Hi
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 04:46:22PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote:
>> The .sym file somehow lacks these declarations, so add these.
>
>> You have to
>> run "make clean" to make sure the sym-test runs fine afterwards.
> That's a
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:39 AM, David Herrmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 04:46:22PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote:
>>> The .sym file somehow lacks these declarations, so add these.
>>
>>> You have to
>>> run "make cle
On Sat, 08.02.14 21:07, David Härdeman (da...@hardeman.nu) wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 12:16:00AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >On Thu, 30.01.14 10:40, David Härdeman (da...@hardeman.nu) wrote:
> >> This issue is fixable with minor upstream changes, e.g. by extending
> >> the Passwor
Hi,
While crosscompiling to an embedded system I got the following error:
systemd-208/.libs/libudev.so: undefined reference to `efi_loader_get_boot_usec'
I helped myself to #ifdef the body of boot_timestamps() in
shared/boot_timestamp.c
Best regards
Robert
Configure:
systemd 208
El 11/02/14 09:12, Allmeroth, Robert escribió:
Hi,
While crosscompiling to an embedded system I got the following error:
systemd-208/.libs/libudev.so: undefined reference to `efi_loader_get_boot_usec'
Ok, I think the attached patch should be applied to current HEAD.
>From 1b4c055d2ba9fbf715
Hi Lennart,
Great to see you, albeit too briefly at FOSDEM; my first ever systemd
crash (on suspend/resume) after many moons of use turned out not to be a
vendor patch but a core issue (well at least the crash part ;-).
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861488
H
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:48:35PM +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Lennart,
>
> Great to see you, albeit too briefly at FOSDEM; my first ever systemd
> crash (on suspend/resume) after many moons of use turned out not to be a
> vendor patch but a core issue (well at least the crash part ;-).
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> Should not it simply respect existing LESS value? Or, for that matter,
> SYSTEMD_LESS if someone thinks of a good reason to have different
> settings?
Yes, one way would be to look at LESS from the environment, and prefer
this to the inte
Hey folks,
I'm using better-initramfs [1], a very small and minimal initrd that
has been working very well for me. In switching to systemd, I found it
necessary to have the initrd mount "/run" as tmpfs, according to the
specs [2]. I made a little patch for better-initramfs, and now I'm
talking to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/07/2014 08:22 AM, Michael Scherer wrote:
> Le jeudi 06 février 2014 à 12:21 -0800, David Timothy Strauss a écrit :
>> In order to maximize consistency with newly committed options in
>> systemd-nspawn, would it make sense to allow independent co
On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 16:11 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Printing of the three arguments is supposed to be conditional on the
> same condtion (object != NULL). Anyway, in your backtrace:
Fair enough =)
> #9 log_do_header (header=header@entry=0xbfeef2ec
> "PRIORITY=6\nSYSL
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:32:56PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I'm using better-initramfs [1], a very small and minimal initrd that
> has been working very well for me. In switching to systemd, I found it
> necessary to have the initrd mount "/run" as tmpfs, according to the
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Dave Reisner wrote:
> systemd is already capable of setting up /run on its own:
>
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/core/mount-setup.c#n69
You appear to be right.
In that case should the spec [1] be amended to remove this requirement?
[1] ht
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Dave Reisner wrote:
> Strange name. I can't find one thing which I find "better" about this
> project compared to the more well-known initramfs creation tools.
I'd appreciate it if you kept the antagonism to a minimum. It adds
nothing to the technical discussion.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:09:49PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Dave Reisner wrote:
> > systemd is already capable of setting up /run on its own:
> >
> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/core/mount-setup.c#n69
>
> You appear to be right.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:57:36PM +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> (gdb) down
> #4 __strnlen_sse2 ()
> at ../sysdeps/i386/i686/multiarch/strlen-sse2.S:125
> 125 pcmpeqb (%eax), %xmm0
>
> an inlined strlen.
