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 61A1713879D for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:27:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C48AE21C0F9; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:26:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com (mail-ob0-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 468B321C0E9 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:26:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id un3so2985208obb.38 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:26:57 -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; bh=AHEJS2PToMF+OYK/jGkMpzVgQQvmYM2vJ1q8VkP1P0M=; b=SRPZKNOHc6LQcU3ZO9uaUHgTb5q5CDjp0E5oOwlz0+QXB+pTmSwkGlvqUVAtItcxqe e1lDkS7sp6jqmZgWEfaMm330PGPWxN5KOwPuduR9Jqbp1pZo4kiGjsM942JzR4vzFQRX 7YsIJvOv/E7vhD2eBHyXs4hi3ktS2vp8WOdMhLM561EwIxqqmEwWJ1W5+XtIiGiF30pR KT0eoIcoiuyiXu/HBEmdwnke56u9f9w8ysMvJxf0M6QveAxNpN94FWIrejDhdBzBZJdG 9JZcO24QxLq+DZlli/hpsN+sypjWFgPjUKDhbP8GfMQXQOpE9Qrut4y6oNjTO0NspTeS wJRg== 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 X-Received: by 10.182.159.98 with SMTP id xb2mr6867983obb.35.1359646017484; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:26:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.20.243 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:26:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20130131172312.4595fc24@khamul.example.com> References: <20130131172312.4595fc24@khamul.example.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:26:57 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] udev-191 bit me. Insufficient ptys From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 5c4bec5b-bed5-4598-9ec5-48572f8e2b96 X-Archives-Hash: 77e95777913ec691f73e03fa37796824 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:35:06 -0500 > Michael Mol 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 >> >> I find this bizarre, as I'd never had any trouble with xterm in this >> way before. What'd I do wrong, and how do I recover? I don't trust >> emerging at this point; I tried re-emerging udev, and I aborted after >> I saw an stderr line about failing to open a pty, even though portage >> does quiet builds for parallel building by default...so I doubt >> whatever emitted that line on stderr was being properly guarded >> against the failure. >> >> [1] I didn't have a boot cd or similar to work with, so I used the old >> init=/bin/sh trick on the command line. That was functional. And then >> I tried init=/usr/bin/vim, and things got real. :) >> >> [2] Sparking a bemused discussion with a friend at tonight's LUG >> meeting over the devfs->udev->udev+devtmpfs progression, but that's a >> different story. > > I can't get any kernel >=gentoo-sources-3.7.1 to work properly with > vtys either. > > 3.7.1 is fine, anything earlier is fine. > I haven't bothered tracking it down further than that (have a severe > dose of laziness right now...) > > What kernel are you running on these affected hosts? gentoo-sources-3.6.11 Note my vtys worked fine, it was just the ptys which failed. -- :wq