[systemd-devel] [networkd] Unable to set MTU with .link file

I am tearing my hair out trying to figure out why I an unable to set the MTU of an OVS port with a .link file. I am trying to create this: ++ ++ || || | eno1 |

Re: [systemd-devel] Systemd license vs. libcryptsetup license

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 10:00:03PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote: > On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 17:14 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:03:37PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > > I'm not sure where you get that from. The usual interpretation is that > > > linking

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] nfs.man: document incompatibility between "bg" option and systemd.

On Thu, Jun 08 2017, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:16:52PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: >> So I think I've found a solution for systemd to handle "bg" nfs mounts >> correctly. I'll submit some pull requests for consideration. > > Out of curiosity, after that change is there

[systemd-devel] [networkd] Unable to set MTU with .link file

I am tearing my hair out trying to figure out why I an unable to set the MTU of an OVS port with a .link file. I am trying to create this: ++ ++ || || | eno1 |

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] nfs.man: document incompatibility between "bg" option and systemd.

On 06/07/2017 12:08 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:04:12AM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: >> # ps ax | grep mount >> 980 ?Ss 0:00 /sbin/mount.nfs nfssrv:/home/tmp /mnt/tmp -o rw,bg > > Right, but I think we also need to see a "systemctl status >

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] nfs.man: document incompatibility between "bg" option and systemd.

On 06/08/2017 01:16 AM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07 2017, Steve Dickson wrote: > >> On 06/07/2017 08:02 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: >>> On Wed, 07.06.17 06:08, Steve Dickson (ste...@redhat.com) wrote: >>> On 06/06/2017 05:49 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06 2017,

Re: [systemd-devel] Systemd license vs. libcryptsetup license

On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 17:14 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:03:37PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > I'm not sure where you get that from. The usual interpretation is that > > linking to a GPLed library means the linked work must be GPL as well. > > I

Re: [systemd-devel] Systemd license vs. libcryptsetup license

On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 22:00 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote: > compiled code, or copy relocations copying arbitrary amounts of data > into an executable. It seems pretty clear that this can be considered a Rereading that, copy relocations are actually not that good an example since the copying normally

Re: [systemd-devel] Systemd license vs. libcryptsetup license

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:03:37PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:47:56PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:40:17AM +0200, Krzysztof Jackiewicz wrote: > > > > No, that makes no sense. It'd mean that putting two zip files that

Re: [systemd-devel] Systemd license vs. libcryptsetup license

> I interpret them as FSF wanting to drum up the importance of GPL a bit by > purposefully not clarifying this area. The case of linking non-GPL software with > GPL libraries is quite common and important, and if they wanted to add an entry > to the FAQ, they certainly would. They talk a lot about

Re: [systemd-devel] Systemd license vs. libcryptsetup license

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:40:17AM +0200, Krzysztof Jackiewicz wrote: > > No, that makes no sense. It'd mean that putting two zip files that one > > provides > > and the other uses a function with the same name next to one another would > > make them somehow connected and derivatives of one

Re: [systemd-devel] Systemd license vs. libcryptsetup license

> You need to consult a lawyer to get a definitive answer for this, please don't > ask developers for legal advice :) Yeah, it seems so :) Initially I thought that the answer is more obvious. ___ systemd-devel mailing list

Re: [systemd-devel] Systemd license vs. libcryptsetup license

> No, that makes no sense. It'd mean that putting two zip files that one > provides > and the other uses a function with the same name next to one another would > make them somehow connected and derivatives of one another. The whole > point of dynamic linking is that you can provide independent

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] nfs.man: document incompatibility between "bg" option and systemd.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 8:16 AM, NeilBrown wrote: > it appears that the fg mount attempt failed quickly (ECONNREFUSED), so it > background the process immediately. Systemd sees that as success > (despite the fact that the filesystem isn't actually mounted) and > doesn't clean up