Am 07.02.2013 22:38, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
For what is worth, you also don't need to specify neither /dev nor
/proc in fstab with systemd. I'm not sure the init system has anything
to do with it, though; I believe is udev work, so with a recent
version of udev, no matter the init
On Monday 11 Feb 2013 15:38:28 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
Am 07.02.2013 22:38, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
For what is worth, you also don't need to specify neither /dev nor
/proc in fstab with systemd. I'm not sure the init system has anything
to do with it, though; I believe is udev
Mick wrote:
I would think so. This is the only line that I have in mine and the system
boots fine: # glibc 2.2
and above expects tmpfs to be mounted at /dev/shm for # POSIX shared
memory (shm_open, shm_unlink). # (tmpfs is a dynamically
expandable/shrinkable ramdisk, and will # use almost no
Am 11.02.2013 18:36, schrieb Dale:
Mick wrote:
I would think so. This is the only line that I have in mine and the system
boots fine: # glibc 2.2
and above expects tmpfs to be mounted at /dev/shm for # POSIX shared
memory (shm_open, shm_unlink). # (tmpfs is a dynamically
On 7 February 2013, at 21:37, Tanstaafl wrote:
...
I believe he is correct and /dev/shm is irrelevant for this discussion.
Ok, thanks, but... and no offense...
I am not willing to gamble on breaking a remotely accessed server based on
someone's 'I believe that this is correct' comment.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-02-07 4:25 PM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
wrote:
I think that a lot of people will misread that like I (we) did...
On Thursday 07 February 2013 21:37:27 Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-02-07 4:25 PM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
wrote:
I think that a lot of people will misread that like I (we) did...
I believe he is
On 2013-02-03 12:51 PM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org wrote:
The question is not whether to halt the build or not (that cannot and
will not be done) but how to do the communication:
- news item
There is one, from 2013-01-23, ending with 'Apologies if this news came
too late for you.'
On Thursday 07 February 2013 17:40:39 Tanstaafl wrote:
So, since I have:
shm/dev/shm tmpfs nodev,nosuid,noexec 0 0
I change the type tmpfs to devtmpfs... ok...
I think that's a mistake (because I did it too!) - you only need to change
the tile type of a /dev line, not
On 2013-02-07 12:53 PM, Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote:
On Thursday 07 February 2013 17:40:39 Tanstaafl wrote:
So, since I have:
shm/dev/shm tmpfs nodev,nosuid,noexec 0 0
I change the type tmpfs to devtmpfs... ok...
I think that's a mistake (because I did
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-02-07 12:53 PM, Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote:
On Thursday 07 February 2013 17:40:39 Tanstaafl wrote:
So, since I have:
shm/dev/shm tmpfs nodev,nosuid,noexec 0 0
I change
On 2013-02-07 4:25 PM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
I think that a lot of people will misread that like I (we) did...
I believe he is correct and /dev/shm is irrelevant for this discussion.
Ok,
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Paul Hartman
paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-02-07 12:53 PM, Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote:
On Thursday 07 February 2013 17:40:39 Tanstaafl wrote:
So, since
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-02-07 4:25 PM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
wrote:
I think that a lot of people will misread that like I (we) did...
On 07/02/2013 23:37, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-02-07 4:25 PM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
wrote:
I think that a lot of people will misread that like I (we) did...
I believe he is correct and /dev/shm is
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 22:47:15 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
I may be suffering from faulty wetRAM, but I'm sure I've seen ebuilds
bail because f incorrect kernel configuration in the past.
Just because the ebuild does it, does not mean it's correct to do it.
Nor does it make it wrong.
On 03/02/2013 13:24, Neil Bothwick wrote:
I may be suffering from faulty wetRAM, but I'm sure I've seen ebuilds
bail because f incorrect kernel configuration in the past.
Just because the ebuild does it, does not mean it's correct to do it.
Nor does it make it wrong. I'm all for
On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 14:02:39 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Nor does it make it wrong. I'm all for Gentoo allowing you to shoot
yourself in the foot, I just think it's a good idea to let you know
the gun is pointing at your foot before you pull the trigger.
