On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 09:50:02PM +0100, pk wrote
> So udev-181 (masked) is ok to use without initrd and separate /usr
> then? Thanks for the info!
I believe that 180 or 181 is the first version that requires /usr on /
(or an initramfs or whatever). And that's why it's currently masked.
--
Hello!
2012/3/11 Canek Peláez Valdés :
>> The next step was to remove /usr from /etc/fstab to prevent /usr from
>> being mounted twice (the boot process does not like it).
>
> Mmmh. Could you try to use LABEL= in /etc/fstab (not /etc/fstab), and
> see if that way it gets mounted, and only once? T
2012/3/11 Jorge Martínez López :
> Hi!
>
> I had some struggle with a separate /usr on top of LVM and the dracut
> thing. I noticed that udev was complaining at boot that it could not
> find some scripts.
>
> The usmount dracut module did not work for me because it could not
> find /usr. So what I
Hi!
I had some struggle with a separate /usr on top of LVM and the dracut
thing. I noticed that udev was complaining at boot that it could not
find some scripts.
The usmount dracut module did not work for me because it could not
find /usr. So what I did was to include the fstab-sys smodule in
dra
On 2012-03-11 03:36, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> "This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of
> udev >=181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot your
> system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr.
Ok, I thank both you and Neil for this info. In hin
-- Sent from my Palm Pre
On Mar 10, 2012 10:38 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:58:18 +0100, pk wrote:
> Btw, does anyone know which version of udev requires access to /usr? I'm
> running latest stable here 171-r5 and I have separate partitions for
> /
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:50 PM, pk wrote:
> On 2012-03-10 16:35, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> I'm using the latest testing with a separate /usr and no problems.
>
> So udev-181 (masked) is ok to use without initrd and separate /usr
> then? Thanks for the info!
Just posted to -devel, the news item r
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:50:02 +0100, pk wrote:
> > I'm using the latest testing with a separate /usr and no problems.
>
> So udev-181 (masked) is ok to use without initrd and separate /usr
> then? Thanks for the info!
testing, not masked. Although it turns out that the latest in ~amd64 is
the s
Todd Goodman wrote:
> * Dale [120309 21:55]:
>> Howdy,
>>
> [..]
>> [0.787822] Trying to unpack rootfs image as initramfs...
>
> It found your initramfs...
>
>> [0.867787] Freeing initrd memory: 5084k freed
>
> The followng look like they're from your Dracut initramfs
>
>> [0.88011
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:50 PM, pk wrote:
> On 2012-03-10 16:35, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> I'm using the latest testing with a separate /usr and no problems.
>
> So udev-181 (masked) is ok to use without initrd and separate /usr
> then? Thanks for the info!
That's one case; I would not take it f
On 2012-03-10 16:35, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> I'm using the latest testing with a separate /usr and no problems.
So udev-181 (masked) is ok to use without initrd and separate /usr
then? Thanks for the info!
Best regards
Peter K
* Dale [120309 21:55]:
> Howdy,
>
[..]
> [0.787822] Trying to unpack rootfs image as initramfs...
It found your initramfs...
> [0.867787] Freeing initrd memory: 5084k freed
The followng look like they're from your Dracut initramfs
> [0.880111] audit: initializing netlink socket (d
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:58:18 +0100, pk wrote:
> Btw, does anyone know which version of udev requires access to /usr? I'm
> running latest stable here 171-r5 and I have separate partitions for
> /home /opt /usr /usr/local /tmp /var, all on LVM and /boot on a separate
> partition outside of LVM, and
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:30:41 -0600, Dale wrote:
>
>>> I've seen that if you switch to ~arch and make wholesale USE flag
>>> changes. I think I avoided most of it by switching arch, doing emerge
>>> -e system or world and then changing USE flags.
>
>> I even tried USE="-*" e
On Sat, 2012-03-10 at 03:45 -0600, Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 00:03:44 -0600, Dale wrote:
> >
> >> Well, that is one of the things I want to change. I have several
> >> reasons for wanting to change this mess. One is a file system change
> >> and the other is to u
On 2012-03-10 03:48, Dale wrote:
> Howdy,
Howdy!
> this? I'm thinking about redoing my partition layout. I'm wanting to
> keep / (root) on a normal ext4 file system. I want to put /usr, /var,
As long as you don't use the udev version that requires access to /usr
at boot time (or mdev) then yo
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:30:41 -0600, Dale wrote:
> > I've seen that if you switch to ~arch and make wholesale USE flag
> > changes. I think I avoided most of it by switching arch, doing emerge
> > -e system or world and then changing USE flags.
> I even tried USE="-*" emerge -e system and it just
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:45:53 -0600, Dale wrote:
>
>> I decided to do a fresh install on the larger drive. I sort of like to
>> brush up every once in a while. I got to the point where I want to do a
>> emerge -e system then copy my world file over and finish it up. It
>>
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:45:53 -0600, Dale wrote:
> I decided to do a fresh install on the larger drive. I sort of like to
> brush up every once in a while. I got to the point where I want to do a
> emerge -e system then copy my world file over and finish it up. It
> appears that the stage3 tarba
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:45:53 -0600, Dale wrote:
> I'm going to try to beat some sense into this a while longer then I'm
> going to bed, right after rm -rfv /mnt/gentoo/* is started. ;-)
What's the point in using -v if you're not there to watch it? ;-)
--
Neil Bothwick
Documentation: (n.) a n
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 00:03:44 -0600, Dale wrote:
>
>> Well, that is one of the things I want to change. I have several
>> reasons for wanting to change this mess. One is a file system change
>> and the other is to use LVM for stuff. I basically want LVM for
>> everything b
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 00:03:44 -0600, Dale wrote:
> Well, that is one of the things I want to change. I have several
> reasons for wanting to change this mess. One is a file system change
> and the other is to use LVM for stuff. I basically want LVM for
> everything but root itself and /boot of c
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Dale wrote:
>> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>>> I keep my /usr partition in /, but seeing the modules from dracut, the
>>> "magic" happens at:
>>>
>>> /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh
>>>
>>> Basically, it seems that i
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> I keep my /usr partition in /, but seeing the modules from dracut, the
>> "magic" happens at:
>>
>> /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh
>>
>> Basically, it seems that if /usr is specified in /etc/fstab, th
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> I keep my /usr partition in /, but seeing the modules from dracut, the
> "magic" happens at:
>
> /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh
>
> Basically, it seems that if /usr is specified in /etc/fstab, then
> dracut will mount it. It says nothing about LVM,
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Dale wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Well, this is what I am thinking about jumping into. Ya'll ready for
> this? I'm thinking about redoing my partition layout. I'm wanting to
> keep / (root) on a normal ext4 file system. I want to put /usr, /var,
> /home, and such on LVM.
26 matches
Mail list logo