| 1 |
Randy Barlow posted on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:34:54 -0500 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On January 19, 2015 4:55:30 PM EST, Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>The failure is three messages: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>/init: line 16: mount: not found |
| 8 |
>>/init: line 17: mount: not found |
| 9 |
>>/init: line 18: mount: not found |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>>which appear to correlate with lines 16-18: |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>>mount -t proc none /proc |
| 14 |
>>mount -t sysfs none /sys |
| 15 |
>>mount -t devtmpfs none /dev |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Have you tried using a full path to the mount command? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Disclaimer: I've not had busybox on my system since I switched to gentoo |
| 20 |
in 2004[1], so don't expect me to be much help with busybox-specific |
| 21 |
stuff. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
That said, the error is clear enough... mount isn't found on the path. |
| 24 |
That's almost certainly one of two problems, both with straightforward |
| 25 |
solutions: |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
1) Missing mount -> busybox symlink. (Most likely.) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
2) That symlink not in the path, for some reason. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
If the symlink's in the initr*, that'd be #2, so either adjust the path |
| 33 |
accordingly before calling mount, or as Randy suggests, call mount using |
| 34 |
the full path. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
If instead the symlink's not there at all, as I suspect, that's #1. |
| 37 |
Ensure that the symlink is available before attempting to use it, either |
| 38 |
by placing it in the initr* at initr* build-time, or by using bitlord's |
| 39 |
suggestion (busybox --install -s prior to invoking mount). |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Presumably something changed in the new busybox and it's documented |
| 42 |
somewhere, for example that initr*s are expected to run busybox --install |
| 43 |
-s if they use the mount symlink now, or the like, and if I used busybox |
| 44 |
I'd probably know about it from some time ago since I run ~arch, and |
| 45 |
could then explain what and why, but since I don't... well I already said |
| 46 |
"presumably". |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
--- |
| 49 |
[1] Busybox wouldn't build then for some reason so I bypassed/ |
| 50 |
package.provided it, and I've never needed it as I keep what amounts to a |
| 51 |
second copy of the system as a backup, with the copy taken when the |
| 52 |
system was known working and stable, and tested by booting with root= |
| 53 |
pointing at the backup before I trust it just as I would in an emergency, |
| 54 |
as my emergency-boot, so I've simply never bothered with busybox. Of |
| 55 |
course these days I run a custom profile with a totally empty @system |
| 56 |
(all normal @system packages have a negating entry leaving nothing in |
| 57 |
@system), and all the not-otherwise-depended packages I actually need in |
| 58 |
@world, and since I don't need busybox and it's not a dependency of |
| 59 |
anything I run, it's simply not there. =:^) |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 63 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 64 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives