Processed: Re: Bug#858399: rsyslog: numerous packages appear to be syslogging with facility=KERN

Processing control commands: > reassign -1 systemd Bug #858399 [rsyslog] rsyslog: numerous packages appear to be syslogging with facility=KERN Bug reassigned from package 'rsyslog' to 'systemd'. No longer marked as found in versions rsyslog/8.24.0-1. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of

Bug#858211: (no subject)

Just to confirm, things seem OK with the following in system.conf: DefaultTimeoutStartSec=3s DefaultTimeoutStopSec=15s Everything including graphical desktop login comes up and down with no issues. I think it'd be slightly better to keep the longer timeout, but allow the console operator to

Bug#858197: marked as done (systemd-resolved: too verbose log message "Processing query")

Your message dated Tue, 21 Mar 2017 21:10:55 + with message-id and subject line Bug#858197: fixed in systemd 232-21 has caused the Debian Bug report #858197, regarding systemd-resolved: too verbose log message "Processing query" to be marked as done. This

Bug#858014: marked as done (udev: Please add SPARC vdisk devices to 60-cdrom_id.rules)

Your message dated Tue, 21 Mar 2017 21:11:05 + with message-id and subject line Bug#858014: fixed in systemd 233-5 has caused the Debian Bug report #858014, regarding udev: Please add SPARC vdisk devices to 60-cdrom_id.rules to be marked as done. This

Bug#858014: marked as done (udev: Please add SPARC vdisk devices to 60-cdrom_id.rules)

Your message dated Tue, 21 Mar 2017 21:10:55 + with message-id and subject line Bug#858014: fixed in systemd 232-21 has caused the Debian Bug report #858014, regarding udev: Please add SPARC vdisk devices to 60-cdrom_id.rules to be marked as done. This

systemd_232-21_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 19:52:17 +0100 Source: systemd Binary: systemd systemd-sysv systemd-container systemd-journal-remote systemd-coredump libpam-systemd libnss-myhostname libnss-mymachines libnss-resolve libnss-systemd

systemd_233-5_source.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 21:00:08 +0100 Source: systemd Binary: systemd systemd-sysv systemd-container systemd-journal-remote systemd-coredump libpam-systemd libnss-myhostname libnss-mymachines libnss-resolve libnss-systemd

Processing of systemd_233-5_source.changes

systemd_233-5_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: systemd_233-5.dsc systemd_233-5.debian.tar.xz systemd_233-5_source.buildinfo Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org) ___

Processing of systemd_232-21_source.changes

systemd_232-21_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: systemd_232-21.dsc systemd_232-21.debian.tar.xz systemd_232-21_source.buildinfo Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)

Re: [Piuparts-devel] Bug#856845: piuparts.debian.org: jessie2bpo has >400 packages in dependency-failed-testing status

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

Re: [Piuparts-devel] Bug#856845: piuparts.debian.org: jessie2bpo has >400 packages in dependency-failed-testing status

Am 21.03.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Holger Levsen: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 06:05:59PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >> What should be wrong about the dependencies? > > they are missing? They are not missing. When I was talking about dependencies I meant the Breaks/Replaces. >> Note that you ask

Re: [Piuparts-devel] Bug#856845: piuparts.debian.org: jessie2bpo has >400 packages in dependency-failed-testing status

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

Re: piuparts.debian.org: jessie2bpo has >400 packages in dependency-failed-testing status

On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 16:45 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > 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) > > > >

Re: piuparts.debian.org: jessie2bpo has >400 packages in dependency-failed-testing status

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > 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

Re: piuparts.debian.org: jessie2bpo has >400 packages in dependency-failed-testing status

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

Re: piuparts.debian.org: jessie2bpo has >400 packages in dependency-failed-testing status

Am 21.03.2017 um 17:45 schrieb Holger Levsen: > 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) >> >>

Re: piuparts.debian.org: jessie2bpo has >400 packages in dependency-failed-testing status

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

Bug#858335: systemd: should usr /run instead of /var/run

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Russell Coker wrote: > > Package: systemd > Version: 232-20 > Severity: normal > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-March/150031.html > > The use of a /run tmpfs started in March 2011. I think it's time for all > software

Bug#858335: systemd: should usr /run instead of /var/run

Package: systemd Version: 232-20 Severity: normal https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-March/150031.html The use of a /run tmpfs started in March 2011. I think it's time for all software to use /run directly not via the /var/run symlink. Among other things we have special code