Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[deloptes]

Erwan David wrote:

> 
> systemd is NOT an init system. It is a global system pretending to
> replace init, session management,dns, ntp, and more and more other
> components with incomplete solutions thought only for the laptops of its
> developers (see the "we won't support hard disks, we all use SDDs").

It will not pretend if you not use it. I avoided using it for couple of
years already. I am not using it on servers, but for the notebook it might
be better than sysv. It's just complicated in the beginning ... and I am a
beginner. But hey, I just managed to solve my first systemd issue today ...

regards

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[Erwan David]

Le 01/10/2017 à 21:49, David Wright a écrit :
> On Tue 10 Jan 2017 at 20:54:50 (+0100), Steffen Dettmer wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Michael Biebl  wrote:
> I'd rather keep it as simple as possible

 you can still use sysvinit as init
>>
>> I read that trying to use sysvinit causes trouble and several things
>> depend on systemd at the moment.
> 
> You can read almost any opinion you like on the web about sysvinit and
> systemd. Many of them are wrong.
> 
>>> The shell scripts used by sysvinit are not simpler. More familiar maybe,
> ↑
>>> but not simpler.
>>
>> Simplicity can very roughly approximated by source code size.
>> Do you think the systemd implementation of the fsck wrapper
>> is simpler that "fsck -A"?
> 
> Not a fair comparison.
> 
> Sysvinit and systemd are just two init systems amongst many,
> and they take very different approaches. You can use either
> in Debian so please stop complaining.
> 
>> I hope GNU/Linux forks off as soon as systemd integrates an own
>> kernel (systemk) and its reimplementation of Wayland (systemx)
>> in one binary image blob, which for technical reasons will
>> temporarily be called \EFI\BOOT\BOOTx64.EFI, but only until
>> UEFI BIOS functionalities are fully integrated. Then you can POST
>> and fsck in parallel, write units that depend on POST (so X won't
>> start before POST passed! Imagine that!!) to form a clean, simple
>> and modern-to-the-max system.
>>
>> SCNR :-)
> 
> Cheap. People here are trying to help, and you troll.
> 
> Cheers,
> David.
> 

systemd is NOT an init system. It is a global system pretending to
replace init, session management,dns, ntp, and more and more other
components with incomplete solutions thought only for the laptops of its
developers (see the "we won't support hard disks, we all use SDDs").

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[Charlie]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:57:36 -0500 rhkra...@gmail.com sent:

> > > This is called evolution.  
> > 
> > There are dissenting views, and y'all know that.  
> 
> Just to get my $0.02 in, evolution makes many mistakes.  In fact, it
> is a process of (accidental) trial and error.  ;-)

After contemplation, my reply is:

Mistakes? Evolution is a gradual tweaking of adaptation. Revolution
makes mistakes. [laughing]

Charlie

-- 
Registered Linux User:- 329524
***

He who knows others is wise; He who know himself is
enlightened. -Lao-tzu

***

Debian GNU/Linux - Magic indeed.

-

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[David Wright]

On Tue 10 Jan 2017 at 20:54:50 (+0100), Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Michael Biebl  wrote:
> >>> I'd rather keep it as simple as possible
> >>
> >> you can still use sysvinit as init
> 
> I read that trying to use sysvinit causes trouble and several things
> depend on systemd at the moment.

You can read almost any opinion you like on the web about sysvinit and
systemd. Many of them are wrong.

> > The shell scripts used by sysvinit are not simpler. More familiar maybe,
↑
> > but not simpler.
> 
> Simplicity can very roughly approximated by source code size.
> Do you think the systemd implementation of the fsck wrapper
> is simpler that "fsck -A"?

Not a fair comparison.

Sysvinit and systemd are just two init systems amongst many,
and they take very different approaches. You can use either
in Debian so please stop complaining.

> I hope GNU/Linux forks off as soon as systemd integrates an own
> kernel (systemk) and its reimplementation of Wayland (systemx)
> in one binary image blob, which for technical reasons will
> temporarily be called \EFI\BOOT\BOOTx64.EFI, but only until
> UEFI BIOS functionalities are fully integrated. Then you can POST
> and fsck in parallel, write units that depend on POST (so X won't
> start before POST passed! Imagine that!!) to form a clean, simple
> and modern-to-the-max system.
> 
> SCNR :-)

Cheap. People here are trying to help, and you troll.

