[gentoo-amd64] Re: busybox-1.23.0 not assembling RAID root

[Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>]

Randy Barlow posted on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:34:54 -0500 as excerpted:

> On January 19, 2015 4:55:30 PM EST, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>The failure is three messages:
>>
>>/init: line 16: mount: not found
>>/init: line 17: mount: not found
>>/init: line 18: mount: not found
>>
>>which appear to correlate with lines 16-18:
>>
>>mount -t proc none /proc
>>mount -t sysfs none /sys
>>mount -t devtmpfs none /dev
> 
> Have you tried using a full path to the mount command?

Disclaimer:  I've not had busybox on my system since I switched to gentoo 
in 2004[1], so don't expect me to be much help with busybox-specific 
stuff.

That said, the error is clear enough...  mount isn't found on the path.  
That's almost certainly one of two problems, both with straightforward 
solutions:

1) Missing mount -> busybox symlink.  (Most likely.)

2) That symlink not in the path, for some reason.


If the symlink's in the initr*, that'd be #2, so either adjust the path 
accordingly before calling mount, or as Randy suggests, call mount using 
the full path.

If instead the symlink's not there at all, as I suspect, that's #1. 
Ensure that the symlink is available before attempting to use it, either 
by placing it in the initr* at initr* build-time, or by using bitlord's 
suggestion (busybox --install -s prior to invoking mount).

Presumably something changed in the new busybox and it's documented 
somewhere, for example that initr*s are expected to run busybox --install 
-s if they use the mount symlink now, or the like, and if I used busybox 
I'd probably know about it from some time ago since I run ~arch, and 
could then explain what and why, but since I don't... well I already said 
"presumably".

---
[1] Busybox wouldn't build then for some reason so I bypassed/
package.provided it, and I've never needed it as I keep what amounts to a 
second copy of the system as a backup, with the copy taken when the 
system was known working and stable, and tested by booting with root= 
pointing at the backup before I trust it just as I would in an emergency, 
as my emergency-boot, so I've simply never bothered with busybox.  Of 
course these days I run a custom profile with a totally empty @system 
(all normal @system packages have a negating entry leaving nothing in 
@system), and all the not-otherwise-depended packages I actually need in 
@world, and since I don't need busybox and it's not a dependency of 
anything I run, it's simply not there. =:^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman