View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
marky9074 Apprentice
Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 196 Location: UK
|
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:15 pm Post subject: /etc/modules.devfs has not been generated [solved sort of] |
|
|
Recently updated a few things, including baselayout and now have this error:
/etc/modules.devfs has not been automatically generated.
Still using the 2.4.32-sparc-r2 kernel.
Emerge devfsd again, to no avail (I did have a modprobe.devfs file also, but this did not appear to do anything, and it was not recreated when emerging).. I know that this is not a show stopper, but am intigued to find out why this has happened and how to cure it...
Tried google, and searched gentoo, but all hits refer to people that have migrated kernels and no longer use devfsd....
Mark
Last edited by marky9074 on Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:20 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Weeve Retired Dev
Joined: 30 Oct 2002 Posts: 641
|
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looks like the comments in the file suggest to run modules-update. Have you tried that? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marky9074 Apprentice
Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 196 Location: UK
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, yeah. The earlier was the reponse from 'modules-update'. Then it says to use 'modules-update force', which runs without errors, but doesnt solve anything. I am considering migrating to 2.6 kernel (as I have the other issues with the keymap as well), but I am happy with my headless box as it is...
I notice that in the package database online it shows gentoo-sources as unmasked? Whereas if I search for this it is still masked. I find it surprising that the whole 2.6 tree is unmasked, and assume this is a html error?
Mark |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Weeve Retired Dev
Joined: 30 Oct 2002 Posts: 641
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you don't have ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~sparc" in your make.conf file or "sys-kernel/gentoo-sources ~sparc" in /etc/portage/package.keywords, chances are that it will show up as masked.
2.6 kernels are fairly stable for most folks these days. However Ultra 1s and Ultra 2s still seem prone to the occasional lockup under high disk I/O. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marky9074 Apprentice
Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 196 Location: UK
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Jason,
Thanks for the reply. I was running a 2.6 kernel before OK, just this time I just went the easy route.....
What I meant by the earlier post though, is that most of the tree is marked stable '+' in the online package database, whereas like you say they should all be '~'??
In my situation, is it literally a case of removing devfs, emerge udev and gentoo-sources (compile) and that is it?
Mark |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marky9074 Apprentice
Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 196 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
marky9074 wrote: |
What I meant by the earlier post though, is that most of the tree is marked stable '+' in the online package database, whereas like you say they should all be '~'??
|
http://packages.gentoo.org/packages/?category=sys-kernel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marky9074 Apprentice
Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 196 Location: UK
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just changed my profile and the 2.6 kernel really is marked as stable! Ok, I am going for it!
Mark |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marky9074 Apprentice
Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 196 Location: UK
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Migration went OK without any problems, and as most of the 2.6 tree is now marked as stable, it shouldnt be a problem for anyone else either...
Mark |
|
Back to top |
|
|
w.hill Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 23 Jan 2005 Posts: 133 Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Did you find a fix for the original problem? My SB 100 with a 2.4 kernel started complaining as well [Same Error Message] modules-update force doesn't make the problem go away. I think, but I'm not sure that it was a base-layout update that started the problem. I might try and roll backwards to see if I can find the source of the message. I also get an insmod error a little later in the boot procces. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marky9074 Apprentice
Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 196 Location: UK
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
No I didnt fix the problem and accepted defeat and migrated to 2.6 kernel. I did some searching on here and noted mention of baselayout, and remember this had been updated recently, and just put two and two together! The migration actually went very well and with no problems.... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
godzilla n00b
Joined: 26 Aug 2005 Posts: 29
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have the same problem too. I think it started after "emerge --update --deep world". I do not remember what packages were updated, but there was not much installed at that time. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marky9074 Apprentice
Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 196 Location: UK
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
godzilla wrote: | I have the same problem too. I think it started after "emerge --update --deep world". I do not remember what packages were updated, but there was not much installed at that time. |
Yep, same as me after a "emerge --update --deep world"... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
w.hill Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 23 Jan 2005 Posts: 133 Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've done a lot of digging around and believe that this might be a bug.
/sbin-modules-update
Starting at line 143
143 for x in ${CFGFILES} ; do
144 [[ -r ${x} ]] || continue
145
146 if [[ $(sed -ne 1p "${x}") != "${HEADER}" ]] ; then
147 ewarn "Warning: the current ${x} has not been automatica lly generated"
I think I seen a previous BUG report where the expected header of the file was not found. /etc/modules.devfs
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3516 Feb 19 2006 modules.devfs
I'm not sure how to decipher the expression RTFM time.
[EDIT]sys-apps/baselayout-1.12.4-r7 has just been release - The error persists[/EDIT] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|