Re: [systemd-devel] ConditionNeedsUpdate date comparison

2015-01-27 Thread Umut Tezduyar Lindskog
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

Re: [systemd-devel] ConditionNeedsUpdate date comparison

2015-01-27 Thread Lennart Poettering
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.

[systemd-devel] ConditionNeedsUpdate date comparison

2015-01-26 Thread Umut Tezduyar Lindskog
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

Re: [systemd-devel] ConditionNeedsUpdate date comparison

2015-01-26 Thread Lennart Poettering
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