On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:37:26 +0100 Miklos Quartus in...@miklos.info wrote:
Package: libpam-systemd
Version: 215-11
Followup-For: Bug #732209
Hi Vlad,
Yes, I am still able to reproduce this bug in my GNOME session in my
latest Jessie, indeed. After opening the root terminal window and in
Martin Pitt [2015-04-16 14:53 -0500]:
Hello Cyril,
Cyril Brulebois [2015-04-16 19:40 +0200]:
Anyway, asking for home encryption indeed leads to swap encryption,
through a ecryptfs-setup-swap call, which in turn triggers:
I just tried the current rc2 installer (netinst image/graphical) and
Hello all,
Cyril Brulebois [2015-04-17 14:15 +0200]:
I tried to follow the code path in Ubuntu, which offers this option, to
track down where the offset can come from; and see whether Debian was
affected. I didn't mean to imply that Debian proposes the same option,
as it does not.
Ah ok,
systemd_215-17_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
systemd_215-17.dsc
systemd_215-17.debian.tar.xz
systemd_215-17_amd64.deb
systemd-sysv_215-17_amd64.deb
libpam-systemd_215-17_amd64.deb
libsystemd0_215-17_amd64.deb
libsystemd-dev_215-17_amd64.deb
Martin Pitt mp...@debian.org (2015-04-17):
I just tried the current rc2 installer (netinst image/graphical) and
it does not actually ask me whether I want to encrypt my home
direction. It seems you got this option?
I tried to follow the code path in Ubuntu, which offers this option, to
track
On 17/04/15 13:51, Martin Pitt wrote:
BTW, 215-16 still didn't hit testing, so I didn't upload -17 yet. I'll
do as soon as it migrates.
systemd| 215-16 | testing | source, amd64, arm64, armel,
armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
systemd| 215-16 |
Hello Niels,
Niels Thykier [2015-04-17 17:55 +0200]:
Just to clarify, are we still intending to do a systemd update prior to
Jessie with -17 and then now also a p-u (i.e. for 8.1) for ecryptfs?
That's still my intent, yes, primarily to avoid people who have this
set up in wheezy already
FYI: The status of the systemd source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 215-14
Current version: 215-16
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you will receive
Martin Pitt wrote:
P. S. Swap partitions, will you please just die. Most systems don't
need them any more, and those who do are better of with the
swapspace package or similar. But that's waay out of reach for
Jessie :-)
Personally, I don't care about swap for memory purposes, but I like
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:26:46 -0500
Source: systemd
Binary: systemd systemd-sysv libpam-systemd libsystemd0 libsystemd-dev
libsystemd-login0 libsystemd-login-dev libsystemd-daemon0 libsystemd-daemon-dev
Am 17.04.2015 um 23:43 schrieb Rick Thomas:
Package: systemd
Version: 215-16
Severity: important
When /etc/fstab has an ext4 filesystem on a logical volume which is itself
on a software raid, the system times out waiting for (I think!) fsck on that
filesystem.
This causes the boot to
On Apr 17, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org wrote:
Am 17.04.2015 um 23:43 schrieb Rick Thomas:
Package: systemd
Version: 215-16
Severity: important
When /etc/fstab has an ext4 filesystem on a logical volume which is itself
on a software raid, the system times out waiting
Am 18.04.2015 um 00:36 schrieb Rick Thomas:
On Apr 17, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org wrote:
Am 17.04.2015 um 23:43 schrieb Rick Thomas:
Package: systemd
Version: 215-16
Severity: important
When /etc/fstab has an ext4 filesystem on a logical volume which is itself
on
Your message dated Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:49:31 +
with message-id e1yj8wj-0004dd...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#751707: fixed in systemd 215-17
has caused the Debian Bug report #751707,
regarding systemd: offset is ignored in /etc/crypttab
to be marked as done.
This means that you
On 2015-04-17 15:44, Martin Pitt wrote:
Hello all,
Cyril Brulebois [2015-04-17 14:15 +0200]:
I tried to follow the code path in Ubuntu, which offers this option, to
track down where the offset can come from; and see whether Debian was
affected. I didn't mean to imply that Debian proposes
On Apr 17, 2015, at 3:44 PM, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org wrote:
Thanks for the data.
Looks like an lvm issue to me:
root@cube:~# lvscan
inactive '/dev/vg1/backup' [87.29 GiB] inherit
and as a result, /dev/disk/by-label/BACKUP is missing.
Yes, that’s true, of course. But
16 matches
Mail list logo
