Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Systemd 230 Released

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by sarfarazahmad View Post
    would it make sense to say that the 90s timeout is a little too much ?
    I would like to see these timeouts be configurable to desired values and using 0 for disabling timeout entirely. And when there is a stuck process at shutdown time, systemd should write an entry in the log mentioning what programs/processes are still running at that point so that can help with debugging (or filing bug reports against such misbehaving applications).

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by DeepDayze View Post

      I would like to see these timeouts be configurable to desired values and using 0 for disabling timeout entirely. And when there is a stuck process at shutdown time, systemd should write an entry in the log mentioning what programs/processes are still running at that point so that can help with debugging (or filing bug reports against such misbehaving applications).
      It _is_ configurable.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by sarfarazahmad View Post
        even after so much development systemd is still facing these silly bugs
        so much silly people are still thinking it is a bug with systemd

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by sarfarazahmad View Post
          would it make sense to say that the 90s timeout is a little too much ?
          if you have such stupid requirement, change timeout in config file ffs

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by DeepDayze View Post
            I would like to see these timeouts be configurable to desired value
            i would like to see you reading the fucking manual

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by ihatemichael View Post
              Is this bug fixed in 230 or not?

              https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1615
              1615 is not closed, but its sister-bug IS declared closed. Lennart is asking anyone who was hit by this bug to test systemd 230 whenever possible and report back.
              Last edited by Ericg; 22 May 2016, 01:03 PM. Reason: Replaced "fixed" with "closed" to avoid confusing.
              All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Ericg View Post

                1615 is not fixed, but its sister-bug IS declared closed. Lennart is asking anyone who was hit by this bug to test systemd 230 whenever possible and report back.
                Gotcha. Still waiting for 230 to hit [core] on Arch and I'll test it out.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by ihatemichael View Post

                  Gotcha. Still waiting for 230 to hit [core] on Arch and I'll test it out.
                  Sister-bug is https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2691
                  All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                    Yep, I know. Thanks.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                      i would like to see you reading the fucking manual
                      even though its weekend, looks like it isnt doing much for you.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X