Hello all,
Michael Biebl [2015-11-24 22:28 +0100]:
> Am 24.11.2015 um 22:25 schrieb Petter Reinholdtsen:
> > [Felipe Sateler]
> >> That would potentially leave initscripts with wrong ordering, thus
> >> breaking a boot back to sysvinit (via syvinit package).
> >
> > My guess is that this would no
Hi Guillem!
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 03:40:50 + Guillem Jover wrote:
> Control: tag 801156 pending
>
> Hi!
>
> Bug #801156 reported by you has been fixed in the Git repository. You can
> see the changelog below, and you can check the diff of the fix at:
>
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/d
On 24 November 2015 at 18:57, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On 24 November 2015 at 18:28, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> Am 24.11.2015 um 22:25 schrieb Petter Reinholdtsen:
>>> [Felipe Sateler]
That would potentially leave initscripts with wrong ordering, thus
breaking a boot back to sysvinit (via s
On 24 November 2015 at 18:28, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 24.11.2015 um 22:25 schrieb Petter Reinholdtsen:
>> [Felipe Sateler]
>>> That would potentially leave initscripts with wrong ordering, thus
>>> breaking a boot back to sysvinit (via syvinit package).
>>
>> My guess is that this would not happ
Am 24.11.2015 um 22:25 schrieb Petter Reinholdtsen:
> [Felipe Sateler]
>> That would potentially leave initscripts with wrong ordering, thus
>> breaking a boot back to sysvinit (via syvinit package).
>
> My guess is that this would not happen if the initscripts package is
> installed before trying
[Felipe Sateler]
> That would potentially leave initscripts with wrong ordering, thus
> breaking a boot back to sysvinit (via syvinit package).
My guess is that this would not happen if the initscripts package is
installed before trying to boot using sysvinit, which I suspect is a
requirement. Th
Am 24.11.2015 um 21:29 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> Thanks for the suggestions, Felipe!
>
> Am 24.11.2015 um 19:37 schrieb Felipe Sateler:
>> f/ Patch update-rc.d to use --force when initscripts is not installed.
What check did you have in mind here? Testing for a (conf)file shipped
by the initscript
Thanks for the suggestions, Felipe!
Am 24.11.2015 um 19:37 schrieb Felipe Sateler:
> f/ Patch update-rc.d to use --force when initscripts is not installed.
>
> These two options have the added advantage of not relying on the
> active init, and thus could work while switching to sysvinit in the
>
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:14:19PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Hi Josh
> Am 24.11.2015 um 06:53 schrieb Josh Triplett:
> > Package: systemd
> > Version: 228-2
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > /lib/systemd/system/systemd-timesyncd.service.d/disable-with-time-daemon.conf
> > disables systemd-timesyn
On 24 November 2015 at 15:59, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 24.11.2015 um 19:37 schrieb Felipe Sateler:
>> e/ Patch insserv to look for a flag file/setting somewhere in
>> /etc/insserv{,.conf.d}, which causes it to treat Required-* as Should*
>> (ie, conffile-version of --force). Then initscripts coul
Am 24.11.2015 um 19:59 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> Am 24.11.2015 um 19:37 schrieb Felipe Sateler:
>> e/ Patch insserv to look for a flag file/setting somewhere in
>> /etc/insserv{,.conf.d}, which causes it to treat Required-* as Should*
>> (ie, conffile-version of --force). Then initscripts could ship
Am 24.11.2015 um 19:37 schrieb Felipe Sateler:
> e/ Patch insserv to look for a flag file/setting somewhere in
> /etc/insserv{,.conf.d}, which causes it to treat Required-* as Should*
> (ie, conffile-version of --force). Then initscripts could ship such a
> configuration, thus demoting dependencies
Am 24.11.2015 um 19:32 schrieb Petter Reinholdtsen:
> The reason I do not like this is that insserv do not know about package
> names and only do know about the dependency format and derive everything
> from there. I believe it is a mistake to hardcode script names into
> insserv. I also believe
Am 24.11.2015 um 19:44 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> Am 24.11.2015 um 19:32 schrieb Petter Reinholdtsen:
>> [Michael Biebl]
>>> a/ Pere suggested to turn the Required- dependencies into Should-
>>> dependencies. This means, as long as initscripts is not installed,
>>> insserv does not fail, but potentia
Am 24.11.2015 um 19:32 schrieb Petter Reinholdtsen:
> [Michael Biebl]
>> a/ Pere suggested to turn the Required- dependencies into Should-
>> dependencies. This means, as long as initscripts is not installed,
>> insserv does not fail, but potentially calculates a wrong ordering.
