On Tue, 27.01.15 11:17, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
> > Well, this stuf is not intended to support downgrades. I don't think
> > that can ever work...
> >
> > But anyway, I don't really understand what you are trying to say I
> > must admit. Could you please elaborate?
>
> S
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Mon, 26.01.15 14:00, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> condition_test_needs_update() wants the timestamp of /usr to be newer
>> than what is being checked.
>>
>> Is there a reason why we don't check
On Mon, 26.01.15 14:00, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> condition_test_needs_update() wants the timestamp of /usr to be newer
> than what is being checked.
>
> Is there a reason why we don't check for "/usr !=
> Condition.parameter"?
Well, when I hacked that up, I di
