Hi
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl 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.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:39 AM, David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 04:46:22PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote:
The .sym file somehow lacks these declarations, so add these.
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 PasswordAgent
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
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
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 ;-).
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
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
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
specs
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Dave Reisner d...@falconindy.com 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
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Dave Reisner d...@falconindy.com 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
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 d...@falconindy.com 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
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 out'
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Dave Reisner d...@falconindy.com 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
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 d...@falconindy.com 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
В Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:20:15 +0100
Jason A. Donenfeld ja...@zx2c4.com пишет:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Dave Reisner d...@falconindy.com 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
В Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:25:29 +0100
Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net 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?
Am 11.02.2014 17:29, schrieb Andrey Borzenkov:
В Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:20:15 +0100
Jason A. Donenfeld ja...@zx2c4.com пишет:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Dave Reisner d...@falconindy.com wrote:
I don't think there's any change needed here. The interface states:
The initrd should
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 08:32:29PM +0400, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
В Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:25:29 +0100
Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net 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
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net 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
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
'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 ja...@zx2c4.com пишет:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Dave Reisner d...@falconindy.com wrote:
I don't think
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
lenn...@poettering.net 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
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'
Ok,
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 ja...@zx2c4.com пишет:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at
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 happens.
On Tue, 11.02.14 10:09, Andrey Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Mantas Mikulėnas graw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 2014 7:02 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld ja...@zx2c4.com wrote:
I use konsole. It has a nice feature that when the scrollbars have been
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 arvidj...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Colin Guthrie gm...@colin.guthr.ie 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
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 lenn...@poettering.net
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
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
lenn...@poettering.net 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
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net 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
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net 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
'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 gm...@colin.guthr.ie 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
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
lenn...@poettering.net 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
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
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
and
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 user
---
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 lenn...@poettering.net:
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
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 this,
2014-02-11 23:14 GMT+01:00 Ronny Chevalier chevalier.ro...@gmail.com:
2014-02-04 Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net:
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
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
---
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
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
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl 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
Am 12.02.2014 01:31 schrieb Kai Krakow hurikha...@gmail.com:
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.
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 what
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 hurikha...@gmail.com 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
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
59 matches
Mail list logo