>> This is not fata
On 24 November 2015 at 14:54, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> a few days ago, I filed bug reports against packages which declare an
> explicit dependency on the initscripts package [1] and asked them to
> remove it.
> My assumption back then was, that this dependency was mainly added for
>
[Michael Biebl]
> a/ Pere suggested to turn the Required- dependencies into Should-
> dependencies. This means, as long as initscripts is not installed,
> insserv does not fail, but potentially calculates a wrong ordering.
> This is not fatal for systemd though, as the ordering is not used by
> sys
Hi everyone,
a few days ago, I filed bug reports against packages which declare an
explicit dependency on the initscripts package [1] and asked them to
remove it.
My assumption back then was, that this dependency was mainly added for
the /run-transition and could be dropped now easily.
Unfortunat
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:08:47 +0100 Nils Dagsson Moskopp
wrote:
> For reasons I still do not understand, systemd was unable to mount
> /boot as ext2. I have been unable to make the Linux kernel load the
> ext2 module â modprobe exited zero, but lsmod did not show the
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 + moreinfo
Bug #770876 [udev] udev: Linux 3.2.0 with udev 215 breaks X11 keyboard and mouse
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
770876: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=770876
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
__
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forcemerge 648528 804910
Bug #648528 [systemd] systemd: The fs check message is not visible enough
Bug #804910 [systemd] systemd: Invisible fsck, looked like a hanging system
Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'important'
Marked as found in versions
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 648528 normal
Bug #648528 [systemd] systemd: The fs check message is not visible enough
Bug #804910 [systemd] systemd: Invisible fsck, looked like a hanging system
Severity set to 'normal' from 'wishlist'
Severity set to 'normal' from 'wi
Your message dated Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:11:58 +0100
with message-id <56547e3e.3050...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#805742: systemd: add ntpdate to the list of another
NTP daemon installed
has caused the Debian Bug report #805742,
regarding systemd: add ntpdate to the list of another NTP dae
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 805742 = wontfix
Bug #805742 [systemd] systemd: add ntpdate to the list of another NTP daemon
installed
Added tag(s) wontfix; removed tag(s) moreinfo.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
805742:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 805133 + pending
Bug #805133 [systemd] systemd disables swap too early during shutdown
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
805133: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cg
Hi Josh
Am 24.11.2015 um 06:53 schrieb Josh Triplett:
> Package: systemd
> Version: 228-2
> Severity: wishlist
>
> /lib/systemd/system/systemd-timesyncd.service.d/disable-with-time-daemon.conf
> disables systemd-timesyncd if /usr/sbin/ntpd (or another NTP daemon)
> exists. However, nothing causes
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #805910 [src:systemd] FTBFS on x32: wrong assumption about sizeof(long)
Added tag(s) pending.
--
805910: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=805910
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
_
Control: tag -1 pending
Helmut Grohne [2015-11-23 22:25 +0100]:
> Since 228, systemd FTBFS on x32. See
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=systemd&arch=x32&ver=228-2&stamp=1447934469
>
> The reason is a wrong assumption on the sizeof(long). I forwarded the
> fix upstream already (see
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forwarded 802780 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2015
Bug #802780 [systemd] systemd: systemctl 227 fails in chroots (instead of
ignoring)
Set Bug forwarded-to-address to
'https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2015'.
> thanks
Stoppi
Hi Michael,
On Fr, 2015-11-20 at 14:15 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 23.10.2015 um 17:43 schrieb Stephan Sürken:
> > So yes, for a non-existing script, that's (changed behaviour) but
> > correct.
> >
> > For the example wicd service however, it should ignore the call like
> > before, afaiu.
>
30 matches
Mail list logo