>
> All of the interesting process_string_arg variables are 'optimized
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Dave Reisner wrote:
> I don't think there's any change needed here. The interface states:
>
> "The initrd should mount /run as a tmpfs".
> And sure enough, this isn't a requirement, but there's many valid
> reasons to do this.
Ahh, okay. I suppose what I'm won
On Tue, 11.02.14 17:20, Jason A. Donenfeld (ja...@zx2c4.com) wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Dave Reisner wrote:
> > I don't think there's any change needed here. The interface states:
> >
> > "The initrd should mount /run as a tmpfs".
>
> > And sure enough, this isn't a requireme
В Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:20:15 +0100
"Jason A. Donenfeld" пишет:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Dave Reisner wrote:
> > I don't think there's any change needed here. The interface states:
> >
> > "The initrd should mount /run as a tmpfs".
>
> > And sure enough, this isn't a requirement, but
В Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:25:29 +0100
Lennart Poettering пишет:
>
> An initrd without /run is mostly pointless, no? Either you have storage
> daemons and hence need /run around, or you don't have storage daemons,
> in which case you can just boot without involving any initrd?
>
You still need some
Am 11.02.2014 17:29, schrieb Andrey Borzenkov:
> В Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:20:15 +0100
> "Jason A. Donenfeld" пишет:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Dave Reisner wrote:
>>> I don't think there's any change needed here. The interface states:
>>>
>>> "The initrd should mount /run as a tmpfs"
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 08:32:29PM +0400, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> В Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:25:29 +0100
> Lennart Poettering пишет:
>
> >
> > An initrd without /run is mostly pointless, no? Either you have storage
> > daemons and hence need /run around, or you don't have storage daemons,
> > in wh
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> An initrd without /run is mostly pointless, no? Either you have storage
> daemons and hence need /run around, or you don't have storage daemons,
> in which case you can just boot without involving any initrd?
In my use of an initrd, I j
El 11/02/14 13:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek escribió:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:57:36PM +, Michael Meeks wrote:
(gdb) down
#4 __strnlen_sse2 ()
at ../sysdeps/i386/i686/multiarch/strlen-sse2.S:125
125 pcmpeqb (%eax), %xmm0
an inlined strlen.
All of the inter
'Twas brillig, and Reindl Harald at 11/02/14 16:34 did gyre and gimble:
>
>
> Am 11.02.2014 17:29, schrieb Andrey Borzenkov:
>> В Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:20:15 +0100
>> "Jason A. Donenfeld" пишет:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Dave Reisner wrote:
I don't think there's any change need
On Tue, 11.02.14 18:08, Jason A. Donenfeld (ja...@zx2c4.com) wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > An initrd without /run is mostly pointless, no? Either you have storage
> > daemons and hence need /run around, or you don't have storage daemons,
> > in which
On Tue, 11.02.14 09:56, Cristian Rodríguez (crrodrig...@opensuse.org) wrote:
> El 11/02/14 09:12, Allmeroth, Robert escribió:
> >Hi,
> >
> >While crosscompiling to an embedded system I got the following error:
> >systemd-208/.libs/libudev.so: undefined reference to
> >`efi_loader_get_boot_usec'
>
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:25:19PM +, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> 'Twas brillig, and Reindl Harald at 11/02/14 16:34 did gyre and gimble:
> >
> >
> > Am 11.02.2014 17:29, schrieb Andrey Borzenkov:
> >> В Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:20:15 +0100
> >> "Jason A. Donenfeld" пишет:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2
On Tue, 11.02.14 05:55, Jason A. Donenfeld (ja...@zx2c4.com) wrote:
> I use konsole. It has a nice feature that when the scrollbars have been
> disabled -- like in the case of a full-console app like vim or less --
> it makes the mouse wheel send up and down key strokes, so that
> scrolling happen
On Tue, 11.02.14 10:09, Andrey Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 2014 7:02 AM, "Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> >>
> >> I use konsole. It has a nice feature that when the scrollbars have been
> >> disabled -- like in the
On Tue, 11.02.14 16:23, Jason A. Donenfeld (ja...@zx2c4.com) wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> > Should not it simply respect existing LESS value? Or, for that matter,
> > SYSTEMD_LESS if someone thinks of a good reason to have different
> > settings?