Cheers,
David.

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 08:54:50PM +0100, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Michael Biebl  wrote:
> >>> I'd rather keep it as simple as possible
> >>
> >> you can still use sysvinit as init
> 
> I read that trying to use sysvinit causes trouble and several things
> depend on systemd at the moment.
> 
> > The shell scripts used by sysvinit are not simpler. More familiar maybe,
> > but not simpler.
> 
> Simplicity can very roughly approximated by source code size.
> Do you think the systemd implementation of the fsck wrapper
> is simpler that "fsck -A"?
> 
> I hope GNU/Linux forks off as soon as systemd integrates an own
> kernel (systemk) and its reimplementation of Wayland (systemx)
> in one binary image blob, which for technical reasons will
> temporarily be called \EFI\BOOT\BOOTx64.EFI, but only until
> UEFI BIOS functionalities are fully integrated. Then you can POST
> and fsck in parallel, write units that depend on POST (so X won't
> start before POST passed! Imagine that!!) to form a clean, simple
> and modern-to-the-max system.

C'm on. Calm on. Feeding the flames doesn't help anyone.

> SCNR :-)

Please, resist. Good, clean arguments. Respect other views. If
we manage that on both sides life may be nice.

regards
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlh1REYACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYt0ACfewou0ygNmQFs3bhbMcbGYeBd
fxsAnjQH0IvFrWpes3m7hev8WjlpQowX
=mwug
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[Joe]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 20:54:50 +0100
Steffen Dettmer  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Michael Biebl 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> you can still use sysvinit as init  
> 
> I read that trying to use sysvinit causes trouble and several things
> depend on systemd at the moment.
> 

Various things require that parts of systemd be present on the system
(notably libpam-systemd, I think), but systemd can be fully installed
without it being used as the init system.

-- 
Joe

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[Steffen Dettmer]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Dominique Dumont  wrote:
> On Monday, 9 January 2017 22:49:02 CET Steffen Dettmer wrote:
>> I'm looking at Jessie (Debian 8) man fsck. I found no refernce
>> to systemd. I think this is some compatiblity feature of systemd.
>
> See  systemd.mount(5) and systemd.swap(5)
>
> Compatiblity is done by systemd-fstab-generator

Thank you, this are very good entry points and explain a lot!

Steffen

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[Steffen Dettmer]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Michael Biebl  wrote:
>>> I'd rather keep it as simple as possible
>>
>> you can still use sysvinit as init

I read that trying to use sysvinit causes trouble and several things
depend on systemd at the moment.

> The shell scripts used by sysvinit are not simpler. More familiar maybe,
> but not simpler.

Simplicity can very roughly approximated by source code size.
Do you think the systemd implementation of the fsck wrapper
is simpler that "fsck -A"?

I hope GNU/Linux forks off as soon as systemd integrates an own
kernel (systemk) and its reimplementation of Wayland (systemx)
in one binary image blob, which for technical reasons will
temporarily be called \EFI\BOOT\BOOTx64.EFI, but only until
UEFI BIOS functionalities are fully integrated. Then you can POST
and fsck in parallel, write units that depend on POST (so X won't
start before POST passed! Imagine that!!) to form a clean, simple
and modern-to-the-max system.

SCNR :-)

Steffen

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[deloptes]

rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 03:39:06 AM to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:14:48AM +0100, deloptes wrote:
>> > Michael Biebl wrote:
>> > > Am 10.01.2017 um 00:43 schrieb deloptes:
>> > >> Steffen Dettmer wrote:
>> > >>> I'd rather keep it as simple as possible
>> > >> 
>> > >> you can still use sysvinit as init
>> > > 
>> > > The shell scripts used by sysvinit are not simpler. More familiar
>> > > maybe, but not simpler.
>> > 
>> > This is called evolution.
>> 
>> There are dissenting views, and y'all know that.
> 
> Just to get my $0.02 in, evolution makes many mistakes.  In fact, it is a
> process of (accidental) trial and error.  ;-)

