On 10/15/2012 05:06 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 15.10.12 11:40, Federico Di Pierro (nierr...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hi!
I'm using systemd 194 in archlinux. I read that linux 3.6 comes with
hybrid-sleep, finally.
I only rely on systemd to suspend/hibernate (well i use it together with
Hi,
Might have been covered elsewhere in some docs but is there any info on
how to plan for a post-pm-utils world?
pm-utils had several quirks (many of which are likely obsolete - for me
the vt switching stuff which is apparently quirked on my h/w makes
suspend/resume uglier and gives no
how large is the limit here?
a machine running F17 since this night has a dedicated
/var/log/ with 1 GB and after send out a small newsletter
this happens 4 times in dmesg
for me it seems the limits are too tight in the case of
small but dedicated /var/log disks
the machine itself is running
2012/10/17 Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net:
how large is the limit here?
a machine running F17 since this night has a dedicated
/var/log/ with 1 GB and after send out a small newsletter
this happens 4 times in dmesg
for me it seems the limits are too tight in the case of
small but
Hello,
Today I have read this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866693 and described
systemd-tmpfiles behavior look pretty wrong to me, but I am not sure how
to fix it. Some ideas cross my mind; moving systemd-namespace-*
elsewhere, adding some option to exclude dirs in tmpfiles conf
Hi,
I'm currently compiling systemd-194.
Very often I get the error about undeclarated definitions MS_REC, MS_PRIVATE,
MS_MOVE... in mount func.
I know that's because of old glibc headers...
But. may be it would be useful to write something like that:
#ifndef MS_REC /* May not be
On Wed, 17.10.12 16:16, Dennis Semakin (insan...@yandex.ru) wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently compiling systemd-194.
Very often I get the error about undeclarated definitions MS_REC, MS_PRIVATE,
MS_MOVE... in mount func.
I know that's because of old glibc headers...
But. may be it would be useful
Пересылаемое сообщение
17.10.2012, 16:51, Dennis Semakin insan...@yandex.ru:
We actually have a number of definitions like these in
src/shared/missing.h.
I didn't know, thanks
How old is your glibc?
2.11.3
It seems that is is very old.
Anyway thanks for your reply.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 04:43:10PM -0400, Eelco Dolstra wrote:
If a device unit has aliases defined in udev rules, and there are
other units that depend on that alias, as in
BindTo=sys-subsystem-net-devices-eth0.device
then systemd will fail the start the alias, and any dependent units
Hello everybody,
if 'systemctl enable' (and friends) is run inside chroot it always
exits with a bad return code. unit_file_enable() returns the number of
symlink rules that were supposed to be created. So resetting r to 0 and
exiting gracefully should be the correct way. At least it fixes it for
Hello everybody,
I found a typo in comment. Patch is attached, thanks!
--
main(a){char*c=/*Schoene Gruesse */B?IJj;MEH
CX:;,b;for(a/*Chris get my mail address:*/=0;b=c[a++];)
putchar(b-1/(/* gcc -o sig sig.c ./sig*/b/42*2-3)*42);}
Dear Lennart Matthew,
after taking some time to wrap my mind around the %I mechanism, I came
to the conclusion that a service file written by Matthew is the most
pragmatic while still flexible solution for this use case.
Since installing another programme (Plymouth) isn't a true option (and
On Wed, 17.10.12 14:16, Lukáš Nykrýn (lnyk...@redhat.com) wrote:
Hello,
Today I have read this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866693 and described
systemd-tmpfiles behavior look pretty wrong to me, but I am not sure how
to fix it. Some ideas cross my mind; moving
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
On Wed, 17.10.12 14:16, Lukáš Nykrýn (lnyk...@redhat.com) wrote:
Hello,
Today I have read this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866693 and described
systemd-tmpfiles behavior look pretty wrong to
2012/10/17 Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net:
On Wed, 17.10.12 14:16, Lukáš Nykrýn (lnyk...@redhat.com) wrote:
Hello,
Today I have read this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866693 and described
systemd-tmpfiles behavior look pretty wrong to me, but I am not sure how
Comments welcome (please reply here):
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/socketactivation
--
David Strauss
| da...@davidstrauss.net
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
16 matches
Mail list logo
