Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

Am 05.07.2017 um 12:32 schrieb Michael Chapman: In Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Reindl Harald wrote: The issue being discussed here is that systemd considers "0day" to be _syntactically_ invalid for a username. See the valid_user_group_name() function in basic/user-util.c. yes and hence it should

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

Reindl Harald wrote on 04/07/17 19:50: >> When new configuration options are added, the same unit file can >> almost always be used with older systemd, and it'll just warn & ignore >> the parts it doesn't understand. Similarly, various configuration >> options might be unavailable on some

Re: [systemd-devel] mkosi.postinst and user home permissions

Il giorno mar 4 lug 2017 alle 12:28, Federico Bruni ha scritto: Hi all I hope this is the right place to ask questions about mkosi. If not, please advise where I should ask. I'm building fedora-26 in a directory. I want to add a normal user, so I've added to

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

Am 05.07.2017 um 12:10 schrieb Michael Chapman: On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Colin Guthrie wrote: Reindl Harald wrote on 04/07/17 19:50: When new configuration options are added, the same unit file can almost always be used with older systemd, and it'll just warn & ignore the parts it doesn't

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

In Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 05.07.2017 um 12:10 schrieb Michael Chapman: On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Colin Guthrie wrote: > Reindl Harald wrote on 04/07/17 19:50: > > > When new configuration options are added, the same unit file can > > > almost always be used with older systemd,

[systemd-devel] [PATCH] rules: block - add dm devices to whitelist

Ceph relies on by-partuuid symlinks, in order to locate the journal partition from a given OSD partition. For details, see http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/19489. --- rules/60-persistent-storage.rules | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Colin Guthrie wrote: Reindl Harald wrote on 04/07/17 19:50: When new configuration options are added, the same unit file can almost always be used with older systemd, and it'll just warn & ignore the parts it doesn't understand. Similarly, various configuration options might

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

On Tue, 04 Jul 2017 18:39:15 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Essentially, User=0day is the same as Usre=0day and the same as User="my > name is pretty!". I think this is the root of the disagreement. Systemd tries to allow units written for version X to run on versions earlier than

[systemd-devel] Bouncing interface once chrony is synced

I am using CentOS 7 (systemd 219) on a Banana Pi as my residential firewall/gateway. The Banana Pi does not have a persistent clock, so it has no idea what the time is until it is able to sync via NTP. Thus, the initial DHCP leases that the BPi receives have incorrect expiration/ renewal times

Re: [systemd-devel] Bouncing interface once chrony is synced

Am 05.07.2017 um 17:29 schrieb Ian Pilcher: I am using CentOS 7 (systemd 219) on a Banana Pi as my residential firewall/gateway. The Banana Pi does not have a persistent clock, so it has no idea what the time is until it is able to sync via NTP. Thus, the initial DHCP leases that the BPi

Re: [systemd-devel] mkosi.postinst and user home permissions

Il giorno mer 5 lug 2017 alle 11:51, Federico Bruni ha scritto: Il giorno mar 4 lug 2017 alle 12:28, Federico Bruni ha scritto: Hi all I hope this is the right place to ask questions about mkosi. If not, please advise where I should ask. I'm

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 01:43:32AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 06.07.2017 um 01:36 schrieb Michael Chapman: > >Note that the semantic validations you're talking about here -- > >things like "does the user exist?" -- are _not_ preemptive. They > >are fatal: the child process will exit

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 01:43:32AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: well, it even don't look but pretend it can't while it does which is the worst type of operations possible - as long as "adduser" of the underlying OS accepts and create

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Tue, 04 Jul 2017 18:39:15 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Essentially, User=0day is the same as Usre=0day and the same as User="my name is pretty!". I think this is the root of the disagreement. Systemd tries to allow units written for

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

Am 06.07.2017 um 01:36 schrieb Michael Chapman: Note that the semantic validations you're talking about here -- things like "does the user exist?" -- are _not_ preemptive. They are fatal: the child process will exit unsuccessfully as the command is executed if the settings will not be able

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

Reindl Harald: > > at least fall back to "nobody" > That idea is wrong. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14681377#14682059___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

Am 05.07.2017 um 20:34 schrieb Jonathan de Boyne Pollard: Reindl Harald: at least fall back to "nobody" That idea is wrong. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14681377#14682059 better than a stupid "i fall back to root because i think i make the rules and not the underlying operating