Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#960 closed enhancement (wontfix)
Systemd 214 Changes
Reported by: | William Harrington | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | trivial | Milestone: | CLFS Standard 3.1.0 |
Component: | BOOK | Version: | CLFS Sysroot GIT |
Keywords: | Cc: | berzerkula@…, jonathan@… |
Description
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-June/019925.html
- We temporarily dropped the "-l" switch for fsck invocations,
since they collide with the flock() logic above. util-linux upstream has been changed already to avoid this conflict, and we will readd "-l" as soon as util-linux with this change has been released.
We may want to add this as a patch to our current Systemd 213 Has anyone experienced issues?
- The dependency on libattr has been removed. Since a long
time the extended attribute calls have moved to glibc, and libattr is thus unnecessary.
So we don't need libattr in the final-system build?
There are some new users/groups
This looks like a good upgrade after release or jump to Systemd 215/216.
But we may want to look at the first issue with -l option and fsck.
Change History (4)
comment:1 by , 10 years ago
comment:2 by , 10 years ago
I think this is a non-issue. According to that mailing list message, "fsck -l" only matters with systemd 214 since it adds an flock itself when checking a file system, and that conflicts with the "-l" from fsck, so previous systemd versions should be unaffected. Also, according to util-linux release notes, "-l" was only added to fsck in 2.19.
comment:3 by , 10 years ago
Martin stated he ran into issues with Systemd 213 and his configuration. I think we need to backport the patch from 214 to 213 to reverse the change made in 213 regarding -l switch.
comment:4 by , 10 years ago
Resolution: | → wontfix |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
It seems that in the README of Systemd 213:
I think the problem arises when using fsck -l with util-linux-ng or an earlier version of util-linux. Since our book uses a current version of util-linux, I think this issue can be ignored.
Is anyone else clear about this issue?