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

Re: '/dev' nodes not getting populated



Hi Michael,

Well, I was the on who originally reported the problem. On my system, the problem seemed to be that the 'initscripts' configuration had been messed up. I compared mine with a friends whose system was working and noticed the anomalies. I used 'sysv-rc-conf'. 'udev' is supposed to run at 'init' mode 'S' and that entry was unset. Setting that solved the problem. I do not know how and why it happened so can't help you there. Just check and see if this is the problem. Couple of other services configuration was also messed up.

What you would need to check I think is that 'makedev' runs at 'init' mode '2-5', and 'udev', 'udev-mtab' are set to run at 'init' mode 'S'.

Hope this helps :). And thanks to Kevin who pointed out that it was an initscript error :).

-Vibhav


Michael Armida wrote:
Hello All,

I picked up on a recent conversation from this list here:

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.user/256763


I'm having exactly the same problem. Does Kevin Mark or anybody else know where I can find more information about the "initscript upgrade error", or how to fix this problem? I checked around in bugs.debian.org/initscripts, bugs.debian.org/sysvinit, and google, and can't find anything useful about the situation.

A friend and much wiser Debian user than I took a look at my problem and determined that by commenting out the "return" in the mount_tmpfs() below from the udev startup script, /dev gets populated as normal, and things go back to usual, minus the hacked script (around line 23):

mount_tmpfs() {
  if grep -E -q "^[^[:space:]]+ /dev tmpfs" /proc/mounts; then
    echo "Looks like /dev is already mounted.  Let's keep going anyway."
    # return
  fi


We weren't, however, able to determine why /dev was being mounted with the tmpfs ahead of the udev script.

I am but a newbie Debian user, so please feel free to point me at the right documentation or bug report.

TIA,
Michael





Reply to: