3

2023-10-20 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > 6. distribution - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2242759 - NEW > dnf system-upgrade fails on some RPi4 due to system boot date that pre- > dates gpg key > > We're still kinda kicking around ideas for "fixing" this, but I think > if push comes to shove,