Summary: | busybox uclibc dropbear complains about chown not implemented | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Stefan de Konink <stefan> |
Component: | [OLD] Core system | Assignee: | Embedded Gentoo Team <embedded> |
Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | 2005.1 | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Other | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Stefan de Konink
2006-02-04 10:28:55 UTC
you didnt give any information about your system /dev/pts should be mounted as devpts and with a /dev/ptmx node, there's no reason for dropbear to try and change anything in /dev/pts I know for sure /dev/pts is mounted, if it isn't dropbear reports the openpty() issues. I can't verify if /dev/ptmx exists, but since it is in my makedev I expect it to be there too.
> there's no reason for dropbear to try and change anything in /dev/pts
Why not? The pty's won't get ownership out of the blue. While trying to reproduce it, the most likely thing could be a missing /etc/group, though it never reports the same chown error on the host system.
The reason I can't give any 'information' about the system would be because it is a binary merge of the needed packages { grub, busybox, uclibc, dropbear } in a new environment based on what emerge produced. And since the issue doesn't exists in current form on the host system, I wonder where the 'Function not implemented' comes from. Since the url described the issue of the chown not being present in 2001 I wonder why this issue is back in 2006.
> > there's no reason for dropbear to try and change anything in /dev/pts > > Why not? The pty's won't get ownership out of the blue. i'm pretty sure devpts takes care of that, but i have nothing to back up such a claim > The reason I can't give any 'information' about the system would be because it > exists in current form on the host system, I wonder where the 'Function not > implemented' comes from. Since the url described the issue of the chown not > being present in 2001 I wonder why this issue is back in 2006. sounds like mismatch between host build kernel headers and the target kernel version (In reply to comment #3) > sounds like mismatch between host build kernel headers and the target kernel > version Linux 2.6.15 on host and Linux 2.6.16_rc1 on target seems to be incompatible, thanks for the answer. |