On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 08:08:34PM -0000, Eduard Hasenleithner wrote: > > (I would prefer not to just '|| true' the udevadm call, though, since I > > think having to occasionally reboot the machine again is better than being > > left with extra udev processes running around doing who-knows-what on the > > system.)
> Very valid point. But wouldn't it then be better in the case of udevadm- > control failing to do something which gets 100% attention of the user, > and with an explicit diagnosis message describing the problem? Simply > not moving '/dev' to rootfs, and letting the failed boot to reach its > "fate", seems to be a bit too obscure for me. I agree. Could you file a new bug against the initramfs-tools package requesting this? > Being an "expert user", I would also like to have the busybox-shell for > the failure case of course ;) The obvious way to implement this would be to use the panic handler for script failures. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected] -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/818177 Title: boot failures because 'udevadm exit' times out while udevd waits for an already-dead thread To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-release-notes/+bug/818177/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
