On Jul 22, 2013 6:44 PM, "Lennart Poettering"
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19.07.13 22:02, Dave Reisner (d...@falconindy.com) wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > With systemd 206 near release, I'd like to understand if commit
> > c72aadd1851096ea is going to stand. This commit removes support for
> > reading RD_TIMEST
On 07/23/2013 01:16 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
I do understand that you are currently not running systemd in the initrd
[1], so for you for now this is indeed a loss of functionality. I am
sorry for that, but please understand this as ge
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> I do understand that you are currently not running systemd in the initrd
> [1], so for you for now this is indeed a loss of functionality. I am
> sorry for that, but please understand this as gentle push to maybe use
> systemd in the in
On Fri, 19.07.13 22:02, Dave Reisner (d...@falconindy.com) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With systemd 206 near release, I'd like to understand if commit
> c72aadd1851096ea is going to stand. This commit removes support for
> reading RD_TIMESTAMP in the initramfs, and thus makes systemd mandatory
> for measuri
Hi,
With systemd 206 near release, I'd like to understand if commit
c72aadd1851096ea is going to stand. This commit removes support for
reading RD_TIMESTAMP in the initramfs, and thus makes systemd mandatory
for measuring initramfs runtime.
If this is the intended future, please help me to unders
