On Mon, 26.01.15 14:00, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote: > Hi, > > condition_test_needs_update() wants the timestamp of /usr to be newer > than what is being checked. > > Is there a reason why we don't check for "/usr != > Condition.parameter"?
Well, when I hacked that up, I didn't think of this case. What are you saying ConditionNeedsUpdate=/usr is supposed to even mean? Not that we explicitly document that /etc and /var are the only valid parameters currently (because we only manage those stamp files with systemd-update-done.service). Hence, ConditionNeedsUpdate=/usr is undefined currently, and it's not clear to me what is should mean? > It makes sense to check for "/usr > Condition.parameter" in a package > managed linux but our embedded system is upgrading the entire /usr > partition. > > ConditionNeedsUpdate=/etc is working fine when we upgrade our image > but it fails when we downgrade it since the timestamp of /usr is older > than /etc/.updated. Well, this stuf is not intended to support downgrades. I don't think that can ever work... But anyway, I don't really understand what you are trying to say I must admit. Could you please elaborate? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel