Bug 196647 - ipw3945d problems with baselayout-2.0.0_rc5
Bug#: 196647 Product:  Gentoo Linux Version: unspecified Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux Status: RESOLVED Severity: normal Priority: P2
Resolution: FIXED Assigned To: base-system@gentoo.org Reported By: stack.box@gmail.com
Component: baselayout
URL: 
Summary: ipw3945d problems with baselayout-2.0.0_rc5
Keywords:  
Status Whiteboard: 
Opened: 2007-10-21 18:13 0000
Description:   Opened: 2007-10-21 18:13 0000 
ToSSiKa stack # /etc/init.d/ipw3945d restart
 * Stopping ipw3945d ...
 * start-stop-daemon: fopen `/var/run/ipw3945d/ipw3945d.pid': No such file or
directory                                                                      
            [ ok ]
 * Starting ipw3945d ...                                                       
                                                                               
          [ ok ]
ToSSiKa stack # /etc/init.d/ipw3945d restart
 * Stopping ipw3945d ...                                                       
                                                                               
          [ ok ]
 * Starting ipw3945d ...                                                       
                                                                               
          [ ok ]


Reproducible: Always

------- Comment #1 From Andriy Baranskyy 2007-10-28 21:49:56 0000 ------- 
Same here! It works perfectly well on 2.0.0_rc4-r1

------- Comment #2 From Andriy Baranskyy 2007-11-01 00:37:39 0000 ------- 
With the new rc6 release, the ipw3945d fails to start at boot time but starts
fine after other modules have loaded. Again, this problem is not present for
rc4-r1

------- Comment #3 From Andriy Baranskyy 2007-11-01 00:39:30 0000 ------- 
(In reply to comment #2)
> With the new rc6 release, the ipw3945d fails to start at boot time but starts
> fine after other modules have loaded. Again, this problem is not present for
> rc4-r1
> 
p.s. My rc-update:
 rc-update
                acpid |      default
            alsasound |      default
            bluetooth |      default
             bootmisc | boot
              checkfs | boot
            checkroot | boot
              chronyd |      default
                clock | boot
          consolefont | boot
                cupsd |      default
                 dbus |      default
                dcron |      default
        device-mapper | boot
             festival |      default
                  gpm |      default
                 hald |      default
             hostname | boot
              hotplug | boot
              keymaps | boot
                local |      default nonetwork
           localmount | boot
              modules | boot
               net.lo | boot
             netmount |      default
            rmnologin | boot
            syslog-ng |      default
              urandom | boot
                  xdm |      default

------- Comment #4 From Roy Marples (RETIRED) 2007-11-01 01:35:13 0000 ------- 
Try adding "need localmount" to the init script depend function

------- Comment #5 From Andriy Baranskyy 2007-11-01 01:46:12 0000 ------- 
(In reply to comment #4)
> Try adding "need localmount" to the init script depend function
> 

Thanks! This fixes the problem. I found relevant page in Gentoo Handbook
describing the problem:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=2&chap=4

Should we file a separate bug for the init script to be fixed?

------- Comment #6 From Roy Marples (RETIRED) 2007-11-01 02:00:14 0000 ------- 
No need, I've fixed it.
Thanks.

------- Comment #7 From Jan Kundrát 2007-12-05 17:19:18 0000 ------- 
*** Bug 179809 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

------- Comment #8 From Renato Caldas 2007-12-05 17:26:09 0000 ------- 
Now what I don't understand is how my _older_ report is marked as a duplicate
of this _newer_ report. Maybe time has changed direction?? Anyway, sorry for
this kind of comments on bugzilla, but I had to do it....

------- Comment #9 From Roy Marples (RETIRED) 2007-12-05 19:46:25 0000 ------- 
(In reply to comment #8)
> Now what I don't understand is how my _older_ report is marked as a duplicate
> of this _newer_ report. Maybe time has changed direction?? Anyway, sorry for
> this kind of comments on bugzilla, but I had to do it....

Sometimes on newer bugs different information is given which enables developers
to fix the actual problem. Or it's assigned to different people.

Just be glad it's fixed :)