Re: [systemd-devel] New "ubuntu-ci" integration tests are being added to PRs

Martin Pitt [2016-02-18 9:01 +0100]: > However, an awful lot of the runs currently fail with a linker error. > I filed [2] and will investigate. Thanks to Filipe that got fixed quickly (it was a recent bug in the build system indeed). Fun thing is that I didn't actually intend to do that "--disab

Re: [systemd-devel] [RFC] the chopping block

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > 1) systemd-initctl (i.e. the /dev/initctl SysV compat support). Last >time Debian was still using that, maybe this changed now? Gentoo allows switching between systemd and openrc (sysvinit) at boot time, and will continue to do so

[systemd-devel] unable to automount overlayfs with upperdir set to mount point

I recently tried to configure an automount point for an overlayfs with systemd version 229 on Arch Linux. It failed with a mount error. As this is my first time writing a unit for mounting, I am unsure whether I correctly expressed the unit files. Thus, I would like to ask you to have a look into

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] md: Drop sending a change uevent when stopping

On Thu, Feb 18 2016, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 02/17/2016 10:29 PM, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 18 2016, Shaohua Li wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:25:00PM +0100, Sebastian >>> Parschauer wrote: When stopping an MD device, th

Re: [systemd-devel] [RFC] the chopping block

Hi :-) On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 06:06:45PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Heya! ... > 5) Here's the controversial one I think: support for booting up >without /var. We have kludges at quite a few places because we >cannot access /var early during boot. I am tempted to stop >supporti

Re: [systemd-devel] socket activation systemd holding a reference to an accepted socket

> On Feb 18, 2016, at 4:23 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 09:59:32AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Ben Woodard wrote: >>> Is it intentional that systemd holds a reference to a socket it has just >>> accepted even thoug

Re: [systemd-devel] New "ubuntu-ci" integration tests are being added to PRs

Michael Biebl wrote on 18/02/16 14:39: > Great stuff! > > Thanks for working on that, Martin and Daniel. Yeah this is really good stuff and will be a great help! Col -- Colin Guthrie gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open

Re: [systemd-devel] New "ubuntu-ci" integration tests are being added to PRs

Great stuff! Thanks for working on that, Martin and Daniel. Regards, Michael 2016-02-18 9:01 GMT+01:00 Martin Pitt : > Hello all, > > you might already have noticed, but from now on PRs will not only > trigger the semaphore checks (which are essentially a "make > distcheck"), but also trigger mo

Re: [systemd-devel] socket activation systemd holding a reference to an accepted socket

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 09:59:32AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Ben Woodard wrote: > > Is it intentional that systemd holds a reference to a socket it has just > > accepted even though it just handed the open socket over to a > > socket.activated service that

Re: [systemd-devel] New "ubuntu-ci" integration tests are being added to PRs

Jóhann B. Guðmundsson [2016-02-18 11:35 +]: > Arguably not if upstream test do not detect these things then they should be > fixed to do so The upstream tests are mostly unit tests which cover isolated logic. Of course having more coverage there would be great, but that's not the point here. s

Re: [systemd-devel] New "ubuntu-ci" integration tests are being added to PRs

On 02/18/2016 11:26 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: On 02/18/2016 12:19 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: >On 02/18/2016 10:22 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: >>I disagree. All sorts of testing is good for us, and if a PR is breaking >>downstream Ubuntu, and we recognize that before merging, that's really >>gre

Re: [systemd-devel] New "ubuntu-ci" integration tests are being added to PRs

On 02/18/2016 10:43 AM, Martin Pitt wrote: I'd actually turn it the other way around and claim that if Fedora, Arch, etc. have downstream tests, then please trigger them too. After all, failures of them don't block anything (right now, anyway), and having the extra information in the PRs can onl

Re: [systemd-devel] New "ubuntu-ci" integration tests are being added to PRs

On 02/18/2016 12:19 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > On 02/18/2016 10:22 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: >> I disagree. All sorts of testing is good for us, and if a PR is breaking >> downstream Ubuntu, and we recognize that before merging, that's really >> great. > > I'm all for more testing the better

Re: [systemd-devel] New "ubuntu-ci" integration tests are being added to PRs

On 02/18/2016 10:22 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: I disagree. All sorts of testing is good for us, and if a PR is breaking downstream Ubuntu, and we recognize that before merging, that's really great. I'm all for more testing the better but due to downstream fragmentation all these have the same fund

Re: [systemd-devel] New "ubuntu-ci" integration tests are being added to PRs

Jóhann B. Guðmundsson [2016-02-18 10:08 +]: > Will failed tests or false positives start auto creating issues on github? > If so is that really the smart thing do to here? IMHO not. The idea is that raising the red flag on the PR should be enough, and that the point of the CI tests is to not l

Re: [systemd-devel] Moving systemd-bootchart to a standalone repository

On 02/17/2016 08:02 PM, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog wrote: > Hi, > > src/shared & src/basic have very useful code that upstream have been > static linking to most binaries. My understanding is that we haven’t > been feeling comfortable about the API to make these paths a > standalone library (or includ

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd eats up all spaces in my environment files

Seems to be a general problem with java/tomcat and not related to systemd. Sorry for the background noise. For anyone who is interested in the solution (which is for sure off topic) just add the parameters directly to the catalina.prop

Re: [systemd-devel] New "ubuntu-ci" integration tests are being added to PRs

On 02/18/2016 11:08 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > On 02/18/2016 08:01 AM, Martin Pitt wrote: >> So please don't put too much attention to these results yet. I want to >> to enable them to see how the testing and communication holds up in >> practice, but before this we definitively need to sor

Re: [systemd-devel] New "ubuntu-ci" integration tests are being added to PRs

On 02/18/2016 08:01 AM, Martin Pitt wrote: So please don't put too much attention to these results yet. I want to to enable them to see how the testing and communication holds up in practice, but before this we definitively need to sort out [2] first. Will failed tests or false positives start

Re: [systemd-devel] Support for large applications

Avi Kivity: We are using systemd to supervise our NoSQL database [...] Sometimes [it needs] to perform expensive operations during startup (log replay, rebuild from network replica) before we can start serving. Rather than configure a huge start timeout, I'd prefer to have the service report

[systemd-devel] New "ubuntu-ci" integration tests are being added to PRs

Hello all, you might already have noticed, but from now on PRs will not only trigger the semaphore checks (which are essentially a "make distcheck"), but also trigger more comprehensive integration tests on Ubuntu's autopkgtest infrastructure. These build actual binary .deb packages, install them