Safe runlevel 1

Doug Reich dreich at hmc.edu
Wed Sep 15 23:53:46 PDT 2004


I sent an email out last week detailing trouble I had with my hard drive 
and the inadequacy of the LFS bootscripts to allow me to boot into 
runlevel 1, and nobody took any issue with it. I think it's very 
important the LFS ensure that runlevel 1 be as safe as possible, and, as 
long as the root partition can be read, it should be able to be booted 
into. However, the current mountfs script performs error checking on all 
partitions for which it is enabled in fstab and tries to mount them, 
which is going to prevent you from fixing any problems on these drives. 
This script should be split so that only the root partition is mounted, 
unchecked in runlevel 1, and all mounting and checking can be performed 
in higher runlevels (the previous runlevel variable can be checked to 
make sure this isn't done when changing from, say, 3 to 5). Other 
bootscripts should be checked to make sure they aren't doing unnecessary 
that would keep the system from booting into a diagnostic mode.

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

-Doug Reich



lfs-dev-request at linuxfromscratch.org wrote:
> Send lfs-dev mailing list submissions to
> 	lfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	lfs-dev-request at linuxfromscratch.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	lfs-dev-owner at linuxfromscratch.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of lfs-dev digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: Ch 5: Why both kernel headers? (Kevin P. Fleming)
>    2. Re: Ch 5: Why both kernel headers? (Jeremy Utley)
>    3. Re: LFS 6.0 BootCD - A call for testers (Stefan Hecker)
>    4. Re: LFS 6.0 BootCD - A call for testers (!zealot)
>    5. Re: LFS 6.0 BootCD - A call for testers (Jeremy Utley)
>    6. Re: LFS 6.0 BootCD - A call for testers (Bruce Dubbs)
>    7. Re: glibc (James Robertson)
>    8. Re: glibc (dperkins at techangle.com)
>    9. Re: glibc (James Robertson)
>   10. Re: Ch 5: Why both kernel headers? (M.Canales.es)
>   11. Re: glibc (Matthew Burgess)
>   12. Re: Ch 5: Why both kernel headers? (Laurens Blankers)
>   13. Re: glibc (dperkins at techangle.com)
>   14. Re: LFS 6.0 BootCD - A call for testers (Jeremy Huntwork)
>   15. Re: Server issue with the {B}LFS books look (M.Canales.es)
>   16. Re: LFS 6.0 BootCD - A call for testers (Ian Molton)
>   17. Re: Ch 5: Why both kernel headers? (Ian Molton)
>   18. Re: Ch 5: Why both kernel headers? (Kevin P. Fleming)
>   19. Re: glibc (J?rg W Mittag)
>   20. Re: LFS 6.0 BootCD - A call for testers (Bruce Dubbs)
>   21. Re: LFS 6.0 BootCD - A call for testers (Matthew Burgess)
>   22. Re: LFS 6.0 BootCD - A call for testers (Ian Molton)
>   23. Re: Ch 5: Why both kernel headers? (Ian Molton)
>   24. LFS 6 Boot CD - 2nd round (Jeremy Huntwork)
>   25. Re: LFS 6.0 BootCD - A call for testers (Jeremy Huntwork)
>   26. Re: LFS 6 Boot CD - 2nd round (Kevin P. Fleming)
>   27. Bootscript Updates (Nathan Coulson)
>   28. Re: LFS 6.0 BootCD - A call for testers (!zealot)
>   29. Re: Bootscript Updates (Nathan Coulson)
>   30. Re: LFS 6.0 BootCD - A call for testers (Alexander E. Patrakov)
>   31. Re: Bootscript Updates (Nathan Coulson)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:18:18 -0700
> From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at linuxfromscratch.org>
> Subject: Re: Ch 5: Why both kernel headers?
> To: lfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org
> Message-ID: <4147DEAA.1070407 at linuxfromscratch.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> 
> Kevin White wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ahhh, OK, and glibc needs the raw headers, rather than the sanitized ones?
> 
> 
> Yes, although the current "unstable" book is being built with even glibc 
>   using the sanitized headers, and so far there have not been any 
> trouble reports related to that.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:27:52 -0700
> From: Jeremy Utley <jeremy at jutley.org>
> Subject: Re: Ch 5: Why both kernel headers?
> To: lfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org
> Message-ID: <20040914232752.1e979b55.jeremy at jutley.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:18:18 -0700
> "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Kevin White wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ahhh, OK, and glibc needs the raw headers, rather than the sanitized
>>>ones?
>>
>>Yes, although the current "unstable" book is being built with even
>>glibc 
>>  using the sanitized headers, and so far there have not been any 
>>trouble reports related to that.
> 
> 
> The only problem in using the sanitized headers for glibc is if you
> happen to be building at a time when Marisuz (the guy who does the
> linux-libc-headers) is behind the kernel.  For example, if you build
> against the 2.6.8.1 headers package after 2.6.9 is released, glibc won't
> get access to new ABI def's that were not present in 2.6.8.1.  But,
> building glibc against sanitized headers fits more with what the kernel
> developers say should happen.
> 
> -J-
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:39:16 +0200 (CEST)
> From: "Stefan Hecker" <s.hecker at stud.uni-goettingen.de>
> Subject: Re: LFS 6.0 BootCD - A call for testers
> To: lfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org
> Message-ID:
> 	<32797.10.10.16.93.1095237556.squirrel at webmail.stud.uni-goettingen.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
> 
> Hi,
> 
> just had a short look at the cd. I have a problem with my optical
> usb mouse. The HID driver does not claim the mouse as hid device.
> So far, i had no time to investigate why this is.
> But copy&paste using my notebook's touchpad really is a pain.
> The rest of the CD looks fine to me, though i haven't startet a
> build with it yet.
> 
> Thanks for the good work.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Stefan
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:02:24 +0800
> From: !zealot <nobody at nowhere.com>
> Subject: Re: LFS 6.0 BootCD - A call for testers
> To: lfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org
> Message-ID: <ci93us$90v$1 at belgarath.linuxfromscratch.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> 
>>Just wanted to announce that a pre-release version of the LFS 6 cd
>>is
>>available for download.  Of course, if you download the cd,
>>realize that you have the responsibility to reply to this thread
>>with some sort of feedback. :)
>>
> 
> 
> Well here's my feedback on the attempt to install LFS6 using the
> bootcd. I managed to get as far as Chapter 6 - installing Grub 0.95
> where I came to a screeching halt on a failure of the 'make check'
> test.
> 
> The relevant part of the 'make check' output is as follows:
> 
>   make  check-TESTS
>   make[3]: Entering directory `/sources/grub-0.95/stage2`
>   ufs2_stage1_5 is too big (7336 > 7168)
>   FAIL: size-test
>   ==============================
>   1 of 1 tests failed
> 
> BTW, I'm using ext3 fs on the hdd, not ufs. Anyone know what this is
> all about? Can I ignore this?
>   



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list