On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Darac Marjal wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:57:36PM +0100, Hans wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2014, 16:05:47 schrieb Jonathan Dowland:
>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 03:16:12PM +0100, Hans wrote:
Maybe I missed something? Or is systemd still not
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:40:34 +
Brian wrote:
> On Fri 14 Feb 2014 at 15:48:43 +0400, Reco wrote:
>
> > But, given systemd insists on using its' own mount implementation, I'm
> > not sure whenever systemd honors this flag.
>
> There is no reason why it shouldn't and it does. Tested.
I disagr
On 20140214_124034, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 14 Feb 2014 at 15:48:43 +0400, Reco wrote:
>
> > But, given systemd insists on using its' own mount implementation, I'm
> > not sure whenever systemd honors this flag.
>
> There is no reason why it shouldn't and it does. Tested.
^^^
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:40:34PM +, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 14 Feb 2014 at 15:48:43 +0400, Reco wrote:
>
> > But, given systemd insists on using its' own mount implementation, I'm
> > not sure whenever systemd honors this flag.
>
> There is no reason why it shouldn't and it does. Tested.
Ah,
On Fri 14 Feb 2014 at 15:48:43 +0400, Reco wrote:
> But, given systemd insists on using its' own mount implementation, I'm
> not sure whenever systemd honors this flag.
There is no reason why it shouldn't and it does. Tested.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
wi
Hi.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:52:45AM +, Darac Marjal wrote:
> I have noticed this with systemd, too. Under SysV, you can have a line
> like the above and it's treated as "If the above device is available,
> mount it, otherwise display an error (but the boot will continue to run,
> if possib
On Fri 14 Feb 2014 at 10:52:45 +, Darac Marjal wrote:
>
> I don't know (haven't looked actually, but I hope some kind soul knows
> the answer) if there's an option that says "This device is optional, but
> if it IS there, mount it at boot".
I've not followed through on the advice it gives, bu
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:57:36PM +0100, Hans wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2014, 16:05:47 schrieb Jonathan Dowland:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 03:16:12PM +0100, Hans wrote:
> > > Maybe I missed something? Or is systemd still not working with
> > > encrypted partitions? There was nothing in
Hi,
Dňa Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:27:00 +0100 Ralf Mardorf
napísal:
> use a stopwatch, but I suspect it's something like 7 seconds vs 9
> seconds for my installs. Even if it would be 1 second vs 1 minute,
> how often do we turn off and on our PCs? When I mention a "PC" I
> exclude "tablet PCs".
Good
Am Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2014, 19:27:00 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> On Thu, 2014-02-13 at 18:57 +0100, Hans wrote:
> > Again, I was impressed, how fast it boots
>
> For machines that fit to my needs, the startup time between upstart,
> systemd and SysVint doesn't variate that much. Yes, startup when
On Thu, 2014-02-13 at 18:57 +0100, Hans wrote:
> Again, I was impressed, how fast it boots
For machines that fit to my needs, the startup time between upstart,
systemd and SysVint doesn't variate that much. Yes, startup when using
upstart and systemd is faster, than when using SysVinit. I need to
Am Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2014, 16:05:47 schrieb Jonathan Dowland:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 03:16:12PM +0100, Hans wrote:
> > Maybe I missed something? Or is systemd still not working with
> > encrypted partitions? There was nothing in the doc about it (as far as
> > I read)
>
> I use systemd wi
12 matches
Mail list logo