So my classification of systemd was correct :)

regards

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[David Wright]

On Tue 10 Jan 2017 at 12:51:09 (+0100), Dominique Dumont wrote:
> On Monday, 9 January 2017 22:49:02 CET Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> > I'm looking at Jessie (Debian 8) man fsck. I found no refernce
> > to systemd. I think this is some compatiblity feature of systemd.
> 
> See  systemd.mount(5) and systemd.swap(5) 
> 
> Compatiblity is done by systemd-fstab-generator

So it would appear that what's needed is a reference
from   man fstab   to a   man systemd.fstab (newly written),
particularly in view of statements like "If a swap device or
file is configured in both /etc/fstab and a unit file, the
configuration in the latter takes precedence"¹.

But, in the absence of that, careful perusal of all of

man systemd-fstab-generator
man systemd-fsck
man systemd-remount-fs
man systemd.mount
man systemd.swap (source of ¹)

is advisable. It doesn't really make sense to read   man.fsck
without systemd-fstab-generator and systemd-fsck open at the
same time because the latter two directly contradict what's
written in the first. Perhaps   man fsck   etc should really
be invoked as   man sysv-fsck   etc.

Cheers,
David.

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[rhkramer]

On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 03:39:06 AM to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:14:48AM +0100, deloptes wrote:
> > Michael Biebl wrote:
> > > Am 10.01.2017 um 00:43 schrieb deloptes:
> > >> Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> > >>> I'd rather keep it as simple as possible
> > >> 
> > >> you can still use sysvinit as init
> > > 
> > > The shell scripts used by sysvinit are not simpler. More familiar
> > > maybe, but not simpler.
> > 
> > This is called evolution.
> 
> There are dissenting views, and y'all know that.

Just to get my $0.02 in, evolution makes many mistakes.  In fact, it is a 
process of (accidental) trial and error.  ;-)

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[Dominique Dumont]

On Monday, 9 January 2017 22:49:02 CET Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> I'm looking at Jessie (Debian 8) man fsck. I found no refernce
> to systemd. I think this is some compatiblity feature of systemd.

See  systemd.mount(5) and systemd.swap(5) 

Compatiblity is done by systemd-fstab-generator

HTH

-- 
 https://github.com/dod38fr/   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/
http://ddumont.wordpress.com/  -o-   irc: dod at irc.debian.org

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:49:02PM +0100, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> Because man page says so? Because fsck's job is to check fs?
> Don't know what systemd interferes at all.

See systemd-fsck(8).

-- 
Jonathan Dowland
Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:14:48AM +0100, deloptes wrote:
> Michael Biebl wrote:
> 
> > Am 10.01.2017 um 00:43 schrieb deloptes:
> >> Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> >> 
> >>> I'd rather keep it as simple as possible
> >> 
> >> you can still use sysvinit as init
> > 
> > The shell scripts used by sysvinit are not simpler. More familiar maybe,
> > but not simpler.
> > 
> > 
> 
> This is called evolution.

There are dissenting views, and y'all know that.

- -- t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlh0nakACgkQBcgs9XrR2kadPwCeNeHa5STYf7ch9guH2g4L5yCt
nFIAnRgv7tQtS4jS0EjFnQSRb+0WWPfo
=2cZU
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[deloptes]

Michael Biebl wrote:

> Am 10.01.2017 um 00:43 schrieb deloptes:
>> Steffen Dettmer wrote:
>> 
>>> I'd rather keep it as simple as possible
>> 
>> you can still use sysvinit as init
> 
> The shell scripts used by sysvinit are not simpler. More familiar maybe,
> but not simpler.
> 
> 

This is called evolution.

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[Michael Biebl]

Am 10.01.2017 um 00:43 schrieb deloptes:
> Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> 
>> I'd rather keep it as simple as possible
> 
> you can still use sysvinit as init

The shell scripts used by sysvinit are not simpler. More familiar maybe,
but not simpler.


-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[deloptes]

Steffen Dettmer wrote:

> I'd rather keep it as simple as possible

you can still use sysvinit as init

or follow without-systemd.org

regards

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[Steffen Dettmer]

Hi,

thank you for your quick reply.