>
> Yes
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> As has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread, there are a number of
> "gotchas" and corner cases, that this mechanism solved, even in the
> cases of things "working".
In my case, I'm just using devtmpfs and cryptsetup, and then switching
i
On Fri, 07.02.14 16:39, Stefan Beller (stefanbel...@googlemail.com) wrote:
> The first problem arises in src/gudev/gudevdevice.c
> In lines 688 and 882 we call the function split_at_whitespace,
> which is just a wrapper around g_strsplit_set, but removes also
> the empty strings.
>
> Now in this
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> Hmm, so how do you wait for the LUKS device to show up? You need
> something like udev around, which uses /run...
> And AFAIR the DM userspace does keep some runtime state around, and that
> one probably wants to pass over to the ho
On Tue, 11.02.14 19:53, Jason A. Donenfeld (ja...@zx2c4.com) wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Lennart Poettering
> > wrote:
> > Hmm, so how do you wait for the LUKS device to show up? You need
> > something like udev around, which uses /run...
> > And AFAIR the DM userspace does ke
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> devtmpfs does not give you notifications when devices appear. If you
> want to generically wait for the right LUKS device to show up, you need
> something like udev in the mix, which provides you with notifications
> for this...
My driv
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
>
> I think adding support for $SYSTEMD_LESS which is copied to $LESS right
> before invoking less would be a good choice, since it would allow people
> to override whatever systemd tries to set.
So something along the lines of:
user_les
'Twas brillig, and Jason A. Donenfeld at 11/02/14 18:49 did gyre and gimble:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>> As has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread, there are a number of
>> "gotchas" and corner cases, that this mechanism solved, even in the
>> cases of things "w
On Tue, 11.02.14 20:05, Jason A. Donenfeld (ja...@zx2c4.com) wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> >
> > I think adding support for $SYSTEMD_LESS which is copied to $LESS right
> > before invoking less would be a good choice, since it would allow people
> > to
On Mon, 10.02.14 16:38, David Herrmann (dh.herrm...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Hi
>
> I stumbled over this when trying to use the ObjectManager interface
> with sd-bus. Whenever I add new objects, I'm supposed to advertise
> them with all supported interfaces. However, sd-bus implements the
> org.freede
On Sat, 08.02.14 20:51, Djalal Harouni (tix...@opendz.org) wrote:
> In function user_get_state() remove the session_is_active() check, just
> count on the session_get_state() function to get the correct session
> state.
>
> session_is_active() may return true before starting the session scope
> a
On Sat, 08.02.14 19:20, Djalal Harouni (tix...@opendz.org) wrote:
> Currently if the user logs out, the GC may never call user_stop(),
> this will not terminate the systemd user and (sd-pam) of that user.
>
> To fix this, remove the USER_CLOSING state check that is blocking the
> GC from calling
On Sat, 08.02.14 20:48, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
This patch looks good! Please push!
> KillUserProcesses=yes/no should be ignored when termination is
> explicitly requested.
> ---
> This goes on top of
> * logind: use session_get_state() to get sessions state of the
---
Makefile.am| 30 ++---
README | 1 +
TODO | 1 -
configure.ac | 14 ++
man/systemd.exec.xml | 18 +++-
src/core/build.h | 8 +++-
src/core/dbus-execute.c|
2014-02-04 Lennart Poettering :
> So yeah, I figure we should continue with this logic, and of course
> probably document it...
So I sent the new patch, it works the same way.
But I did not use an integer array like you said. I used a set to
store the syscalls number and a strv for the syscalls na
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 08:38:48PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Sat, 08.02.14 19:20, Djalal Harouni (tix...@opendz.org) wrote:
>
> > Currently if the user logs out, the GC may never call user_stop(),
> > this will not terminate the systemd user and (sd-pam) of that user.
