following code-lines from genkernel (version 3.3.11d) "/usr/share/genkernel/generic/linuxrc" are good, in my opinion much better than "-o rw" but there are still problems left regarding baselayout's checkroot. It's a guess, because I have not investigated this issue in deep but I'm pretty sure: # mount ro so fsck doesn't barf later mount -o ro ${REAL_ROOT} ${NEW_ROOT} baselayout's "checkroot" does not check for a "union'd rootfs". Instead it tries to "create" (touch) a file on / to determine whether / is mounted rw or ro. But thus / is actually ro (but already union'd (e.g. with a rw ramdisk)) it is (of course) writeable, so checkroot will try to remounted / "ro" what will cause errors. I'll file a bug-report including a small (fix/work-around) for the checkroot-init-script to baselayout pointing to this bugreport here at genkernel. Please do not delete/close/hide or whatever with this bugreport. I intend to reference from a (to be created baselayout-bugreport) to this genkernel-bugreport to make the dependencies more obvious. Thanks in advance! P.S.: If the baslayout-maintainers are not willing to integrate or pimp up my quick-hack'ed checkroot patch, I'll provide it here: (this works for me) --- /etc/custom/checkroot.orig 2006-04-14 14:41:12.000000000 +0200 +++ /etc/init.d/checkroot 2006-04-14 19:57:41.000000000 +0200 @@ -9,6 +9,12 @@ start() { local retval=0 + # Is root part of a union? + which unionctl &>/dev/null && unionctl / --query &> /dev/null && union="yes" + if [ "${union}" = "yes" ] ; then + ebegin "Rootfs seems to be part of a union - checkroot skipped" + eend 0 + else if [[ ! -f /fastboot && -z ${CDBOOT} ]] && ! is_net_fs / ; then if touch -c / >& /dev/null ; then ebegin "Remounting root filesystem read-only" @@ -64,7 +70,6 @@ einfo "Rebooting" /sbin/reboot -f fi - fi # Should we mount root rw ? if mount -vf -o remount / 2> /dev/null | \ @@ -80,6 +85,8 @@ else eend 0 fi + fi + fi fi if [[ ${BOOT} == "yes" ]] ; then
Created attachment 84660 [details, diff] checkroot pimped up to detect union'd root-fs --> ignore's it
I'm guessing that this is "fixed" since it is in baselayout. I'm not sure why you filed two bugs, at all, though. You could have just put all of the information in a single bug report. Oh well...
