xinglp wrote: > 2014/1/17 Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com>: >> Armin K. wrote: >>> On 01/17/2014 05:03 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>>> Moving to -dev. >>>> >>>> xinglp wrote: >>>>>> OK, thanks. Can you test: >>>>>> >>>>>> rm -rf --one-file-system /run/* /tmp/* >>>>>> >>>>> Same error. >>>> >>>> For background see >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/lfs-book@linuxfromscratch.org/msg18517.html >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how to handle this. At the end of Chapter 6 we don't need >>>> either /dev/shm or /run/shm. >>>> >>>> What we do when mounting virtual file systems is: >>>> >>>> if [ -h $LFS/dev/shm ]; then >>>> link=$(readlink $LFS/dev/shm) >>>> mkdir -pv $LFS/$link >>>> mount -vt tmpfs shm $LFS/$link >>>> unset link >>>> else >>>> mount -vt tmpfs shm $LFS/dev/shm >>>> fi >>>> >>>> This means that /run/shm only exists if /dev/shm is a symlink. >>>> >>>> We are still in chroot when cleaning up but we can still umount /run/shm >>>> before deleting. Probably something like: >>>> >>>> [ -e /run/shm ] && umount /run/shm >>>> rm -rf /run/* /tmp/* >>>> >>>> How does this sound?
>>> Sorry to jump in, but I want to mention that maybe mounting a tmpfs at >>> /run itself during the build might be easier. >> I now remember you mentioning that before. Let me run a test of that. > Or use "mount -o bind /run $LFS/run", which is better? I haven't finished testing yet as I'm also working on a util-linux integration with udev problem, but why would we want to bind mount /run? The only place /run is used in the book is for the tests in util-linux. Mounting a tmpfs is fairly painless. I don't think a bind mount would be appropriate because of the potential of interfering with the host system. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