> >
> > To fix t
2014-02-11 23:14 GMT+01:00 Ronny Chevalier :
> 2014-02-04 Lennart Poettering :
>> So yeah, I figure we should continue with this logic, and of course
>> probably document it...
> So I sent the new patch, it works the same way.
>
> But I did not use an integer array like you said. I used a set to
>
Currently if the user logs out, the GC may never call user_stop(),
this will not terminate the systemd user and (sd-pam) of that user.
To fix this, remove the USER_CLOSING state check that is blocking the
GC from calling user_stop(). Since if user_check_gc() returns false
this means that all the s
---
Ok so I found the problem. I forgot a condition in SET_FOREACH that if e is 0,
it will stop the foreach (and read have the id 0)
Here is the new patch fixing this. Sorry again
Makefile.am| 30 ++---
README | 1 +
TODO
Hey there!
I've got a daily backup job scheduled using a timer unit and a oneshot
service file. This backup takes around 2-4 hours. It's using rsync and syncs
from btrfs HDD to a snapshotted btrfs on USB with inplace deltas. I'm
mentioning this because it may matter.
I've also set my system to
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 01:30:59AM +0100, Kai Krakow wrote:
> Hey there!
Hey!
> There may be a bug here, because almost every time when that happened it
> looks like systemd has suspended my network connection but didn't bring it
> back online after the system refused to go to sleep. I need to r
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek schrieb:
>> There may be a bug here, because almost every time when that happened it
>> looks like systemd has suspended my network connection but didn't bring
>> it back online after the system refused to go to sleep. I need to restart
>> NetworkManager then or reboot
Am 12.02.2014 01:31 schrieb "Kai Krakow" :
>
> Hey there!
>
Hey
> I've got a daily backup job scheduled using a timer unit and a oneshot
> service file. This backup takes around 2-4 hours. It's using rsync and
syncs
> from btrfs HDD to a snapshotted btrfs on USB with inplace deltas. I'm
> mentioni
This allows customization of the arguments used by less. The main
motivation is that some folks might not like having --no-init on every
invocation of less.
---
If you'd like me to update some documentation, let me know what
files I should edit, and I'll send a v2.
src/shared/pager.c | 17 +++
On Wed, 12.02.14 02:58, Jason A. Donenfeld (ja...@zx2c4.com) wrote:
> This allows customization of the arguments used by less. The main
> motivation is that some folks might not like having --no-init on every
> invocation of less.
> ---
> If you'd like me to update some documentation, let me know
On Wed, 12.02.14 03:10, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12.02.14 02:58, Jason A. Donenfeld (ja...@zx2c4.com) wrote:
>
> > This allows customization of the arguments used by less. The main
> > motivation is that some folks might not like having --no-init on every
>
This allows customization of the arguments used by less. The main
motivation is that some folks might not like having --no-init on every
invocation of less.
---
man/journalctl.xml | 4
man/localectl.xml | 4
man/loginctl.xml| 4
man/machinectl.xml | 4 +++
В Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:12:15 +0100
Kai Krakow пишет:
> > See systemd-inhibit(1).
>
> Yeah, I've read that of course. Maybe I didn't get the complete picture but
> from the man page it's supposed to work by running systemd-inhibit on the
> command line. This in turn means, I'd need to place Exec
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 02:12:15AM +0100, Kai Krakow wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek schrieb:
>
> >> There may be a bug here, because almost every time when that happened it
> >> looks like systemd has suspended my network connection but didn't bring
> >> it back online after the system refu
It looks like var-log-journal.mount is called before systemd-journald is
finished using it. Is the failure message merely cosmetic? The file system
comes up clean on reboot so I'm pretty sure it's being cleanly unmounted
despite this message.
fstab
UUID=-- /var/log/journal
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 03:30:10AM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> This allows customization of the arguments used by less. The main
> motivation is that some folks might not like having --no-init on every
> invocation of less.
Applied, with a slight simplification.
Zbyszek
61 matches
Mail list logo
