(initramfs / systemd / udevd issue)
Odd thing about the disk partitioning scheme. The disk label definitely
has to be "bsd" for SRM to be happy, but if Linux is the only OS on the
disk, all the rest of the BSD partitioning conventions don't have to be observed as far as slice "c" spanning the entire disk, slice "a" being
the "boot" slice, slice "b" being "swap", and so forth. I doubt dual- booting with Digital UNIX or one of the *BSD variants is a practical possibility for most people, particularly those with PWS systems having limited disk space.
A brief note about partitioning programs: "fdisk" is NOT your friend
on the Alpha, especially in "modern" times. Use "parted" and save
yourself much frustration.
(1) "systemd" (and "udevd" by extension) don't play well with "/usr"
being on a separate partition from "/". If I have *any* advice to offer
both the battle-scarred veteran and the newbie, it would be to consider consolidating those two partitions into a single partition. Me? I'd
prefer the younger generation of system programmers consider the
perfectly valid reasons why those filesystems might have been separate
to begin with, and respect those reasons. (Hint: much smaller disks.)
(much useful information set in the appropriate historical context)
Samba isn't installable, and in fact I can't even build-dep to build myself locally; looks like the dependency chain goes all the way back to a specific version of libboost!?!?
samba build-depends on ceph [1] but ceph hasn't built on Alpha for some
time [2]. Looks like dtp-relative relocation errors during linking in
the build of ceph [3] is the reason. I have a theory that gcc is not
taking the spec file listed in its invocation arguments in the correct
order with other passed arguments thus we are not getting correct
linking for some shared libraries in the repository. That leads to FTBFS
in other packages with these dtp-relative relocation errors. I haven't explored my theory enough to make a bug report against gcc.
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019, Michael Cree wrote:
samba build-depends on ceph [1] but ceph hasn't built on Alpha for
some time [2]. Looks like dtp-relative relocation errors during
linking in the build of ceph [3] is the reason. I have a theory that
gcc is not taking the spec file listed in its invocation arguments in
the correct order with other passed arguments thus we are not getting
correct linking for some shared libraries in the repository. That
leads to FTBFS in other packages with these dtp-relative relocation
errors. I haven't explored my theory enough to make a bug report
against gcc.
Thanks, Michael. How can I help debug this? The alpha I'm bringing up
will be a replacement server.
Does anyone have an archive of "samba-common_4.7.3+dfsg-1_all.deb"? That seems like it may be missing piece for installing the older samba 4.7.3
for now on alpha (the binary packages still being present in the archive).
I'm seeing this also, after installing using the Debian 8.0 installer
and dist-upgrade'ing to unstable (using the SMP kernel trick to get past the GENERIC issue). My understanding is that it's not initramfs-tools that
mounts all the (non-root) local filesystems, but systemd (which it looks
like you've reported as a bug elsewhere). I was able to pseudo-fix this by changing the fs_passno field in /etc/fstab to '0'.
Couple other things I found: in /etc/network/interfaces,
"allow-hotplug eth0" doesn't seem to work nicely with systemd, but "auto eth0" does.
Does anyone have an archive of "samba-common_4.7.3+dfsg-1_all.deb"?snapshot.debian.org seems to still have it on: https://snapshot.debian.org/package/samba/2%3A4.7.3%2Bdfsg-1/#samba-common_2:3a:4.7.3:2b:dfsg-1
That seems like it may be missing piece for installing the older samba
4.7.3 for now on alpha (the binary packages still being present in the
archive).
Direct download from: https://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20171124T034111Z/pool/main/s/samba/samba-common_4.7.3%2Bdfsg-1_all.deb
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 12:25:52PM -0800, Alex Winbow wrote:I'm really surprised by that. Multiple local filesystems must be incredibly common across the installed base of systems. I see no sign that what's failing is arch/alpha-specific, but surely this can't be a
My understanding is that it's not initramfs-tools that mounts all theThis tells us (or me, anyway) that systemd's logic for automatically
(non-root) local filesystems, but systemd (which it looks like you've
reported as a bug elsewhere). I was able to pseudo-fix this by changing
the fs_passno field in /etc/fstab to '0'.
setting up and running "fsck.fstype" for local filesystems is broken.
I don't think the dynamic generation of services and dependencies for handling local filesystems was part of the "special sauce" for systemd versions prior to version 235-X, which was when things broke on my system.
Have I mentioned today how much I detest "systemd"? :-)I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I will say that I found init scripts a good deal easier to reverse-engineer the logical flow and debug.
This will get solved eventually, but it would get solved more quickly ifI've heard word that /usr destined to be going away, but frankly
the case of multiple local filesystems was more common today.
I've heard word that /usr destined to be going away, but frankly I'm very
surprised that multiple local filesystems is a rarity these days. The debian installer even creates these semi-automatically. It is seriously the case that "everyone" has /var and /tmp on the root filesystem?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 349 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 141:53:04 |
Calls: | 7,613 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,790 |
Messages: | 5,684,447 |