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:38 AM, David Wright  wrote:
> On Sun 08 Jan 2017 at 15:56:36 (+0100), Steffen Dettmer wrote:
>> apparently is ignored and "1" is assumed instead, BUT systemd does not
>> call fsck! fsck parsed the line as intended (pass=0 -> no check), so
>> is all fine.
>
> Why would fsck parse /etc/fstab?

Because man page says so? Because fsck's job is to check fs?
Don't know what systemd interferes at all.

> man fstab   in jessie is pretty long in the tooth (from the days of
> lenny) and might have some clarification of how systemd scans it,
> which does seem to differ from sysvinit's approach.

I'm looking at Jessie (Debian 8) man fsck. I found no refernce
to systemd. I think this is some compatiblity feature of systemd.

> How essential it was to read §5.6.1 in jessie's release notes!

Thanks for pointing this. Indeed. So no need to write a bug
report, already documented :)

I remember similar issues long time ago with messages like
"failed to mount the root file system, dropping an emergency
shell" or alike.

> I think they might usefully have added here a recommendation to
> check /etc/fstab thoroughly for non-compliance with the stricter
> behaviour of systemd. I got caught out by systemd's acting upon
> cruft that sysv happily ignored as redundant.

You cannot check everything everytime. Next time systemd
includes a kernel and you need to migrate boot options... SCNR :)

> A bug report would involve an explanation of exactly what you
> think the bug is, without the words "apparently", "probably",
> "assumed", "intended", "do things itself", etc.

I can explain what I see and wait I expect, but not be sure about
the cause. There are so many possible reasons why an error
message could be missing.
Or it is not a bug at all but a feature, to avoid irritating the emergency
shell users with too much technical details. I'm not familiar with
systemd, surely a source of problems. I just used it because I was
told using sysv on Debian 8 or other recent Linuxes caused more
difficulties. I'd rather keep it as simple as possible.

Steffen

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[David Wright]

On Sun 08 Jan 2017 at 15:56:36 (+0100), Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> main problem was the disk indeed! Apparently there was a typo in
> fstab, probably leading to a parse error (which isn't shown
> unfortunately) then the value "0" in the "pass" row for fsck
> apparently is ignored and "1" is assumed instead, BUT systemd does not
> call fsck! fsck parsed the line as intended (pass=0 -> no check), so
> is all fine.

Why would fsck parse /etc/fstab?

> I tested with pass=1, then fsck has correct error
> behavior and logs a clear error message. But systemd tries to do
> things itself and then the chain of bugs and odds start. Maybe systemd
> should be dropped until properly implemented (or superseeded).
> 
> I think actually this is the main bug: systemd uses /etc/fstab like
> fsck and friends do, but wrongly (differently). This even seems to be
> a known issue (google found quite a lot of related rants).
> 
> Does it make sense to submit a bug report at least for the most
> important bugs? Probably not, because the issues seem to be known
> already?

man fstab   in jessie is pretty long in the tooth (from the days of
lenny) and might have some clarification of how systemd scans it,
which does seem to differ from sysvinit's approach.

Similarly, both   man fstab   and   man mount   could benefit from
more gloss on (no)auto and nofail. Compare the terse "nofail"
entry with the following one on "relatime" which discusses
kernel versions.

How essential it was to read §5.6.1 in jessie's release notes!
I think they might usefully have added here a recommendation to
check /etc/fstab thoroughly for non-compliance with the stricter
behaviour of systemd. I got caught out by systemd's acting upon
cruft that sysv happily ignored as redundant.

A bug report would involve an explanation of exactly what you
think the bug is, without the words "apparently", "probably",
"assumed", "intended", "do things itself", etc.

> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Steffen Dettmer
>  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think I found some more information.
> >
> > In short:
> > "Failed at step exec spawning /bin/plymouth: no such file or directory"
> > but I have no clue why it is suddenly missing or suddenly required.
> > I found postings in the internet that simply installing plymouth seems
> > not to solve this issue.
> >
> > What can I do about this?
> > Any hints appreciated.
> >
> > In detail:
> > Google suggested "systemctl status". This shows "State: maintenance",
> > "Jobs: 0 queued", "Failed: 0 units" and some output looking like
> > pstree which tells me nothing.
> > Why "maintenance" when there are no fails?
> > Is it true that logging, debugging and troubleshooting still is not
> > implemented correctly in systemd?
> >
> > "systemctl --failed" shows "0 loaded units listed". According to man
> > page the command is supposed to list failed units, not loaded units,
> > so I'm not sure what is true. 0 fails would be good, 0 loaded probably
> > be bad. It could explain why I don't get syslog messages.
> >
> > I also found the command "journalctl -p 3 -xb". man page tells
> > something about a so-called "system journal". Man page references some
> > desktop stuff (freedesktop.org) and seems to be related to systemd as
> > well (seems all my recent issues are systemd issues -  hope it dies as
> > fast as upstart). Man page of systemd-journald.service suggests
> > systemd invented an own wheel called syslog which does not write to
> > /var/log? Man page mentions /var/log/journal/ files, but no such
> > directory exists.
> >
> > "journalctl -p 3 -xb" shows some information in red color, in reverse
> > order assuming the later the more important:
> > 1) "r8169 firmware: failed to load rtl_nic/rtl8168g-2.fw"
> > but eth0 is state UP, so should be fine. At least I should get a
> > normal local login prompt.
> >
> > 2) "Failed at step exec spawning /bin/plymouth: no such file or directory"
> > Google suggest this is some graphical whatever, so I think it would be
> > a bug if found on a server
> >
> > 3) "Dependency failed for local file systems"
> > sounds bad, but all file systems are there?
> >
> > 4) "Depencency failed for /mnt/grace"
> > /mnt/grace was used to mount a USB disk and of course the system must
> > not depend on it
> >
> > 5) "TImed out waiting to device dev-disk-by-\x2dlabel-Grace.device
> > I guess "\x2d" is just a funny systemd way to write "-".
> > This probably is the cause for 4) and 5).
> > I have no idea why systemd waits for this disk at all. As it noticed
> > it is not even connected. I assume this is systemds replacement of USB
> > automouter and that it is safe to ignore it.
> >
> > So only problem I can see is missing /bin/plymouth. Could it got lost
> > during apt-get ugrade? Shall I install it? I hope I don't need
> > graphical whatever, can it be disabled?
> >
> > Steffen
> 

Cheers,
David.

Re: systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[Steffen Dettmer]

Hi,

main problem was the disk indeed! Apparently there was a typo in
fstab, probably leading to a parse error (which isn't shown
unfortunately) then the value "0" in the "pass" row for fsck
apparently is ignored and "1" is assumed instead, BUT systemd does not
call fsck! fsck parsed the line as intended (pass=0 -> no check), so
is all fine. I tested with pass=1, then fsck has correct error
behavior and logs a clear error message. But systemd tries to do
things itself and then the chain of bugs and odds start. Maybe systemd
should be dropped until properly implemented (or superseeded).

I think actually this is the main bug: systemd uses /etc/fstab like
fsck and friends do, but wrongly (differently). This even seems to be
a known issue (google found quite a lot of related rants).

Does it make sense to submit a bug report at least for the most
important bugs? Probably not, because the issues seem to be known
already?

