| 1 |
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 14:47:46 David Relson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:08:25 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Tuesday 02 February 2010 06:03:10 David Relson wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > G'day, |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > I've been running baselayout-2 for several months and it's been |
| 9 |
> > > working fine AFAICT. Over the weekend I noticed that my USB thumb |
| 10 |
> > > drive is no longer automounting. |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > This evening I ran "/etc/init.d/udev status" which reported: |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > * status: stopped". |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > Running "/etc/init.d/udev start" reported: |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > * The udev init-script is written for baselayout-2! |
| 19 |
> > > * Please do not use it with baselayout-1!. |
| 20 |
> > > * ERROR: udev failed to start |
| 21 |
> > > |
| 22 |
> > > The message occurs because /etc/init.d/udev checks for |
| 23 |
> > > /etc/init.d/sysfs, which is not present. |
| 24 |
> > > |
| 25 |
> > > Googling indicates that /etc/init.d/sysf comes from |
| 26 |
> > > sys-apps/openrc. I have openrc-0.3.0-r1 installed (from long |
| 27 |
> > > ago). openrc-0.6.0-r1 is available, though keyworded ~amd64. |
| 28 |
> > > Unmasking it and running "emerge -p ..." shows that sysvinit is a |
| 29 |
> > > blocker. |
| 30 |
> > > |
| 31 |
> > > Is it safe to delete sysvinit and emerge openrc-0.6.0-r1? Am I |
| 32 |
> > > likely to get myself into troubleif I do this? If so, how much and |
| 33 |
> > > how deep? |
| 34 |
> > |
| 35 |
> > very very very very deep trouble if you restart the machine and |
| 36 |
> > everything is not complete yet. Do not do that. |
| 37 |
> > |
| 38 |
> > all version of baselayout-2 are marked unstable and you likely have |
| 39 |
> > an old version of sysvinit that is not compatible with the ancient |
| 40 |
> > openrc you do have. That openrc is not in portage anymore. |
| 41 |
> > |
| 42 |
> > You should upgrade to the latest unstable portage (which supports |
| 43 |
> > automatically resolving blockers). You need baselayout, openrc and |
| 44 |
> > sysvinit as well as /etc/init.d/sysfs. I have none of these in world |
| 45 |
> > yet all are present. |
| 46 |
> > |
| 47 |
> > With the latest portage, try again and let portage figure out for |
| 48 |
> > itself what it wants to do. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> Hi Alan, |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> Reply appreciated! |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> I've been running unstable versions of portage for many months and |
| 55 |
> currently have 2.1.7.17, which _is_ the newest non-masked version. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
No, you completely misunderstand what stable, unstable and masked mean. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
You are using stable (and call it unstable which is wrong). What you call |
| 60 |
masked is actually called unstable. Masked is something else entirely. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Do not confuse these terms. They have *exact* meaning. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
You need to keyword portage as ~ in packages.keywords to release portage-2.2, |
| 65 |
which is the version that supports automagic blocker resolution. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
> With it, sysvinit is blocking (capital "B") openrc-0.6.0-r1 |
| 68 |
> and /etc/init.d/sysfs is not present (which makes /etc/init.d/udev |
| 69 |
> unhappy). |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
Thsi is correct. You have temporary blockers and the version of portage I said |
| 72 |
you should use just magically knows what to do. It knows this better than you |
| 73 |
do. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
> Since /etc/init.d/udev only _checks_ for the presence of |
| 76 |
> /etc/init.d/sysfs but doesn't run it (or anything), would creating a |
| 77 |
> dummy (zero length) sysfs file be workable? |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
Latest unstable openrc will likely fix this. |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
-- |
| 82 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives