I C ... my bad On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:29 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz < [email protected]> wrote:
> Then you don't have a merged /usr yet. This is only present in the 2017 > images I created. > > On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Kevin Stabel <[email protected]> wrote: > > This install is about 6 months old i think. > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:21 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Was that system recently installed? >> >> If the installation is older, you don't have a merged /usr yet as this is >> an option to debootstrap which is run during installation. >> >> Adrian >> >> On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:14 AM, Kevin Stabel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> From my system: >> root@Noise ~# which mount >> /bin/mount >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:59 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> His problem could be the separate /usr partition which is no longer >>> supported on modern Linux distributions because of the usr-merge. See his >>> attached fstab. >>> >>> I'm not sure whether the mount command has been moved to /usr/bin yet >>> though. If yes, this could explain the problem. >>> >>> Adrian >>> >>> On Mar 29, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Kevin Stabel <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jesse, >>> >>> Wrong fs type in fstab? Is it ext3? >>> Wrong label in fstab? Try replacing the UUID=etc etc with /dev/sda1 >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Jesse Talavera-Greenberg < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 03/28/2017 05:30 AM, Jesse Talavera-Greenberg wrote: >>>> >>>> However, the /boot partition (which uses ext3) is failing to mount >>>> >>>> How does that manifest? What error message do you get? What are the >>>> contents >>>> of your /etc/fstab? >>>> >>>> Attached to this e-mail. And the error's manifestation appeared in the >>>> logs I posted in my previous e-mail. Specifically this part: >>>> >>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker systemd[1]: Mounting /boot... >>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker systemd[1]: var.mount: Directory /var to >>>> mount over is not empty, mounting anyway. >>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker systemd[1]: Mounting /var... >>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker kernel: des_sparc64: sparc64 des opcodes not >>>> available. >>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker kernel: md5_sparc64: sparc64 md5 opcode not >>>> available. >>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker kernel: aes_sparc64: sparc64 aes opcodes not >>>> available. >>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker systemd[1]: boot.mount: Mount process exited, >>>> code=exited status=32 >>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker systemd[1]: Failed to mount /boot. >>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker systemd[1]: Dependency failed for Local File >>>> Systems. >>>> >>>> and I don't know why. The weird thing is that I can mount it manually >>>> just fine, >>>> >>>> How do you mount it manually? Have you compared it to what's in /etc/fstab? >>>> >>>> I mount it through `mount /dev/sda1 /boot`. That's about it. >>>> >>>> though if I run systemctl default the console stops responding. >>>> >>>> Did you actually read the manpage for systemctl to understand what >>>> "systemctl >>>> default" does? >>>> >>>> Quoting: >>>> >>>> default >>>> Enter default mode. This is mostly equivalent to isolate >>>> default.target. >>>> and: >>>> "isolate" is only valid for start operations and causes all other units >>>> to >>>> be stopped when the specified unit is started. This mode is always used >>>> when >>>> the isolate command is used. >>>> >>>> So, "systemctl default" on Debian effectively kills all units except for >>>> the ones >>>> that are wanted by default.target. Don't run "systemctl default". >>>> >>>> Probably the default.target should be reconfigured in Debian's systemd >>>> package >>>> to avoid this problem. >>>> >>>> I don't understand what this means, can you elaborate? (I don't know >>>> very much about configuring Debian.) >>>> >>>> That being said, after I manually mounted /boot I was able to SSH into >>>> the machine like nothing ever happened; it seems like the default Linux >>>> login prompt just wasn't showing up. I think there's a boot parameter to >>>> that effect? Now I'm confused. >>>> >>> >>> >> >
