Hi Michael,
Michael Biebl writes:
> An even better idea then simply adding that information to the bug
> report could be, to add a presubj script and test for the existence of
> such a version upgrade. Then show a message to the user explaining that
> this is generally not supported and she shoul
Am 14.08.2013 13:36, schrieb Michael Stapelberg:
> control: tags -1 + pending
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Michael Biebl writes:
>> What about this simple idea?
>> 3) preinst:
>> [ -d /run/systemd/system ] && systemctl --version >> /run/systemd-upgrade
>>
>> If someone upgrade e.g. from v44 → 204-1, then
control: tags -1 + pending
Hi Michael,
Michael Biebl writes:
> What about this simple idea?
> 3) preinst:
> [ -d /run/systemd/system ] && systemctl --version >> /run/systemd-upgrade
>
> If someone upgrade e.g. from v44 → 204-1, then 204-2, then files the
> bug, we could attach the file, to get a
Am 12.08.2013 21:51, schrieb Michael Stapelberg:
> The bugscript should include whether the machine was rebooted since the
> last systemd upgrade. This would allow us to discard issues that might
> be caused by people not rebooting. A simple way of tracking this
> information is creating a file in
Package: systemd
Version: 204-2
Severity: normal
During DebConf13, I talked a bit more with Lennart about the upgrade
process of systemd. He mentioned that updates without rebooting are
generally not tested and not guaranteed to work. Regardless of how we
actually encourage users to reboot their m
5 matches
Mail list logo
