2020. 08. 10. 20:12 keltezéssel, Böszörményi Zoltán írta:
2020. 08. 10. 20:08 keltezéssel, Lennart Poettering írta:
On Mo, 10.08.20 19:46, Böszörményi Zoltán (zbos...@pr.hu) wrote:
Is there a way to describe optional mounts via such Conditions* options?
No.
.mount units automatically gain
10.08.2020 20:59, Böszörményi Zoltán пишет:
> Hi,
>
> I have to use the same OS image tarball (created by Yocto)
> on several machines with different specifications.
>
> Where they differ is the disk size and partitioning. On the smaller
> machine (a Sicom SL20 POS hardware, boots from CF card)
2020. 08. 10. 20:08 keltezéssel, Lennart Poettering írta:
On Mo, 10.08.20 19:46, Böszörményi Zoltán (zbos...@pr.hu) wrote:
Is there a way to describe optional mounts via such Conditions* options?
No.
.mount units automatically gain dependencies on the devices they are
mounted from. Only
Hi,
I have to use the same OS image tarball (created by Yocto)
on several machines with different specifications.
Where they differ is the disk size and partitioning. On the smaller
machine (a Sicom SL20 POS hardware, boots from CF card) the disk size
is too small to have separate partitions
Hi,
I have to use the same OS image tarball (created by Yocto)
on several machines with different specifications.
Where they differ is the disk size and partitioning. On the smaller
machine (a Sicom SL20 POS hardware, boots from CF card) the disk size
is too small to have separate partitions
On Mo, 10.08.20 19:46, Böszörményi Zoltán (zbos...@pr.hu) wrote:
> Is there a way to describe optional mounts via such Conditions* options?
No.
.mount units automatically gain dependencies on the devices they are
mounted from. Only after all dependencies are fulfilled (i.e. the
backing device