Steffen


On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Steffen Dettmer
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think I found some more information.
>
> In short:
> "Failed at step exec spawning /bin/plymouth: no such file or directory"
> but I have no clue why it is suddenly missing or suddenly required.
> I found postings in the internet that simply installing plymouth seems
> not to solve this issue.
>
> What can I do about this?
> Any hints appreciated.
>
> In detail:
> Google suggested "systemctl status". This shows "State: maintenance",
> "Jobs: 0 queued", "Failed: 0 units" and some output looking like
> pstree which tells me nothing.
> Why "maintenance" when there are no fails?
> Is it true that logging, debugging and troubleshooting still is not
> implemented correctly in systemd?
>
> "systemctl --failed" shows "0 loaded units listed". According to man
> page the command is supposed to list failed units, not loaded units,
> so I'm not sure what is true. 0 fails would be good, 0 loaded probably
> be bad. It could explain why I don't get syslog messages.
>
> I also found the command "journalctl -p 3 -xb". man page tells
> something about a so-called "system journal". Man page references some
> desktop stuff (freedesktop.org) and seems to be related to systemd as
> well (seems all my recent issues are systemd issues -  hope it dies as
> fast as upstart). Man page of systemd-journald.service suggests
> systemd invented an own wheel called syslog which does not write to
> /var/log? Man page mentions /var/log/journal/ files, but no such
> directory exists.
>
> "journalctl -p 3 -xb" shows some information in red color, in reverse
> order assuming the later the more important:
> 1) "r8169 firmware: failed to load rtl_nic/rtl8168g-2.fw"
> but eth0 is state UP, so should be fine. At least I should get a
> normal local login prompt.
>
> 2) "Failed at step exec spawning /bin/plymouth: no such file or directory"
> Google suggest this is some graphical whatever, so I think it would be
> a bug if found on a server
>
> 3) "Dependency failed for local file systems"
> sounds bad, but all file systems are there?
>
> 4) "Depencency failed for /mnt/grace"
> /mnt/grace was used to mount a USB disk and of course the system must
> not depend on it
>
> 5) "TImed out waiting to device dev-disk-by-\x2dlabel-Grace.device
> I guess "\x2d" is just a funny systemd way to write "-".
> This probably is the cause for 4) and 5).
> I have no idea why systemd waits for this disk at all. As it noticed
> it is not even connected. I assume this is systemds replacement of USB
> automouter and that it is safe to ignore it.
>
> So only problem I can see is missing /bin/plymouth. Could it got lost
> during apt-get ugrade? Shall I install it? I hope I don't need
> graphical whatever, can it be disabled?
>
> Steffen

systemd requires "plymouth" on server? (was: Systemd: no error but "maintenance mode")

[Steffen Dettmer]

Hi,

I think I found some more information.

In short:
"Failed at step exec spawning /bin/plymouth: no such file or directory"
but I have no clue why it is suddenly missing or suddenly required.
I found postings in the internet that simply installing plymouth seems
not to solve this issue.

What can I do about this?
Any hints appreciated.

In detail:
Google suggested "systemctl status". This shows "State: maintenance",
"Jobs: 0 queued", "Failed: 0 units" and some output looking like
pstree which tells me nothing.
Why "maintenance" when there are no fails?
Is it true that logging, debugging and troubleshooting still is not
implemented correctly in systemd?

"systemctl --failed" shows "0 loaded units listed". According to man
page the command is supposed to list failed units, not loaded units,
so I'm not sure what is true. 0 fails would be good, 0 loaded probably
be bad. It could explain why I don't get syslog messages.

I also found the command "journalctl -p 3 -xb". man page tells
something about a so-called "system journal". Man page references some
desktop stuff (freedesktop.org) and seems to be related to systemd as
well (seems all my recent issues are systemd issues -  hope it dies as
fast as upstart). Man page of systemd-journald.service suggests
systemd invented an own wheel called syslog which does not write to
/var/log? Man page mentions /var/log/journal/ files, but no such
directory exists.

"journalctl -p 3 -xb" shows some information in red color, in reverse
order assuming the later the more important:
1) "r8169 firmware: failed to load rtl_nic/rtl8168g-2.fw"
but eth0 is state UP, so should be fine. At least I should get a
normal local login prompt.

2) "Failed at step exec spawning /bin/plymouth: no such file or directory"
Google suggest this is some graphical whatever, so I think it would be
a bug if found on a server

3) "Dependency failed for local file systems"
sounds bad, but all file systems are there?

4) "Depencency failed for /mnt/grace"
/mnt/grace was used to mount a USB disk and of course the system must
not depend on it

5) "TImed out waiting to device dev-disk-by-\x2dlabel-Grace.device
I guess "\x2d" is just a funny systemd way to write "-".
This probably is the cause for 4) and 5).
I have no idea why systemd waits for this disk at all. As it noticed
it is not even connected. I assume this is systemds replacement of USB
automouter and that it is safe to ignore it.

So only problem I can see is missing /bin/plymouth. Could it got lost
during apt-get ugrade? Shall I install it? I hope I don't need
graphical whatever, can it be disabled?

Steffen