On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 23:56 on Sunday 29 May 2011, Mick did opine > thusly: > > > > I wonder if you haven't just tripped over a bug in baselayout or recent > > > stage3's. I just did a new install here but used an old stage3 that was > > > still baselayout-1. I did not run into the issues you did. What does > > > b.g.o. say? > > > > I'm sure that I've come across the same problem some time in the distant > > past and had to create these two nodes manually. > > > > However, it should be easy to prove if this is a bug or not - look in the > > stage3 tar file for /dev/console and /dev/null? > > True enough recent stage 3 tarballs for amd64 on my mirror are either > faulty > or do not contain /dev/console. > > May 20 and 26 are faulty > > April 28 is OK > > Colleen, you should follow the tip you found on Google to fix this. What > stage > 3 did you download and use? > Actually, I used the most recent one - I think May 26th, However, my first install (that I screwed up on was the May 25th one, but I got the same message. Don't know if it makes a difference, but I used a tarball for x86. Think I'll try the fix that I found on google first before attempting to find a stage 3 tarball that is not faulty. BTW, I can't recall from previous installs when I'm supposed to do this, but I thought that baselayout got emerged somewhere during the install prior to rebooting. There was no place in the handbook that mentioned installing baselayout ...... and yes, I did read the news item about baselayout2 and openrc migration. Regards, Colleen > > > > -- > alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com > >
