[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#816686: jessie-pu: package systemd/215-17+deb8u4



Control: tags -1 + confirmed

On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 23:26 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> systemd (215-17+deb8u4) stable; urgency=medium
> 
>   [ Martin Pitt ]
>   * debian/udev.prerm: Add missing "deconfigure" action. (Closes: #809744)
> 
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-systemd/systemd.git/commit/?h=jessie&id=966a8a4098478e13694e054b90c3567474293d37
> 
>   * udev.postinst: Don't call addgroup with --quiet, so that if the "input"
>     group already exists as a non-system group you get a sensible error
>     message. Some broken tutorials forget the --system option.
>     (Closes: #769948, LP: #1455956)
>   * systemd.postinst: Drop the --quiet from the addgroup calls as well, same
>     reason as above. (Closes: #762275)
> 
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-systemd/systemd.git/commit/?h=jessie&id=22dbdc16557cd294a24bf0ed319e93c6788409e1
> 
>   [ Michael Biebl ]
>   * Make sure all swap units are ordered before the swap target. This avoids
>     that swap devices are being stopped prematurely during shutdown.
>     (Closes: #805133)
> 
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-systemd/systemd.git/commit/?h=jessie&id=c4793975137d5d522fee104b7dab94a79547effd
> 
> This is a rather important fix. Software might need the swap space on
> shutdown. Not having it around might lead to corrupt data.
> 
> This fix has been in unstable/testing for a while.
> 
>   * Only skip the filesystem check for /usr if the /run/initramfs/fsck-usr
>     flag file exists. Otherwise we break booting with dracut which uses
>     systemd inside the initramfs. (Closes: #810748)
> 
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-systemd/systemd.git/commit/?h=jessie&id=447f0bc15b247550bc50306e1c6000a56d8d68b0
> 
> Without this fix, having split-usr and dracut installed will result in
> an unbootable system. The fix has been in unstable/testing for a while.
> 
>   * Fix --network-interface in systemd-nspawn to not fail when modifying an
>     existing link. (Closes: #813696)

Please go ahead.

Regards,

Adam


Reply to: