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 7DF3D1384B4 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 01:48:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7347721C013; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 01:48:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail142c7.megamailservers.com (mail142c7.megamailservers.com [69.49.98.242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AEC3E0897 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 01:48:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Authenticated-User: info.sys-concept.com Received: from [10.0.0.100] ([184.69.242.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail142c7.megamailservers.com (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id tBK1m4UW023789 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 20:48:07 -0500 Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [SOLVED] no network "eth0" after upgrade. To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <5675ABC2.3030007@sys-concept.com> <5675AEE7.8030606@sys-concept.com> <5675C53A.1070909@sys-concept.com> <20151219230231.31214267@digimed.co.uk> <20151220000254.GA1245@ca.inter.net> <20151220005641.7e442b0d@digimed.co.uk> From: thelma@sys-concept.com Message-ID: <567608E5.8020704@sys-concept.com> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:48:21 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 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 In-Reply-To: <20151220005641.7e442b0d@digimed.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020205.567608D7.00BF,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-CSC: 0 X-CHA: v=2.1 cv=XqHDZz19 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=u3gW5Uk2xAGXuEgp5FffjQ==:117 a=u3gW5Uk2xAGXuEgp5FffjQ==:17 a=BDKbP5mgAAAA:8 a=046jbqsEAAAA:8 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=TjINAJ6dDs3EJd_u7BUA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-Archives-Salt: 88956d15-b6b6-4bfb-a985-7eb5d9dcfd97 X-Archives-Hash: c0ac6001832c87889a4ecde5962f8481 On 12/19/2015 05:56 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:02:54 -0500, Philip Webb wrote: > >>>> none /proc/bus/usb usbfs defaults,devmode=0666 0 0 >>>> none /proc proc >>>> defaults 0 0 >>> You're trying to mount /proc/bus/usb before mounting /proc. >>> Systemd takes care of such things, >>>> but with Openrc local mounts are mounted in the order they appear in >>>> fstab. Try switching the lines. >> >> That looks like the explanation to me : has Thelma tried this ? > > Looking at it again, I don't think either of those entries should be in > fstab, certainly not the /proc one. Good hint, thank you. I've removed both lines from fstab: # Scanner none /proc/bus/usb usbfs defaults,devmode=0666 0 0 none /proc proc defaults 0 0 and the system booted normally with openrc-0.18.4 Question, why isn't the line: none /proc proc defaults 0 0 needed anymore? All my other systems have this line in fstab. -- Thelma