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