12.07.2020 23:37, Uoti Urpala пишет:
> On Sun, 2020-07-12 at 17:13 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> 12.07.2020 16:21, Amish пишет:
>>> I have a timer file like this:
>>>
>>> [Unit]
>>> Description=Foo
>>> After=multi-user.target
>>>
>>> [Timer]
>>> OnCalendar=*:0/5
>>> Persistent=false
>>>
>>>
On Sun, 2020-07-12 at 17:13 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 12.07.2020 16:21, Amish пишет:
> > I have a timer file like this:
> >
> > [Unit]
> > Description=Foo
> > After=multi-user.target
> >
> > [Timer]
> > OnCalendar=*:0/5
> > Persistent=false
> >
> > [Install]
> > WantedBy=timers.target
why are these bad and scored?
including syscalls to the blacklist is hardly wrong
systemd-243.8-1.fc31.x86_64
✗ SystemCallFilter=~@clockSystem
call blacklist defined for service, and @clock is included 0.1
✗ SystemCallFilter=~@debug
On 7/11/20 11:05 PM, Paul Menzel wrote:
> If systemd is still the same, your distribution upgrade wasn’t relevant to
> the issue at hand, was it?
no, I didn't state that it was.
What's relevant is that I followed the suggested workaround made to me, and
there was no observed effect.
It was
03.07.2020 12:09, Thomas HUMMEL пишет:
>
>
> On 02/07/2020 20:48, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>
>
>> Once again - dependencies in systemd are between jobs, not between units.
>
> Ok. I may have missed some docs but I've read several man sections
> (likesystemd.service(5) and so on) as well as
12.07.2020 16:21, Amish пишет:
> Hello,
>
> This is a question out of curiosity and not currently any problem.
>
> I have a timer file like this:
>
> [Unit]
> Description=Foo
> After=multi-user.target
>
> [Timer]
> OnCalendar=*:0/5
> Persistent=false
>
> [Install]
> WantedBy=timers.target
>
Hello,
This is a question out of curiosity and not currently any problem.
I have a timer file like this:
[Unit]
Description=Foo
After=multi-user.target
[Timer]
OnCalendar=*:0/5
Persistent=false
[Install]
WantedBy=timers.target
And corresponding service file like this:
[Unit]
Dear PGNet,
Am 12.07.20 um 07:54 schrieb PGNet Dev:
On 6/16/20 1:35 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Sa, 30.05.20 18:02, PGNet Dev (pgnet@gmail.com) wrote:
IS there a backport of this^^ fix available for v234 that popped
up in the meantime?
If not, as is likely, is there a "safe"
