Hi,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
On Mon, 26.01.15 14:00, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
Hi,
condition_test_needs_update() wants the timestamp of /usr to be newer
than what is being checked.
Is there a reason why we
On Tue, 27.01.15 11:17, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
Well, this stuf is not intended to support downgrades. I don't think
that can ever work...
But anyway, I don't really understand what you are trying to say I
must admit. Could you please elaborate?
Sure.
Hi,
condition_test_needs_update() wants the timestamp of /usr to be newer
than what is being checked.
Is there a reason why we don't check for /usr != Condition.parameter?
It makes sense to check for /usr Condition.parameter in a package
managed linux but our embedded system is upgrading the
On Mon, 26.01.15 14:00, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
Hi,
condition_test_needs_update() wants the timestamp of /usr to be newer
than what is being checked.
Is there a reason why we don't check for /usr !=
Condition.parameter?
Well, when I hacked that up, I didn't