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

Re: debootstrap+udev+sarge fails to remove mountig point

On Jul 10, 9:40 am, Daniel Baumann <dan...@debian.org> wrote:
> zfere...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I have a live-CD that i'm building withdebootstrap+ udev .
> > everything is fine with the live-CD , however when i try to remove the
> > "working directory" - i can't remove it due to an existing mounting
> > point caused by udev .
> the etch udev package does detect that it is attempted to be started in
> a chroot directory, and thus does not start.
> in sarge, this check is not present.
> unrelated to that, i strongly do not recommend to use sarge, because you
> need a couple of backports to bring it alive, whereas etch does have
> these packages already.
> and, i also did already give you the answer how to deal with daemons here:http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/07/msg00152.html
> use policy-rc.d and be done with it.
> > any ideas ? is it the standard behaviour or am i doing something
> > wrong ?
> > is it safe to move from sarge to sid ? do i need to take into account
> > extra bugs or more QA ?
> no, use etch.
> --
> Address:        Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
> Email:          daniel.baum...@panthera-systems.net
> Internet:      http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQU...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Hi again,
Thank you all very much for your help (Daniel - thanks  for your
double help).

Currently i'm using sarge because this is a production live-CD and i'm
using a framework built by third-party (that no-longer exists...) ,
that's why i can't use any "live-CD helpers"  , too much work to be
done ..
i will move to etch soon, but it requires a lot of QA  .

one last thing - Daniel has recommended the "policy-rc.d" , i really
don't understand why do i need it and how it's gonna help me: when do
i use this script and why...

tnx (again)

Reply to: