On 2015-05-14 10:41, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
On 14.05.2015 09:15, jajcus wrote:
commit f0ec2f697bb57657221de9f11ecef175d7e66a25
Author: Jacek Konieczny
Date: Thu May 14 08:14:03 2015 +0200
Release 1 on the new systemd-218 branch
is this new version going to th?
do you need builders
On 14.05.2015 09:15, jajcus wrote:
commit f0ec2f697bb57657221de9f11ecef175d7e66a25
Author: Jacek Konieczny
Date: Thu May 14 08:14:03 2015 +0200
Release 1 on the new systemd-218 branch
is this new version going to th?
do you need builders, queues being cleaned of 219?
(asking this as
Dnia 2014-07-03, czw o godzinie 11:01 +0200, Jacek Konieczny pisze:
> On 03/07/14 10:30, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> >> networkd probably should not be enabled by default if the network is
> >> already configured PLD-way, but otherwise it is good to have it.
> >> I think it could be a good idea to use
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:17:52AM +0200, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> We could, of course, try to fix rc-scripts with more and more
> shell hacking (still trying to keep backward-compatibility),
> but why force us to maintain that, when there are other,
> simple, tested and maintained solutions.
Well
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 11:40:51AM +0200, Mariusz Mazur wrote:
> Are there any reasons not to upgrade to 214?
We've had quite considerable PITA with its sysvinit related changes, JFYI.
On the positive side, 214 looks to be the fastest starter/halter for my
ALT-based regular livecds (those of the
On 03/07/14 10:30, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
>> networkd probably should not be enabled by default if the network is
>> already configured PLD-way, but otherwise it is good to have it.
>> I think it could be a good idea to use it by default when there is no
>> other network configuration. There is a ch
On Thu, 03 Jul 2014, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> On 02/07/14 21:06, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> >> What do you mean by 'cut down'? And what do you consider the 'bloat'.
> >> Most the things introduced since 208 may be really useful, and the rest
> >> won't break anything.
> >
> > ... that's unfortunatel
On 02/07/14 21:06, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
>> What do you mean by 'cut down'? And what do you consider the 'bloat'.
>> Most the things introduced since 208 may be really useful, and the rest
>> won't break anything.
>
> ... that's unfortunately not true :( Right now the obstacle is networkd
> and I
On Wed, 02 Jul 2014, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> On 02/07/14 14:03, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Jul 2014, Mariusz Mazur wrote:
> >
> >> Are there any reasons not to upgrade to 214?
> >
> > Read the changelog.
>
> I have just read all the release announcement since 208. A lot of useful
>
On 02/07/14 14:03, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014, Mariusz Mazur wrote:
>
>> Are there any reasons not to upgrade to 214?
>
> Read the changelog.
I have just read all the release announcement since 208. A lot of useful
changes have been introduced.
> It needs to be carefully cut d
On Wed, 02 Jul 2014, Mariusz Mazur wrote:
> Are there any reasons not to upgrade to 214?
Read the changelog. It needs to be carefully cut down and unbloated.
Systemd upgrade is not someting we can "just bump and rebuild",
and I don't have the time for it (job change, moving house, etc.)
--
Jan
Are there any reasons not to upgrade to 214?
--mmazur
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
12 matches
Mail list logo
