On 21/06/12 23:10, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:08:16PM +0100, Alan Chandler wrote:
On 21/06/12 21:55, Alan Chandler wrote:
On 21/06/12 20:27, Roger Leigh wrote:
be hidden.
Do you have an entry in /etc/fstab for /run?
The first three fields *must* be
tmpfs /run tmpfs
or it will think the filesystem type doesn't match, and do a new
mount rather than a remount.
I don't have an entry in /etc/fstab.
...
any way I will try adding it and rebooting after I have sent this
e-mail to see if that sorts me out.
Thanks - it did.
I had to also delete the symlink and find a way to shutdown without
a /run, but after I restarted, it worked great and has resolved the
issue
I was not suggesting that you add an entry to /etc/fstab. You
don't need one unless you want to override the defaults. I was
just asking if you had one in case it was added incorrectly,
which would have been one way you could confuse things at boot.
So the reason why this is causing problems is still unexplained.
Could you please remove the entry, reboot and then let me know
what the contents of /proc/mounts are? Are there two entries
for /run, if one is being masked by a second mount?
I have removed the entry in /etc/fstab and I am still loading perfectly.
The other thing that is left, is the fact that I had a symlink from /run
to /var/run (which I didn't put there).
I conducted a little experiment, and with a recovery disk I altered my
system as follows.
1) removed the symlink in /var/run -> /run
2) save the contents of /run (I moved it to /oldrun
3) made a new /var/run which contained a copy of the contents of /oldrun
4) symlinked /run -> /var/run
(I think this is as close to how it was before - the only issue I never
checked before was whether /var/run had anything in it before booting)
When I booted like this, I had the exact same symptoms as before.
I checked /proc/mounts in this state, and there were two copies of a
tmpfs mounted at /var/run. (and two copies of /var/run/lock and
/var/run/shm)
I've put it all back now (not the /etc/fstab entry - that is still
commented out) and rebooted - and I am back working again.
SO I think the only issue is really how did that symlink get there in
the first place. Was there some intermediate stage when this migration
to /run began that meant it got put there.
I have been running debian sid for years - on this hardware for about a
year. I use aptitude and do an update every several days, although
occasionally I might let it go for a couple of weeks if I am busy (which
I have been recently). I use a standard configuration (I don't try to
change anything) except that I am running VirtualBox with a Windows 7
environment within it and that does add its own modules.
--
Alan Chandler
http://www.chandlerfamily.org.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
