On 09/25/2013 08:23 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 24.09.13 08:36, Gao feng (gaof...@cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
>
Some programs need to set the memory.use_hierarchy(such as libvirt),
Add this feature.
>>>
>>> As mentioned already: this really shouldn't be configurable but simply
>>>
I'm still observing timeouts stopping user@0.service on shutdown. It
appears to be some race condition, because enabling debugging of either
main systemd or user systemd, or even changing console from vt to
serial would hide it. Sometimes it also works using vt console as well.
Here is difference
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>>> On non UEFI systems, world readable rights set by kernel-install matter.
>>
>> Why would that matter?
> On non UEFI system your boot partition (when there is one) is almost
> _n
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
Force 0600 and root:root instead, to avoid problems with fat
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>>> Force 0600 and root:root instead, to avoid problems with fat filesystems.
>>
>> Sounds fine to me, to enforce root per
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> Force 0600 and root:root instead, to avoid problems with fat filesystems.
> ---
> src/kernel-install/90-loaderentry.install | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/kernel-install/90-loaderentry.install
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> Force 0600 and root:root instead, to avoid problems with fat filesystems.
>
> Sounds fine to me, to enforce root permissions.
Boot kernel was world readable, and it makes sense. Why m
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> Force 0600 and root:root instead, to avoid problems with fat filesystems.
Sounds fine to me, to enforce root permissions.
If people want special permissions, they can always drop-in their own
install.d/ callout to mangle them.
Kay
___
Force 0600 and root:root instead, to avoid problems with fat filesystems.
---
src/kernel-install/90-loaderentry.install | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/kernel-install/90-loaderentry.install
b/src/kernel-install/90-loaderentry.install
index 6b91d1c..06168
If 'kernel-install' is called as 'installkernel' it will be compatible with the
syntax used by the kernel's build system.
This means it can be called by doing 'make install' in a kernel build
directory, if the correct symlink has been installed (which we don't do by
default yet).
---
src/kernel-i
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> [root@jimmy ~]# cp --preserve /etc/hostname /boot; echo $?
> 0
> [root@jimmy ~]# cp --preserve /home/colin/.bashrc /boot/test; echo $?
> cp: failed to preserve ownership for ‘/boot/test’: Operation not permitted
> 1
>
> So it only works if t
'Twas brillig, and Marc-Antoine Perennou at 25/09/13 16:26 did gyre and
gimble:
> On 26 September 2013 00:20, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
*) With /boot on fat, 'add' fails for me due to
On 26 September 2013 00:20, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>>> *) With /boot on fat, 'add' fails for me due to not being able to use
>>> "cp --preserve". How is this meant to work (or was it just
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> *) With /boot on fat, 'add' fails for me due to not being able to use
>> "cp --preserve". How is this meant to work (or was it just not tested
>> on fat)? Dropping "--preserve" makes it
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> I have been looking at integrating kernel-install with Arch and I ran
> across a few questions:
>
> *) With /boot on fat, 'add' fails for me due to not being able to use
> "cp --preserve". How is this meant to work (or was it just not tested
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> [1mdiff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile [m
> [1mindex 8d0668f..248d59c 100644 [m
> [1m--- a/Makefile [m
> [1m+++ b/Makefile [m
> [36m@@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ [m [mOBJCOPY = $(CROSS_COMPILE)objcopy [m
> OBJDUMP = $(CROSS_COMPILE)objdump [m
> AW
Hi Harald,
I have been looking at integrating kernel-install with Arch and I ran
across a few questions:
*) With /boot on fat, 'add' fails for me due to not being able to use
"cp --preserve". How is this meant to work (or was it just not tested
on fat)? Dropping "--preserve" makes it work for me.
Le mercredi 25 septembre 2013 à 12:10 +0100, Colin Guthrie a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On a relatively average journal it can take a long time to page
> through all the data collected.
>
> With data stored from 5th August to 25th September and running
> "journalctl" and pressing G to jump to the
Hi,
On a relatively average journal it can take a long time to page
through all the data collected.
With data stored from 5th August to 25th September and running
"journalctl" and pressing G to jump to the end in less, and it takes
several minutes before the end of the messages are reach
19 matches
Mail list logo
