On 5 April 2012 15:42, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:59:42 +0200, Dan Johansson wrote:
I have a similar thing on my ~x86, but the difference is that I know
why I get it. I have successfully be able to create an initramfs
that does a vgscan, vgchange
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 02:47:41 -0600, Carlos Sura wrote:
The problem is that it is trying to write to /var/lock, which is on /
at this point, rather than /run/lock, which is on a writeable tmpfs.
I got this error, and saw a bugfile on Gentoo, just downgrade to your
previous working version
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 11:38:40 +0100
Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 02:47:41 -0600, Carlos Sura wrote:
The problem is that it is trying to write to /var/lock, which is
on / at this point, rather than /run/lock, which is on a
writeable tmpfs.
I got this
On Saturday 07 Apr 2012 16:28:39 Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 11:38:40 +0100
Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 02:47:41 -0600, Carlos Sura wrote:
The problem is that it is trying to write to /var/lock, which is
on / at this point, rather than
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 17:28:39 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
That bug report also showed the correct solution. There's no need to
downgrade, just change the locking_dir location from /var/lock
to /run/lock. Not only is this simpler and faster, it means another
update can't cause the same
ectrons!
***
On Thursday 05 April 2012 00.36:33 Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:58:38 +0200, Dan Johansson wrote:
I have a similar thing on my ~x86, but the difference is that I know
why I get it. I have successfully be able to
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:59:42 +0200, Dan Johansson wrote:
I have a similar thing on my ~x86, but the difference is that I know
why I get it. I have successfully be able to create an initramfs
that does a vgscan, vgchange -a y and mounts /usr (which is on
LVM). But now I (naturally) I
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:09:26 -0700, walt wrote:
This is an ~amd64 machine, up to date as of today. The strange thing
is that lvm did *not* fail to start -- it's working perfectly.
Now, being an Incorrigible Old Fart(TM) I'm still using openrc, and
who knows what evil lurks in that
walt w41...@gmail.com wrote:
This is an ~amd64 machine, up to date as of today. The strange thing
is that lvm did *not* fail to start -- it's working perfectly.
Now, being an Incorrigible Old Fart(TM) I'm still using openrc, and
who knows what evil lurks in that paleolithic package? :p
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 18.09:26 walt wrote:
This is an ~amd64 machine, up to date as of today. The strange thing
is that lvm did *not* fail to start -- it's working perfectly.
Now, being an Incorrigible Old Fart(TM) I'm still using openrc, and
who knows what evil lurks in that paleolithic
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:58:38 +0200, Dan Johansson wrote:
I have a similar thing on my ~x86, but the difference is that I know
why I get it. I have successfully be able to create an initramfs that
does a vgscan, vgchange -a y and mounts /usr (which is on LVM). But now
I (naturally) I get LVM
This is an ~amd64 machine, up to date as of today. The strange thing
is that lvm did *not* fail to start -- it's working perfectly.
Now, being an Incorrigible Old Fart(TM) I'm still using openrc, and
who knows what evil lurks in that paleolithic package? :p
Anyone else getting this (false)
walt wrote:
This is an ~amd64 machine, up to date as of today. The strange thing
is that lvm did *not* fail to start -- it's working perfectly.
Now, being an Incorrigible Old Fart(TM) I'm still using openrc, and
who knows what evil lurks in that paleolithic package? :p
Anyone else
13 matches
Mail list logo
