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 EB5291384B4 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 04:26:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9264E21C014; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 04:26:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail144c7.megamailservers.com (mail144c7.megamailservers.com [69.49.98.244]) (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 6E09AE08EA for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 04:25:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Authenticated-User: info.sys-concept.com Received: from [10.0.0.100] ([184.69.242.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail144c7.megamailservers.com (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id tBK4PtH0018841 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 23:25:57 -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> <567608E5.8020704@sys-concept.com> <20151220041913.GD1245@ca.inter.net> From: thelma@sys-concept.com Message-ID: <56762DE4.6040106@sys-concept.com> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 21:26:12 -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: <20151220041913.GD1245@ca.inter.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020204.56762DD5.002B,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=AeaIQRnG c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=u3gW5Uk2xAGXuEgp5FffjQ==:117 a=u3gW5Uk2xAGXuEgp5FffjQ==:17 a=BDKbP5mgAAAA:8 a=046jbqsEAAAA:8 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=pjzRMU5yn1ABtDG3jIsA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-Archives-Salt: 57d3d3ca-001a-4978-af14-ca8dab72fae6 X-Archives-Hash: 2da47cef0794c9e2fee196591ab3a2b1 On 12/19/2015 09:19 PM, Philip Webb wrote: > 151219 thelma@sys-concept.com wrote: >> On 12/19/2015 05:56 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: >>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:02:54 -0500, Philip Webb wrote: > Thelma> none /proc/bus/usb usbfs defaults,devmode=0666 0 0 >> none /proc proc >> defaults 0 0 > Neil> 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. > Philip> That looks like the explanation to me : has Thelma tried this ? > Neil> Looking at it again, I don't think either of those entries >> should be in fstab, certainly not the /proc one. > Thelma> Good hint, thank you. I've removed both lines from fstab: >> and the system booted normally with openrc-0.18.4 >> Question, why isn't 'none /proc proc defaults 0 0' needed anymore ? >> All my other systems have this line in fstab. > > My own Fstab has long had these lines : > > # NB The next line is critical for boot! > none /proc proc defaults 0 0 > > When did this change & why ? Does anyone know ? I would like to know that too! Indeed I had same comments on some of my other systems, but it seems to me this line is no longer needed. I'm compiling two other backup system and commented these line out from fstab, let see what happens. -- Thelma