Then you don't have a merged /usr yet. This is only present in the 2017 images I created.
> On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Kevin Stabel <[email protected]> wrote: > > This install is about 6 months old i think. > >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:21 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> Was that system recently installed? >> >> If the installation is older, you don't have a merged /usr yet as this is an >> option to debootstrap which is run during installation. >> >> Adrian >> >>> On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:14 AM, Kevin Stabel <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> From my system: >>> root@Noise ~# which mount >>> /bin/mount >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:59 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> His problem could be the separate /usr partition which is no longer >>>> supported on modern Linux distributions because of the usr-merge. See his >>>> attached fstab. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure whether the mount command has been moved to /usr/bin yet >>>> though. If yes, this could explain the problem. >>>> >>>> Adrian >>>> >>>>> On Mar 29, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Kevin Stabel <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Jesse, >>>>> >>>>> Wrong fs type in fstab? Is it ext3? >>>>> Wrong label in fstab? Try replacing the UUID=etc etc with /dev/sda1 >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Jesse Talavera-Greenberg >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 03/28/2017 05:30 AM, Jesse Talavera-Greenberg wrote: >>>>>>>> However, the /boot partition (which uses ext3) is failing to mount >>>>>>> How does that manifest? What error message do you get? What are the >>>>>>> contents >>>>>>> of your /etc/fstab? >>>>>> Attached to this e-mail. And the error's manifestation appeared in >>>>>> the logs I posted in my previous e-mail. Specifically this part: >>>>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker systemd[1]: Mounting /boot... >>>>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker systemd[1]: var.mount: Directory /var to >>>>>> mount over is not empty, mounting anyway. >>>>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker systemd[1]: Mounting /var... >>>>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker kernel: des_sparc64: sparc64 des opcodes >>>>>> not available. >>>>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker kernel: md5_sparc64: sparc64 md5 opcode not >>>>>> available. >>>>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker kernel: aes_sparc64: sparc64 aes opcodes >>>>>> not available. >>>>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker systemd[1]: boot.mount: Mount process >>>>>> exited, code=exited status=32 >>>>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker systemd[1]: Failed to mount /boot. >>>>>> Mar 27 22:39:23 motherfscker systemd[1]: Dependency failed for Local >>>>>> File Systems. >>>>>>>> and I don't know why. The weird thing is that I can mount it manually >>>>>>>> just fine, >>>>>>> How do you mount it manually? Have you compared it to what's in >>>>>>> /etc/fstab? >>>>>> I mount it through `mount /dev/sda1 /boot`. That's about it. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> though if I run systemctl default the console stops responding. >>>>>>> Did you actually read the manpage for systemctl to understand what >>>>>>> "systemctl >>>>>>> default" does? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quoting: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> default >>>>>>> Enter default mode. This is mostly equivalent to isolate >>>>>>> default.target. >>>>>>> and: >>>>>>> "isolate" is only valid for start operations and causes all >>>>>>> other units to >>>>>>> be stopped when the specified unit is started. This mode is >>>>>>> always used when >>>>>>> the isolate command is used. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, "systemctl default" on Debian effectively kills all units except >>>>>>> for the ones >>>>>>> that are wanted by default.target. Don't run "systemctl default". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Probably the default.target should be reconfigured in Debian's systemd >>>>>>> package >>>>>>> to avoid this problem. >>>>>> I don't understand what this means, can you elaborate? (I don't know >>>>>> very much about configuring Debian.) >>>>>> >>>>>> That being said, after I manually mounted /boot I was able to SSH >>>>>> into the machine like nothing ever happened; it seems like the default >>>>>> Linux login prompt just wasn't showing up. I think there's a boot >>>>>> parameter to that effect? Now I'm confused. >>>>> >>> >
