[F8] [SOLVED] rhgb problems @ boot time
todbot88 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 24 00:15:58 UTC 2007
On Dec 23, 2007 3:20 PM, Daniel B. Thurman <dant at cdkkt.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the tips! It helped me to focus better!
> FYI: I have run out of space for the root partition, and
> I have moved the /usr/share directory into a new partition
> and wanted to mount the share partition onto /usr/share.
> What I discovered was that rhgb was failing @ boot time
> because just after the udev step, only the read-only root
> partition was mounted which means my /usr/share directory
> was unmounted and empty. This caused rhgb to become crippled.
> It would be neat if I could change the /etc/rc.sysinit so
> that I could force a mount of the share partition to
> /usr/share on the read-only root(/) filesystem, but I
> don't think that is possible or is it?
> Interestingly, rhgb's /etc/rhgb/temp/xorg.log reports that
> it was unable to connect to acpi sockets on a read-only root
> filesystem, which is odd but harmless or so it seems.
> So armed with the above information, I had proceeded to boot
> my system into single user mode. Once in single user mode, I had
> unmounted my /usr/share directory so that the /usr/share directory
> is empty. I then remounted the share drive to /mnt so that once
> mounted, I can tar copy the minimum needed directories and files
> out of the /mnt/share directory into the empty /usr/share directory
> required for rhgb to function.
> I had copied over the following directories:
> fonts, gdm, icons, locale, rhgb, X11, xdb, xorg
> There are probably some other directories needed (the font and
> the general look of the progress bar/gui is different, but it
> is agreeable for now), and when I rebooted, rhgb now works!
> Of course, updates could become a problem.
> The bottom line is, I think, that rhgb ought to have its dependencies
> placed strategically into the root partition somewhere "permenant",
> probably not in /usr/share so that it is possible to allow /usr/share
> to be moved into another partition without consequences? I can easily
> see that /usr/share and /var can get full pretty quickly and that
> can become an administrative issue if these directories cannot be
> easily managed.
> Of course, none of this is a problem if you have a big enough drive
> but expect major parts of the root filesystem to become more monolithic;
> just don't plan to move /usr or it's subdirectories nor /var into seperate
> partitions without consequences, or so it seems.
Hi Daniel B. Thurman!
I really have spent little time with making fedora spread it's HD
needs over several drives. Two things occur to me as possibly
1. What was in /etc/fstab when you tried the separate drive for /usr/share?
I am afraid that I have experiance in neither.
More information about the users