On Tue, 11.06.13 10:07, Umut Tezduyar (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Those 2 lines were added on 89b1d5e0e49d3b3501e5f3aadcad712290bcd9bf and
> the commit log explains why we needed them. "/" can be treated as special
> case and excluded.
Just for completeness' sake. This was implemented i
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:59:42AM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 11.06.2013 10:34, schrieb Colin Guthrie:
> > Without reading the code etc., I'm running systemd with that commit
> > (v204) and I don't get any conflicts for my -.mount unit...
> >
> > So it seems that code is not run for me for
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> I think this code is only called when there is no -.mount unit, which
> results from a missing entry for / in fstab. It is entirely possible
> that Ross didn't add / to his fstab by accident or on purpose.
I just want to point out: This is
Am 11.06.2013 10:34, schrieb Colin Guthrie:
> Without reading the code etc., I'm running systemd with that commit
> (v204) and I don't get any conflicts for my -.mount unit...
>
> So it seems that code is not run for me for whatever reason.
>
> After a very quick glance at the code, it could just
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Umut Tezduyar wrote:
> Those 2 lines were added on 89b1d5e0e49d3b3501e5f3aadcad712290bcd9bf and the
> commit log explains why we needed them. "/" can be treated as special case
> and excluded.
If so, I guess also /usr and anything marked x-initrd.mount should be
'Twas brillig, and Ross Lagerwall at 11/06/13 08:19 did gyre and gimble:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 08:30:40PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> Hmm, this is certainly weird. normally -.mount should not have any such
>> conflicts. I really wonder where you got those from... What is the
>> contents
Hi,
Those 2 lines were added on 89b1d5e0e49d3b3501e5f3aadcad712290bcd9bf and
the commit log explains why we needed them. "/" can be treated as special
case and excluded.
Thanks.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Ross Lagerwall wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 08:30:40PM +0200, Lennart Poetterin
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 08:30:40PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Hmm, this is certainly weird. normally -.mount should not have any such
> conflicts. I really wonder where you got those from... What is the
> contents of /run/systemd/generator/-.mount for you?
>
AFAICT, mount_load_proc_self_m
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 08:30:40PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > As root: halt
> >
> > I have attached the output of "systemctl show -- -.mount" and /etc/fstab
> > and /proc/cmdline.
> >
> > I see that Conflicts=umount.target is set, though I have no idea why.
> >
> > I haven't changed to
On Mon, 10.06.13 14:10, Ross Lagerwall (rosslagerw...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:33:01PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > This is really weird... (Though unrelated to systemd-shutdown, as this
> > is generated before we execute it, replacing PID 1).
> >
> > -.mount is the
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:33:01PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> This is really weird... (Though unrelated to systemd-shutdown, as this
> is generated before we execute it, replacing PID 1).
>
> -.mount is the mount unit is something we do not try to unmount at
> shutdown from normal systemd,
On Sun, 09.06.13 17:11, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
> > And if I run "pacman -S glibc" and then shutdown:
> > -.mount mount process exited, code=exited status=32
> > -.mount changed unmounting -> mounted
> > Job -.mount/stop finished, result=failed
> > Failed unmounting
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 05:11:19PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 08:52:01AM +0100, Ross Lagerwall wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 05:06:50PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > Maybe mention that systemd-shutdown is statically linked (I know it
>
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 08:52:01AM +0100, Ross Lagerwall wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 05:06:50PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > Maybe mention that systemd-shutdown is statically linked (I know it
> > can be inferred from the text, but being explicit might be better).
>
> At leas
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 05:06:50PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Maybe mention that systemd-shutdown is statically linked (I know it
> can be inferred from the text, but being explicit might be better).
At least on Arch, it is still statically linked to libc and udev:
$ ldd /usr/lib/
15 matches
Mail list logo
