"reinstalling systemd-sysv-utils should always bring
back a correct /sbin/init (which is a symlink)."

That is how it got fixed on my end, so confirmed.

Hopefully somebody else can confirm this is fixed.

first --> equo upgrade pulled in systemd revision.
second is -> equo install systemd-sysv-utils

Afterwards:
sabayon joost # ls -l  /sbin/init
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 26 Mar 26 19:43 /sbin/init ->
../usr/lib/systemd/systemd

Now the system boots up.

[19:39:50 26/03/2014 CET] INFO: [Package] [client] Installing package:
sys-apps/systemd-208-r3
[19:39:50 26/03/2014 CET] INFO: [Package] [client] WARNING!!! Failed to
handle file protection for: /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf, broken symlink in
package
[19:39:57 26/03/2014 CET] INFO: [Trigger] [client] [POST] Running env_update
[19:39:58 26/03/2014 CET] INFO: [Package] [client] Remove old package (spm
data): sys-apps/systemd-208-r3
[19:39:58 26/03/2014 CET] INFO: [Package] [client] Removing from SPM:
sys-apps/systemd-208-r3
[19:39:58 26/03/2014 CET] INFO: [Package] [client] Installing new SPM
entry: sys-apps/systemd-208-r3
[19:40:01 26/03/2014 CET] INFO: [Trigger] [client] [POST] Running env_update
 * Updating systemd journal catalogs ...                                 [
ok ]
 * Running udev control --reload for reloading rules and databases ...   [
ok ]
[19:43:48 26/03/2014 CET] INFO: [Package] [client] Removing package:
sys-apps/sysvinit-2.88-r10
[19:43:50 26/03/2014 CET] INFO: [Trigger] [client] [POST] Running env_update
[19:43:50 26/03/2014 CET] INFO: [Package] [client] Removing from SPM:
sys-apps/sysvinit-2.88-r10
[19:43:50 26/03/2014 CET] INFO: [Package] [client] Unpacking package:
/var/lib/entropy/client/packages/packages/amd64/5/sys-apps/sys-apps:systemd-sysv-utils-208.0c56af60c5f25f0470fc60063f66cd15e3b1bb05~1.tbz2
[19:43:51 26/03/2014 CET] INFO: [Package] [client] Installing package:
sys-apps/systemd-sysv-utils-208
[19:43:51 26/03/2014 CET] INFO: [Package] [client] Installing new SPM
entry: sys-apps/systemd-sysv-utils-208



On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Fabio Erculiani <[email protected]> wrote:

> I have found another problem. Basically sysvinit is set to be updated in
> spite of the fact that it should be dropped. Fixing it soon.
>
>
>
>


Reply via email to