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

Re: upstart: please update to latest upstream version

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:31:38AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> Debian has already become rather difficult to debug.  During the text boot 
> process we have a change to the video mode which resets the scroll-back buffer 
> and makes it difficult to read early messages that appear on the console.  Now 
> a serial console can make some of these things easier to debug but a recent 
> hardware trend is towards making systems without a serial port.
> Is there any way of capturing the old text output from /dev/console at a later 
> stage in the boot?
Apparently systemd does that. :-)

(Though I don't see how it can cover the initramfs automatically.)

> Also a recent hardware trend is to make systems without a PS/2 keyboard port.  
> It seems that the USB modules don't get loaded from the initramfs if you 
> configure it with modules=dep which makes the recovery option of 
> init=/bin/bash incompatible with a small initramfs on a new system.

This sounds like a bug; please report it.

> But another issue is the creeping lack of support for systems without an 
> initramfs.  For example when we had upstart upstream refusing to accept a 
> patch for SE Linux support that made it impossible to use an upstart based 
> distribution with SE Linux on hardware which didn't support an initramfs.
> Finally one benefit of an event based booting system is that it won't become 
> stuck if one daemon hangs.  I've had problems in the past when one daemon 
> didn't start up and that prevented other daemons from starting due to the 
> sequential processing of init scripts.
I think our current dependency-based boot system deals with that
problem.  Login on the local console could still be stalled though,
since getty is special (to sysvinit).


Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
                                                              - Albert Camus

Reply to: