From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-144891-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96E1213879A
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:47:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0DFD021C03C;
Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:47:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com (mail-ob0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 549B721C003
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:47:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id ni5so2903722obc.12
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:47:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=xlFiLTFjE8jAhujCGYZ79B8XPveMHNSsISTd9+aDQMc=;
b=qBG7IU+pOGbeDYzfzlPkaC42I8WFrVfhBzKn3HgniAdtmUPK0tT6k4KijvEoqqRTxT
HVavJ0L6zbuvrB9SBF7kh1m/280f+uI2TSUVyrYoOeGvap0hkwOwXS+P/gLN3xa3OalQ
Pixkv4Hc7BI+R7fig5vlsTbcndpToslg1H2EmsVAPN2fJzH7KA+8inebjoKQgSctEKnj
EMK8yHqFr+qq+xTnKye2yRffWqxL9jNyo2tX25dxCIq1+M2Hig+eIuwTRAUemLkImlHh
712ECX3VuWTs5ThZtyuNdgpQ6AiSYNM6JMA2pkIITgD/wtkTbFEPUqrQ65AO9VnKLGZw
sYQw==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.21.167 with SMTP id w7mr6558874oee.18.1359640054493; Thu,
31 Jan 2013 05:47:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.20.243 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:47:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+czFiBs2L_LjQedT=bM5ixWu8Sm6yC3DSPHtJ41UHzNooqw_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+czFiD0PYZ7tDr_zbq0gYeLPPp-MrTsjL4ahJL0yCr1h1bYfg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADPrc81tBErtN=Jd0A9zEROW3hhm3JJWMaHqBcSKPruOoDoW4g@mail.gmail.com>
<CADPrc81RFesdLg0uiGpGCxuZRbo9Du8=c7yaxyaSHe3T+T56Dw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+czFiBs2L_LjQedT=bM5ixWu8Sm6yC3DSPHtJ41UHzNooqw_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:47:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+czFiCfSPaJhbR1muxRWFsfeONs82NgLOgq0BiTVKbkfVvxPg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] udev-191 bit me. Insufficient ptys
From: Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: 301a5a2f-e867-45d0-bae9-c5194fa2d745
X-Archives-Hash: b7f4e7ac274829716fead37fc95104e0
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s <caneko@g=
mail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s <caneko@=
gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> So, I botched the upgrade to udev-191. I thought I'd followed the
>>>> steps, but I apparently only covered them for one machine, not both.
>>>>
>>>> The news item instructions specified that I had to remove
>>>> udev-postmount from my runlevels. I didn't have udev-postmount in my
>>>> runlevels, so I didn't remove it. Turns out, that dictum also applies
>>>> to udev-mount. So after removing that[1], I was able to at least boot
>>>> again.
>>>>
>>>> Udev also complained about DEVTMPFS not being enabled in the
>>>> kernel.[2] I couldn't get into X, but I could log in via getty and a
>>>> plain old vt, so I enabled it, rebuilt the kernel, installed it and
>>>> rebooted...and now that's presumably covered.
>>>>
>>>> I'm now able to get into X, but when I try to run an xterm, it fails.
>>>> Checking ~/.xsession_errors, I find:
>>>>
>>>> xterm: Error 32, error 2: No such file or directory
>>>> Reason: get_pty: not enough ptys
>>>
>>> Do you have CONFIG_LEGACY_PTYS=3Dy? If so, do you really need it? A
>>> little over a year ago[1] I had an annoying issue for having that
>>> option enabled in my kernel, with a lot of virtual ttys reported in
>>> systemctl. This is a shot in the dark (I really don't know if it's
>>> related to your problem), but perhaps having the LEGACY_PTYS option
>>> enabled somehow depleted your available pseudo terminals (which any X
>>> terminal needs to run)? I suppose screen is also out of the question
>>> for the same reason.
>
> No, I don't have CONFIG_LEGACY_PTYs. I do have UNIX98 PTYs, and I
> tried enabling alternate namespaces, but that didn't help either.
>
>>
>> Also related, if you have LEGACY_PTYS:
>>
>> "LEGACY_PTY_COUNT:
>>
>> The maximum number of legacy PTYs that can be used at any one time.
>> The default is 256, and should be more than enough. Embedded
>> systems may want to reduce this to save memory.
>>
>> When not in use, each legacy PTY occupies 12 bytes on 32-bit
>> architectures and 24 bytes on 64-bit architectures."
>
> Yeah, I'm not using CONFIG_LEGACY_PTY, so LEGACY_PTY_COUNT doesn't
> even make itself available in menuconfig.
Hm. Some googling suggests this might be a permissions issue.
I do have consolekit enabled, but I'm using gdm, so I'd expect that to
take care of itself. (Although screen fails to launch from vt1, so
it's not a consolekit problem.)
--
:wq