On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 02:56 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
Adam Williamson composed on 2014-11-04 23:22 (UTC-0800):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123170 , I never have time
to investigate it properly and provide details - sorry about that. But I
guess the same way of thinking
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:22:10PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 04:52 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
It's not about Lennart. Afaik he usually sticks to git HEAD and/or
rawhide. There are multiple reports about systemd entering an infinite
loop and I
Hi
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
The subject of point releases hasn't come up before. Actually I
haven't had *any* communication about the stable branches since they
were created apart from a few patches backported by other systemd
maintainers. If there
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 15:26 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:22:10PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 04:52 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
It's not about Lennart. Afaik he usually sticks to git HEAD and/or
rawhide. There
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 08:48:37AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Did it actually sync the filesystems? I'm pretty sure that when we hit
the bug with fedup, you got fsck's on the next boot.
Hm, I thought it does, but this would suggest something different.
The issue is how to deal with
An update has been submitted for systemd today:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kmod-18-4.fc21,systemd-216-9.fc21
with a fairly short description. I wanted to flag up that, in fact,
systemd-216-9 is a major change from systemd-216-8 and is not really
systemd 216 at all.
systemd-216-8
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
systemd 216-9 is not built from 216 at all, it is in fact systemd-217
Why the misleading version number?
--
Tomasz Torcz Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station
xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.plwagon filled
Hi
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
systemd 216-9 is not built from 216 at all, it is in fact systemd-217
Why the misleading version number?
More importantly, why is this pushed so late in the release
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 17:37 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
systemd 216-9 is not built from 216 at all, it is in fact systemd-217
Why the misleading version number?
There is a comment in the spec:
# This is really closer to 217
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32 -0800,
Adam Williamson adamw...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
systemd-216-8 (and 216-1 through 216-5) and earlier) was more or less
identical to upstream systemd-stable 216:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd-stable/log/?h=v216-stable .
systemd 216-9 is not
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
An update has been submitted for systemd today:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kmod-18-4.fc21,systemd-216-9.fc21
with a fairly short description. I wanted to flag up that, in fact,
systemd-216-9 is a major change
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:56:40AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 17:37 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
systemd 216-9 is not built from 216 at all, it is in fact systemd-217
Why the misleading version
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 21:13 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
An update has been submitted for systemd today:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kmod-18-4.fc21,systemd-216-9.fc21
with a fairly short
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:27:58PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Testers, please take care to test the update thoroughly, despite the
small bump and small description it is a major change to the package.
That I can agree with. I'd much prefer a concrete list of things to
test in this
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 21:20 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:56:40AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 17:37 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
systemd 216-9 is not built from
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 21:37 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:27:58PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Testers, please take care to test the update thoroughly, despite the
small bump and small description it is a major change to the package.
That I
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:48:36PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 21:20 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:56:40AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 17:37 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:49:27PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 21:37 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:27:58PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Testers, please take care to test the update thoroughly, despite the
small bump and
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 22:41 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:49:27PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 21:37 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:27:58PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Testers, please
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 22:39 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
I understand that systemd git is not easy to follow, but I don't think
this differes that much from other fast-changing projects. If you take
a random kernel release, it's not like there's a nice lwn-style description
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 02:06:21PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 22:39 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
I understand that systemd git is not easy to follow, but I don't think
this differes that much from other fast-changing projects. If you take
a random
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 01:06 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 02:06:21PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 22:39 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
I understand that systemd git is not easy to follow, but I don't think
this
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 06:09:35PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 01:06 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 02:06:21PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 22:39 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
I understand
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 04:52 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
I'm very appreciative of the kernel promise of stability. But systemd
isn't at this stage yet, the codebase is much more in flux.
Well, it's in flux, but it *is* the init system. It's kind of
important. :)
--
Adam
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 04:52 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
It's not about Lennart. Afaik he usually sticks to git HEAD and/or
rawhide. There are multiple reports about systemd entering an infinite
loop and I *thought* that this is a step in the right
direction.
Well, looking at it
Adam Williamson composed on 2014-11-04 23:22 (UTC-0800):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123170 , I never have time
to investigate it properly and provide details - sorry about that. But I
guess the same way of thinking would say the timer is a 'step in the
right direction' for
26 matches
Mail list logo
