On 10/29/12 11:03, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:15:00PM +0200, jjacky wrote:
>>
>> On 10/23/12 21:05, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13.10.12 14:24, Olivier Brunel (i.am.jack.m...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>&
On 10/23/12 21:05, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Sat, 13.10.12 14:24, Olivier Brunel (i.am.jack.m...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> Starting a swap unit pointing to (What) a symlink (e.g. /dev/mapper/swap
>> or /dev/disk/by-uuid/...) would have said unit be marked active, follow
>> the one using the "ac
On 10/19/12 11:24, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:06:03AM +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>> 'Twas brillig, and Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek at 18/10/12 23:56 did
>> gyre and gimble:
>>> A series of .swap units "following" one another are replaced with a
>>> single uni
Forgot to say: not stopping the swap also meant that, with encrypted
swaps, the LUKS device couldn't be detached (since it's still in use)
and would result in errors on shutdown:
systemd-cryptsetup[3327]: Failed to deactivate: Invalid argument
___
system
