On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 03:23:19PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Jan Janssen <[email protected]> wrote: > > --- > > man/systemctl.xml | 26 ++++++++++++++++ > > shell-completion/bash/systemctl.in | 8 ++++- > > shell-completion/zsh/_systemctl.in | 2 ++ > > src/fsck/fsck.c | 63 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > src/shared/efivars.h | 21 +++++++++++-- > > src/systemctl/systemctl.c | 64 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > Fsck is really something from the past, it should not be extended > beyond its current support. Filesystems which require fsck are in wide use and will be in wide use for the forseeable future.
> the kernel command line should be sufficient enough. The kernel command line is not a good fit for a few reasons. One is that it can be relatively hard to change, another is that changes are usually non-volatile, and yet another is that changing the commandline is a problem in the scheme in which kernel+initrd+cmdline are signed together. EFI variables are the right solution for EFI systems. > Using non-volatile EFI variables for normal system operations does not > sound right, we should not start using that fragile subsystem for > things like this Volatile indeed sounds better. Are there volatile variables which are survive a reboot but are then erased automatically? Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
