Summary: | sys-apps/openrc-0.6.1-r1: strange reaction to unexpected filesystem inconsistency | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Alexander E. Patrakov <patrakov> |
Component: | [OLD] baselayout | Assignee: | OpenRC Team <openrc> |
Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: |
screenshot (1/2) taken with rc_parallel="YES"
screenshot (2/2) taken with rc_parallel="YES" screenshot (1/2) taken with rc_parallel="NO" screenshot (2/2) taken with rc_parallel="NO" |
Description
Alexander E. Patrakov
2010-04-25 10:24:31 UTC
Created attachment 229069 [details]
screenshot (1/2) taken with rc_parallel="YES"
As you can see, fsck checks /dev/sda5 again, and vde is attempted to be started
Created attachment 229071 [details]
screenshot (2/2) taken with rc_parallel="YES"
The end result is a getty. The "lx" entry in my inittab is about lxdm.
Created attachment 229073 [details]
screenshot (1/2) taken with rc_parallel="NO"
with rc_parallel="NO", there are less red errors, but a second (redundant) fsck still takes place
Created attachment 229075 [details]
screenshot (2/2) taken with rc_parallel="NO"
With rc_parallel="NO", vde is not attempted to be started, good! The getty is behind the error message about "lx".
The fact it's checked twice is not a bug as such. It's marked as failed in the boot phase. This flag is cleaned (by design) when rc is run again in the default phase. To resolve this, simply remove the boot runlevel from /etc/inittab - OpenRC will still start services in the correct order. (In reply to comment #5) > The fact it's checked twice is not a bug as such. It's marked as failed in the > boot phase. This flag is cleaned (by design) when rc is run again in the > default phase. > To resolve this, simply remove the boot runlevel from /etc/inittab - OpenRC > will still start services in the correct order. I haven't seen any activity on this bug in almost a year, and due to the explanation of why the filesystem is checked twice, I do not see that anything needs to be done here, so I am closing this as invalid. |