On Tuesday 02 February 2010 14:47:46 David Relson wrote: > On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:08:25 +0200 > > Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On Tuesday 02 February 2010 06:03:10 David Relson wrote: > > > G'day, > > > > > > I've been running baselayout-2 for several months and it's been > > > working fine AFAICT. Over the weekend I noticed that my USB thumb > > > drive is no longer automounting. > > > > > > This evening I ran "/etc/init.d/udev status" which reported: > > > > > > * status: stopped". > > > > > > Running "/etc/init.d/udev start" reported: > > > > > > * The udev init-script is written for baselayout-2! > > > * Please do not use it with baselayout-1!. > > > * ERROR: udev failed to start > > > > > > The message occurs because /etc/init.d/udev checks for > > > /etc/init.d/sysfs, which is not present. > > > > > > Googling indicates that /etc/init.d/sysf comes from > > > sys-apps/openrc. I have openrc-0.3.0-r1 installed (from long > > > ago). openrc-0.6.0-r1 is available, though keyworded ~amd64. > > > Unmasking it and running "emerge -p ..." shows that sysvinit is a > > > blocker. > > > > > > Is it safe to delete sysvinit and emerge openrc-0.6.0-r1? Am I > > > likely to get myself into troubleif I do this? If so, how much and > > > how deep? > > > > very very very very deep trouble if you restart the machine and > > everything is not complete yet. Do not do that. > > > > all version of baselayout-2 are marked unstable and you likely have > > an old version of sysvinit that is not compatible with the ancient > > openrc you do have. That openrc is not in portage anymore. > > > > You should upgrade to the latest unstable portage (which supports > > automatically resolving blockers). You need baselayout, openrc and > > sysvinit as well as /etc/init.d/sysfs. I have none of these in world > > yet all are present. > > > > With the latest portage, try again and let portage figure out for > > itself what it wants to do. > > Hi Alan, > > Reply appreciated! > > I've been running unstable versions of portage for many months and > currently have 2.1.7.17, which _is_ the newest non-masked version.
No, you completely misunderstand what stable, unstable and masked mean. You are using stable (and call it unstable which is wrong). What you call masked is actually called unstable. Masked is something else entirely. Do not confuse these terms. They have *exact* meaning. You need to keyword portage as ~ in packages.keywords to release portage-2.2, which is the version that supports automagic blocker resolution. > With it, sysvinit is blocking (capital "B") openrc-0.6.0-r1 > and /etc/init.d/sysfs is not present (which makes /etc/init.d/udev > unhappy). Thsi is correct. You have temporary blockers and the version of portage I said you should use just magically knows what to do. It knows this better than you do. > Since /etc/init.d/udev only _checks_ for the presence of > /etc/init.d/sysfs but doesn't run it (or anything), would creating a > dummy (zero length) sysfs file be workable? Latest unstable openrc will likely fix this. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
