> (I would prefer not to just '|| true' the udevadm call, though, since I > think having to occasionally reboot the machine again is better than being > left with extra udev processes running around doing who-knows-what on the > system.)
Very valid point. But wouldn't it then be better in the case of udevadm- control failing to do something which gets 100% attention of the user, and with an explicit diagnosis message describing the problem? Simply not moving '/dev' to rootfs, and letting the failed boot to reach its "fate", seems to be a bit too obscure for me. Being an "expert user", I would also like to have the busybox-shell for the failure case of course ;) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/818177 Title: boot failures because 'udevadm exit' times out while udevd waits for an already-dead thread To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-release-notes/+bug/818177/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
