Summary: | sys-kernel/genkernel doesn't force fsck when /forcefsck exists | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Craig Andrews <candrews> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Gentoo's Team for Core System packages <base-system> |
Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | bugs_gentoo_org.Tim_OKelly, conardcox, gentoo.bugs, roy |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Craig Andrews
![]() /forcefsck should be detected by openrc. (In reply to comment #1) > /forcefsck should be detected by openrc. It does, and correctly also. I use lvm on my laptop and it works fine with that also. I don't use either luks or dmraid. The file /etc/init.d/checkfs is the file that looks for /forcefsck... its nothing to do with genkernel. Do you have checkfs configured to start at boot? (In reply to comment #3) > The file /etc/init.d/checkfs is the file that looks for /forcefsck... its > nothing to do with genkernel. > > Do you have checkfs configured to start at boot? > I'm having the same problem...no raid for lvm on my system...just a simple disk setup. I've noticed that 'shutdown -r -F now' doesn't work either. I'm using genkernel to build an initrd kernel module image only. This has worked in the past. (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > The file /etc/init.d/checkfs is the file that looks for /forcefsck... its > > nothing to do with genkernel. > > > > Do you have checkfs configured to start at boot? > > > > I'm having the same problem...no raid for lvm on my system...just a simple disk > setup. I've noticed that 'shutdown -r -F now' doesn't work either. I'm using > genkernel to build an initrd kernel module image only. This has worked in the > past. > One other thing...there is not checkfs init script on my system...it looks like the fsck init script is supposed to be doing the job now. @candrews Is this bug still relevant, or is it time for someone to mark this bug as "RESOLVED WORKSFORME"? |