On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> Indeed!
>
> Fixed in git. Could you verify if this now works for you?
>
> Thanks!
Works perfectly, thanks!
Kind regards,
Ruben
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.
This is the standard* way used to pass special linker/compiler
flags such as -fPIE and -pie
* "Standard" in the sense it is understood by many other
packages and commonly used by distributions.
---
configure.ac | 7 +--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/configure.
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 12:39:47PM -0400, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
> This is the standard* way used to pass special linker/compiler
> flags such as -fPIE and -pie
>
> * "Standard" in the sense it is understood by many other
> packages and commonly used by distributions.
This doesn't really make
El 17/05/14 14:56, Dave Reisner escribió:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 12:39:47PM -0400, Cristian Rodríguez
> wrote:
>> This is the standard* way used to pass special linker/compiler
>> flags such as -fPIE and -pie
>>
>> * "Standard" in the sense it is understood by many other packages
>> and common
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Cristian Rodríguez
wrote:
> El 17/05/14 14:56, Dave Reisner escribió:
>> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 12:39:47PM -0400, Cristian Rodríguez
>> wrote:
>>> This is the standard* way used to pass special linker/compiler
>>> flags such as -fPIE and -pie
>>>
>>> * "Standard"
Hi Кирилл,
> > What's wrong with writing the new pid from the old proccess before
> > releasing the lock?
>
> So unless someone else has a better idea I'll try this approach and report
> back.
I tried this now and it works as you described. Will work on a true solution
based on rewriting the pi
Prefixing a section name with "X-" will cause it and all of its contents
to be silently ignored as of commit 342aea19.
---
man/systemd.unit.xml | 10 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/man/systemd.unit.xml b/man/systemd.unit.xml
index 157530b..e903156 100644
-
On May 16, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> On 05/15/2014 11:54 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On May 15, 2014, at 2:57 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli
>> wrote:
> []
>>
>> The udev rule right now is asking if all Btrfs member devices are
>> present and it sounds like that answer is