Updating udev without the correct
On 03/02/2013 16:54, Neil Bothwick wrote:
This isn't about a lack of convenience, this upgrade WILL break a
computer that was working beforehand, and not tell the user about it
until after the damage is done. I'm not saying it is easy to find a
solution that helps avoid breaking while not
Alan McKinnon writes:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 16:21:10 +0100
Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org wrote:
Michael Mol writes:
[system does not boot after UDEV upgrade]
Ran into the same problem, with my sister's PC. Which I had updated
from remote, so I did not see the elogs. I do not think it
On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:24:50 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
So I say to you
Neil, what is your solution for all the myriad configurations possible
that DO NOT resemble your own? We know what your preferred solution is,
as you stated it clearly, but I am interested in all those other users
not
On 02/03/2013 12:24 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
- trying to infer something from the current running kernel, or
/usr/src/linux/.config or some magic name in /boot/ is pointless and
leads to so many false positives it isn't worth the effort in the
general case.
It was claimed that this will
Michael Mol writes:
So, I botched the upgrade to udev-191. I thought I'd followed the
steps, but I apparently only covered them for one machine, not both.
[...]
Udev also complained about DEVTMPFS not being enabled in the
kernel.[2] I couldn't get into X, but I could log in via getty and a
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 16:21:10 +0100
Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org wrote:
Michael Mol writes:
So, I botched the upgrade to udev-191. I thought I'd followed the
steps, but I apparently only covered them for one machine, not both.
[...]
Udev also complained about DEVTMPFS not being
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 21:17:38 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
The question is not whether to halt the build or not (that cannot and
will not be done) but how to do the communication:
I may be suffering from fault wetRAM, but I'm sure I've seen ebuilds bail
because f incorrect kernel configuration in
On 02/02/2013 22:31, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 21:17:38 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
The question is not whether to halt the build or not (that cannot and
will not be done) but how to do the communication:
I may be suffering from fault wetRAM, but I'm sure I've seen ebuilds bail
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 16:21:10 +0100
Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org wrote:
Michael Mol writes:
So, I botched the upgrade to udev-191. I thought I'd followed the
steps, but I apparently only covered them for one
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I botched the upgrade to udev-191. I thought I'd followed the
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com
On Thursday 31 January 2013 14:05:07 Michael Mol wrote:
OK, it looks like /dev/pts is not mounted. But darned if I know
why...Isn't udev supposed to handle that?
Why did you remove udev-mount from the sysinit level? I left mine alone and
it all works just fine.
--
Peter
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com
wrote:
On
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Peter Humphrey
pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote:
On Thursday 31 January 2013 14:05:07 Michael Mol wrote:
OK, it looks like /dev/pts is not mounted. But darned if I know
why...Isn't udev supposed to handle that?
Why did you remove udev-mount from the sysinit
On Thursday 31 January 2013 14:31:58 Michael Mol wrote:
Two pieces missing.
---8
Two, I'm not using an initramfs on this machine, so in *addition* to
needing to have CONFIG_DEVTMPFS enabled, I also needed to have
CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT enabled.
Rebuilding the kernel with that, and
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:35:06 -0500
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I botched the upgrade to udev-191. I thought I'd followed the
steps, but I apparently only covered them for one machine, not both.
The news item instructions specified that I had to remove
udev-postmount from my
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:35:06 -0500
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I botched the upgrade to udev-191. I thought I'd followed the
steps, but I apparently only covered them for one machine, not both.
The
On Thursday 31 Jan 2013 14:37:00 Michael Mol wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Peter Humphrey
pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote:
On Thursday 31 January 2013 14:05:07 Michael Mol wrote:
OK, it looks like /dev/pts is not mounted. But darned if I know
why...Isn't udev supposed to handle
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 31 Jan 2013 14:37:00 Michael Mol wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Peter Humphrey
pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote:
On Thursday 31 January 2013 14:05:07 Michael Mol wrote:
OK, it looks like /dev/pts is
So, I botched the upgrade to udev-191. I thought I'd followed the
steps, but I apparently only covered them for one machine, not both.
The news item instructions specified that I had to remove
udev-postmount from my runlevels. I didn't have udev-postmount in my
runlevels, so I didn't remove it.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I botched the upgrade to udev-191. I thought I'd followed the
steps, but I apparently only covered them for one machine, not both.
The news item instructions specified that I had to remove
udev-postmount from my
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I botched the upgrade to udev-191. I thought I'd followed the
steps, but I apparently only covered them for one machine, not both.
The news
41 matches
Mail list logo
