On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 08:48:37AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Did it actually sync the filesystems? I'm pretty sure that when we hit
> the bug with fedup, you got fsck's on the next boot.
Hm, I thought it does, but this would suggest something different.
> > The issue is how to deal with lon
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 15:26 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:22:10PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 04:52 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >
> > > It's not about Lennart. Afaik he usually sticks to git HEAD and/or
> > > rawh
Hi
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> The subject of point releases hasn't come up before. Actually I
> haven't had *any* communication about the stable branches since they
> were created apart from a few patches backported by other systemd
> maintainers. If t
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:22:10PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 04:52 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> > It's not about Lennart. Afaik he usually sticks to git HEAD and/or
> > rawhide. There are multiple reports about systemd entering an infinite
> > loop and
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 04:52 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> It's not about Lennart. Afaik he usually sticks to git HEAD and/or
> rawhide. There are multiple reports about systemd entering an infinite
> loop and I *thought* that this is a step in the right
> direction.
Well, looking at
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 04:52 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> I'm very appreciative of the kernel promise of stability. But systemd
> isn't at this stage yet, the codebase is much more in flux.
Well, it's in flux, but it *is* the init system. It's kind of
important. :)
--
Adam Williams
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 06:09:35PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 01:06 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 02:06:21PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 22:39 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > >
> > > > I
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 01:06 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 02:06:21PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 22:39 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >
> > > I understand that systemd git is not easy to follow, but I don't think
> > >
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 02:06:21PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 22:39 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> > I understand that systemd git is not easy to follow, but I don't think
> > this differes that much from other fast-changing projects. If you take
> > a ran
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 22:39 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> I understand that systemd git is not easy to follow, but I don't think
> this differes that much from other fast-changing projects. If you take
> a random kernel release, it's not like there's a nice lwn-style description
> so
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 22:41 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:49:27PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 21:37 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:27:58PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > > > Teste
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:49:27PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 21:37 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:27:58PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > > Testers, please take care to test the update thoroughly, despite the
> > > > > smal
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:48:36PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 21:20 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:56:40AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 17:37 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 21:37 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:27:58PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > Testers, please take care to test the update thoroughly, despite the
> > > > small bump and small description it is a major change to the package.
> >
>
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 21:20 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:56:40AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 17:37 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > systemd "216-9" is not b
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:27:58PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Testers, please take care to test the update thoroughly, despite the
> > > small bump and small description it is a major change to the package.
>
> > That I can agree with. I'd much prefer a concrete list of things to
> > test
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 21:13 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > An update has been submitted for systemd today:
> >
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kmod-18-4.fc21,systemd-216-9.fc21
> >
> > with a fairly shor
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:56:40AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 17:37 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > systemd "216-9" is not built from 216 at all, it is in fact systemd-217
> >
> > Why the misleading
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> An update has been submitted for systemd today:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kmod-18-4.fc21,systemd-216-9.fc21
>
> with a fairly short description. I wanted to flag up that, in fact,
> systemd-216-9 is a major chang
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32 -0800,
Adam Williamson wrote:
systemd-216-8 (and 216-1 through 216-5) and earlier) was more or less
identical to upstream systemd-stable 216:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd-stable/log/?h=v216-stable .
systemd "216-9" is not built from 216 at all, i
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 17:37 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > systemd "216-9" is not built from 216 at all, it is in fact systemd-217
>
> Why the misleading version number?
There is a comment in the spec:
# This is really closer t
Hi
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > systemd "216-9" is not built from 216 at all, it is in fact systemd-217
>
> Why the misleading version number?
>
More importantly, why is this pushed so late in the r
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> systemd "216-9" is not built from 216 at all, it is in fact systemd-217
Why the misleading version number?
--
Tomasz Torcz "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station
xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.plwagon filled
23 matches
Mail list logo
