This is a well known bug. It was first seen on Fedora over a year ago. It's only been seen on non-framebuffer systems. Once upon a time I did everything I could to solve it, but I wasn't worthy of the task and gave up.
If I understand this correctly this is an instance of this bug being seen on a non fedora system. That's interesting... /Daniel tor 2007-02-22 klockan 02:29 +0100 skrev Eric MSP Veith: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I can confim that. FC6, initng 0.9.6, ifile 0.0.8. > > Strange enough that this does not happen on my LFS box, even though I'm using > the same font. > > > Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 01:54:02 schrieb Ismael Luceno: > > Look at the following message, it talks about a bug some InitNG users > > are seeing: > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: Parallelizing bootscripts [was: Make bootscripts more > > POSIX compliant] > > Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:44:26 +0000 > > From: Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <[email protected]> > > To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <[email protected]> > > References: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 12:46:04PM -0500, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > > > On the topic of parallelizing the bootscripts, what do people think > > > about doing this? DJ has added some easily-parallelizable scripts to > > > the contrib/ directory in the bootscripts repo (basically, by making > > > them LSB compliant, you make them easy to run in parallel). Should we > > > look into making these scripts the default, perhaps for LFS 6.4 or 7? > > > (And should we actually run them in parallel or not?) > > > > If it causes no damage, and people think it's worth the time to > > test it, yes to running in parallel. I'd better clarify that - > > earlier this month I noted that the total time from power-on to a > > login prompt on my desktops is dominated by the time to a boot > > prompt, the time to get a dhcp lease, time for ntp to start up, and > > on one by time for X to start. > > > > For me, saving a couple of seconds in the bootscripts is neither > > here nor there. If X can start while ntp is deciding whether or not > > to get out of bed, that would be nice - but if ntp decides to call > > in sick, I'd like to get the report. > > > > As to testing, I'll mention that the via C7 I'm playing with for > > possible lower-power (hah, 1 Watt less than my athlon64 when that is > > at 1GHz with CnQ) seems to have an interesting race with the > > bootscripts from December - when the console comes up with the > > LatArCyrHeb font, one of the earlier messages gets rendered as if it > > were mostly in cyrillic characters. I've only seen it on that box, > > it's mostly harmless, and it's such a slow dog that I'm not motivated > > to debug it ;) My point is that changing how the bootscripts are run > > will need a *lot* of testing across different machines and > > combinations of bootscripts. > > > > ĸen > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFF3PIVMpEdE19y46cRAo1DAJ0d3VkJCX3ucU41xlKjbRXf5ua4fgCfd0rZ > YrQ19ROmd5qx+Hp1b6Utyn4= > =oZzj > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- _______________________________________________ Initng mailing list [email protected] http://jw.dyndns.org/mailman/listinfo/initng
