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. > > 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?
Well, it's hard to know in advance what the future will bring, hence it's difficult to have the right triggers in place to run when something from the future is downgraded... > Instead of "IF time(/usr) > time(/etc/.updated)", we can check "IF > time(/usr) != time(/etc/.updated)". Ah, I see. Well, I figure we could change this. I do wonder though if this might be a problem with file systems that do not store timestamps as accurately (for example fat has a 2s granularity), where we might not be able to apply the precise timestamps from /usr to /var, and thus would end up running the conditioned unit every single boot? But well, I figure most modern file systems have usec granularity, hence I'd accept a patch to change this to != I figure... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel