On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 17:11:01 +1200
Simon Geard wrote:
>
> Andrew's post is missing a newline, I think. It's actually two rules:
>
> SUBSYSTEM=="rtc", ACTION=="add",
> MODE="0644",
> RUN+="/etc/rc.d/init.d/setclock start"
>
> and
>
> KERNEL=="rtc", ACTION=="add",
> MODE="0644",
>
I was misconstrued as having insulted Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. My
words were twisted and misinterpreted and I feel that there is a need to
explain myself and set the record straight.
[b]What really happened[/b]
It was sometime in Aug/Sep in the year 2009. The setting was in the
Tampines C
On my X86_64 lfs (SVN-20110427) system .
"/dev/disk/by-label/xxx" has not turnd up when "mountfs" started , so
I can't use "LABEL=" in fstab .
On 32bits system , this works well.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsu
On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 07:25 +0800, xinglp wrote:
> On my X86_64 lfs (SVN-20110427) system .
> "/dev/disk/by-label/xxx" has not turnd up when "mountfs" started , so
> I can't use "LABEL=" in fstab .
> On 32bits system , this works well.
Maybe related, I've noticed problems with a 32-bit system
On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 13:17 +1200, Simon Geard wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 07:25 +0800, xinglp wrote:
> > On my X86_64 lfs (SVN-20110427) system .
> > "/dev/disk/by-label/xxx" has not turnd up when "mountfs" started , so
> > I can't use "LABEL=" in fstab .
> > On 32bits system , this works
On Saturday 30 April 2011 21:32:01 Simon Geard wrote:
> I'd have expected 'udevadm settle' to block while this stuff's still
> happening - is that not the case, maybe with 168?
I'd be real surprised if settle doesn't work.
They haven't removed it *that* soon, have they? (There's been talk about
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 13:17 +1200, Simon Geard wrote:
>> On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 07:25 +0800, xinglp wrote:
>>> On my X86_64 lfs (SVN-20110427) system .
>>> "/dev/disk/by-label/xxx" has not turnd up when "mountfs" started , so
>>> I can't use "LABEL=" in fstab .
>>> On 32bit
Hello,
The time sequence on my "standard" system would be:
1. '/lib/udev/rules.d/50-udev-default.rules':
SUBSYSTEM=="rtc", DRIVERS=="rtc_cmos", SYMLINK+="rtc"
2. '/etc/udev/rules.d/55-lfs.rules':
# This causes the system clock to be set
# as soon as /dev/rtc becomes available.
SUBSYSTEM=="rtc",
Apr 30, 2011 09:50:09 PM, Bruce wrote:> perhaps a sleep( 2 ) before or after after '/sbin/udevadm settle'> in the udev script would isolate the problem.You're right. On a slower machine, where I played with 168a "sleep 3" (for good measure - worked with 2 secs. as well)just before the end (::) o
Apr 30, 2011 09:50:09 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> perhaps a sleep( 2 ) before or after after '/sbin/udevadm settle'
> in the udev script would isolate the problem.
You're right. On a slower machine, where I played with 168
a "sleep 3" (for good measure - worked with 2 secs. as well)
just before the
On Saturday 30 April 2011 23:00:42 al...@verizon.net wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The time sequence on my "standard" system would be:
>
> 1. '/lib/udev/rules.d/50-udev-default.rules':
> SUBSYSTEM=="rtc", DRIVERS=="rtc_cmos", SYMLINK+="rtc"
>
> 2. '/etc/udev/rules.d/55-lfs.rules':
> # This causes the syst
11 matches
Mail list logo
