[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.



On 29/10/13 01:34, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> Actually quite amazing how painless that was, though I most certainly
> don't expect it to be functional yet.

I have tested it now.  It's actually running and doing 'something'!  And
it is colourful.

I'm testing it inside of a BSD jail currently.  This is a remarkably
easy environment for debugging.  I can alternatively enter a fully
working bash shall or prod in the jail's chroot directly.

> # jail -J /var/run/jail/$JID.jid -c jid=$JID   name=jail$JID   path=/srv/jail/$JID   host.hostname=$HOSTNAME   ip4.addr=$IP   command=/sbin/rc sysinit
> 
>    OpenRC 0.10.9429351 is starting up GNU/kFreeBSD 9.0-2-amd64-xenhvm (x86_64)
> 
> mdconfig: ioctl(/dev/mdctl): Device or resource busy
> /libexec/rc/sh/init.sh: 18: /libexec/rc/sh/init-common-post.sh: newfs: not found
> mount: /dev/md0 : Operation not permitted

I think it was trying to create a FreeBSD-style ramdisk, which is
probably not possible inside a jail.  May need to skip whatever it is
trying to do there, or pre-create a tmpfs inside the jail before I try
to boot it.

# jail -J /var/run/jail/$JID.jid -c jid=$JID   name=jail$JID
path=/srv/jail/$JID   host.hostname=$HOSTNAME   ip4.addr=$IP
command=/sbin/rc boot
>  * Checking local filesystems  ...
> /libexec/rc/sh/runscript.sh: 90: /libexec/rc/sh/runscript.sh: fsck: not found
>  * Filesystems couldn't be fixed                                                                                                                                           [ !! ]
>  * rc: Aborting!
>  * fsck: caught SIGTERM, aborting

Indeed I do not have an fsck, since util-linux depends on initscripts
depends on sysv-rc so it disappeared.  This is unnecessary inside a jail
anyway.

That's as far as I got with this tonight, but just to let you know that
OpenRC is somewhat alive on GNU/kFreeBSD.

Regards,
-- 
Steven Chamberlain
steven@pyro.eu.org


Reply to: