[uClibc]Booting Troubles...

Jason Luther jason at airwave.com
Thu Jan 17 20:55:10 UTC 2002


I assume you're talking about the patch to devfsd that I posted. I am using
the 2.4.17 kernel, devfsd 1.3.20, and uClibc from the Jan 2, 2002, daily CVS
snapshot with INCLUDE_RPC=true.

The first command in my /etc/init.d/rcS is "/sbin/devfsd /dev;", and things
are working fine for me.

Can you post a copy of what the boot messages are exactly? I see this:
...
Mounted devfs on /dev
Freeing unused kernel memory: 208k freed
init started: BusyBox v0.60.3-pre (2002.15-21:04+0000)
Started device management daemon for /dev
...

If the system hangs before the "init started:" message, then it's not
devfsd, it's probably the kernel. If it hangs after "Started device
management daemon for /dev", then it is probably devfsd.

Does your system work without using devfs or devfsd?

-jason



----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Cameron" <tom at patcameron.ne.mediaone.net>
To: <uclibc at uclibc.org>
Cc: <busybox at busybox.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 8:32 PM
Subject: [uClibc]Booting Troubles...


> Hello all,
>     I appologise to those of you that are subscribed to both email
> lists, but this question really applies to both topics.  I have recently
> compiled the 2.4.17 Linux kernel, BusyBox, DevFSd, and some other misc.
> networking utilities.  I used the unstable version of uClibc from CVS,
> the unstable release of BusyBox, and the patched version of DevFSd
> (patch from uClibc mailing list) to work under uClibc.
>     I compiled uClibc with RPC support, so that I could compile DevFSd
> against it, and compiled BusyBox with support for DevFSd.  When the
> machine boots up (i386 architecture), the Kernel loads and prints all of
> its usual messages (PnP, IDE Devices, IP Stack, etc.), then loads DevFSd
> (I have it set to load on boot).  Once it prints the "Loading Devfsd"
> line, the system stops.  It does not hang, as you can press keys and see
> them display on the terminal.  No further activity, however.
>     Does anybody know if there are compatibility issues with RPC and the
> other items needed to compile DevFSd vs. uClibc?  Has anybody had
> success compiling DevFSd vs. uClibc with the patch?  If so, I'd love to
> hear about it.  Thanks in advance!
>
> Thomas Cameron
> Cameron Enterprises, Inc.
> )bmɚXXॉ.rXr i &ܢ?+-w  %




More information about the uClibc mailing list