From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BFFE138974 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:40:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AA1D121C0D9; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:39:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yh0-f42.google.com (mail-yh0-f42.google.com [209.85.213.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 166D321C016 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:39:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yh0-f42.google.com with SMTP id w49so630074yhw.1 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:39:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type; bh=SEvdJRCIr6rSRxctmKPh9DfUiU5CvTOq6xbDUDWL7tk=; b=ma2MO/1JAdvxgNVn0UZoTW8EtoXwWSrE4HPYXHZhSgA3YJWbgmGjMUI/Ja8pOkh3br J4FKdOv3U7oSXTkH7TJdHZTuDBYJnFSYwks4qAkkVWMvypSZaeOp7/0wUXLbkufb9e9f h8IywrEenWrnQkQHc3xAm0/7e+NE19Icyt03rfmSuFeElCtdcFu2bnQDZ6WjUQKqZt+d z3NLHKltfMDu9W1Su2dQdSumFdssvuu/b/XFo+KikEDuYXAwzP3dGe43VY1UlWpxNZNi pX/kvh62NbjmtsJD+zvOxwHiBP1yyESHz4HEXK++9S3f1p2zV2HjJr/3mMFCn+V+xTxe s76g== X-Received: by 10.236.89.7 with SMTP id b7mr14611102yhf.123.1360517994225; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:39:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-74-240-57-140.jan.bellsouth.net. [74.240.57.140]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k24sm63970018yhd.5.2013.02.10.09.39.52 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:39:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5117DB67.8090808@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:39:51 -0600 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:18.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/18.0 SeaMonkey/2.15.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] What to do with /var/run? References: <51175A29.3090002@binarywings.net> <51179534.4080308@gmail.com> <5117C26C.9080200@gmail.com> <5117C334.1080805@gmail.com> <5117CD52.8080708@gmail.com> <5117D14D.8070501@binarywings.net> In-Reply-To: <5117D14D.8070501@binarywings.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080104030506020006010907" X-Archives-Salt: 4974747d-0dee-4cf7-9b0f-f94b522d01e2 X-Archives-Hash: 777b29fd5c5f19c79ef03904d5625ded This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080104030506020006010907 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Florian Philipp wrote: > Am 10.02.2013 17:39, schrieb Dale: > [...] >>> >> >> Actually, I had something that wouldn't start and said it needed /run. >> I didn't have one, found references with google that it was the new and >> upcoming thing, so I created it myself. So, it must have been a bug >> that should have been reported but I didn't realize that. By creating >> it myself, I created a bit of a problem. Now what to do about it. >> > > I guess the simplest approach is: > 1. drop into single user runlevel (`rc single`) > 2. move the remnants from /var/run to /run > 3. symlink /var/run to /run > 4. reboot or go back to default runlevel (`rc default`) > > Hope this helps, > Florian Philipp > > Since you mention rc single. I did that a good while back. Afterwards I went to boot runlevel then to the default runlevel. When I got to the default runlevel, it was not working like it should. I rebooted and everything was back to normal. Have you ever ran into that? It's been a while, most likely when the openrc change was going on. Just curious. I may give that a try. That sounds like a plan. I'll be ready for a reboot tho, just in case. lol Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! --------------080104030506020006010907 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Florian Philipp wrote:
> Am 10.02.2013 17:39, schrieb Dale:
> [...]
>>>
>>
>> Actually, I had something that wouldn't start and said it needed /run.
>> I didn't have one, found references with google that it was the new and
>> upcoming thing, so I created it myself. So, it must have been a bug
>> that should have been reported but I didn't realize that. By creating
>> it myself, I created a bit of a problem. Now what to do about it.
>>
>
> I guess the simplest approach is:
> 1. drop into single user runlevel (`rc single`)
> 2. move the remnants from /var/run to /run
> 3. symlink /var/run to /run
> 4. reboot or go back to default runlevel (`rc default`)
>
> Hope this helps,
> Florian Philipp
>
>


Since you mention rc single.  I did that a good while back.  Afterwards I went to boot runlevel then to the default runlevel.  When I got to the default runlevel, it was not working like it should.  I rebooted and everything was back to normal.  Have you ever ran into that?  It's been a while, most likely when the openrc change was going on.  Just curious.

I may give that a try.  That sounds like a plan.  I'll be ready for a reboot tho, just in case.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

--------------080104030506020006010907--