clone 783088 -1
retitle -1 "systemd should document distinction between $FOO and ${FOO}
reassign -1 systemd
tags -1 + upstream
thanks
Hi Rian,
On Mittwoch, 22. April 2015, Rian Hunter wrote:
> > thanks for your bugreport. Can you confirm that using $FOO instead of
> > ${FOO} fixes the issue?
> Ye
Dear systemd maintainers,
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 01:27:22PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Package: piuparts.debian.org
>
> the subject says it: jessie2bpo has >400 packages in dependency-failed-testing
> status, which is far too many for the stable release. We should track down
Hi Michael,
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 05:31:16PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> both systemd and udev need to be upgraded in lockstep:
>
> a/ udev has Breaks/Replaces systemd (<< 224-2)
> b/ systemd has a Breaks/Replaces udev (<< 228-5)
>
> Forcing the upgrade of only one of the two will fail.
if
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 06:05:42PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 05:31:16PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >> both systemd and udev need to be upgraded in lockstep:
> >> Forcing the upgrade of only one of the two will fail.
> > if this is the case, then I think the packages
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 06:05:59PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> What should be wrong about the dependencies?
they are missing?
> Note that you ask apt explicitly to break stuff (in the logs I see "
> --force-yes" which is documented as potentially breaking systems; I
> hope users don't use t
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 06:32:25PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> They are not missing. When I was talking about dependencies I meant the
> Breaks/Replaces.
but those are not "depends" and I do believe they have different effects than
"depends"…
> Yeah, as I wrote earlier
> "Forcing the upgrade o
Package: systemd
Version: 232-25+deb9u1
Severity: wishlist
Dear Maintainer,
this might be a totally bogus bug report (because I might have missed that
this is already implemented in Debian, eg I only checked stretch and a sid
schroot, but not a real sid system…), but I really like this on Fedora
On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 09:50:07PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Right, that's the reason why we don't install that README atm, as it
> would be confusing. Enabling persistent logging and no longer installing
> rsyslog by default should go hand in hand, as I don't think we really
> want to log ever
On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 10:30:32PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> There's already a bug for that. Let's block this bug accordingly
Thank you!
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Pkg-systemd-maintainers mailing list
Hi,
(as this thread has already attracted two "interesting replies", I'll try
again to convey the message which has not been heard yet... I don't have high
hopes this thread won't become a flamefest, but I want to at least try to kill
the flames before they explode...)
(And if you know systemd
Hi,
ain't there a 5th option, providing an lxc 1.0.x backport for jessie?
u...@451f.org has one prepared on mentors.d.n but I was reluctant to sponsor it
(so far) as it was only 1.0.5-x, while 1.0.6-1 just had hit sid...
But a backport should fix this issue, possible in combination with a newer
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 22. Oktober 2014, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> > And yes, documenting this issue in the release notes would be good
> > anyway/also! ;-)
> I can do that, however I think it'd be good to know beforehand how this
> problem will be tackled, so I can document the possible solutions.
great
Hi Tomas,
On Sonntag, 23. November 2014, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>https://wiki.debian.org/LXC?action=diff
[...]
> I will proceed to filing a bug report against the release notes as wisely
> proposed by Holger.
awesome, thanks!
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally s
13 matches
Mail list logo
