[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