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 don't check for "/usr != >> Condition.parameter"? > > Well, when I hacked that up, I didn't think of this case. > > What are you saying ConditionNeedsUpdate=/usr is supposed to even > mean?
We are not on the same page. I never meant ConditionNeedsUpdate=/usr. > > Not that we explicitly document that /etc and /var are the only valid > parameters currently (because we only manage those stamp > files with systemd-update-done.service). Hence, > ConditionNeedsUpdate=/usr is undefined currently, and it's not clear > to me what is should mean? > >> It makes sense to check for "/usr > Condition.parameter" in a package >> managed linux but our embedded system is upgrading the entire /usr >> partition. >> >> ConditionNeedsUpdate=/etc is working fine when we upgrade our image >> but it fails when we downgrade it since the timestamp of /usr is older >> than /etc/.updated. > > 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. Pretty much what I am saying is we wan't to use ConditionNeedsUpdate=/etc for downgrade case. Why do you think it won't work? Instead of "IF time(/usr) > time(/etc/.updated)", we can check "IF time(/usr) != time(/etc/.updated)". Umut > > Lennart > > -- > Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
