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 0C39E138788 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 04:45:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DB257E05D9; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 04:45:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com (mail-wg0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C1A8E05A5 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 04:45:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id 12so114112wgh.3 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:45:33 -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=mqVW28OcqcecsMOBMgAI2NnO0wN+yO9MklYcU+4bihk=; b=NVhC4GuZ5uZ3FxABlH2yfW8hg7dEV7Ar/sgRXihgpZEgpyf4bKMe3+Xyy+cViCgHOC Ds49+Di/NCSyg1B3DoSMPG5LMdw+N9YCM7bWA1hNftfeJZhvU9zo/MdYujaiWPVKZASC GzLdlhYGRc6sGBCNAFDFEaWXv867gonWjIu3C6svSL3KIAv3H437E4l4bvwwQtqmkLj1 UPbuefTE9dopDV5+xtiTaMZKvtSfWVFFvCtS3HbqZK8bsyD+TMGRFP7Zj5vfSBHTBD2L HBJeydsxmSzb1aeTTQrbVYZWgOG2Chk0a2OHWojZtclCECWAXRfsXsfEmF53h+CJo8yZ vq7A== 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 10.180.85.103 with SMTP id g7mr12451216wiz.29.1359607532959; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:45:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.174.197 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:45:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:45:32 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] udev-191 bit me. Insufficient ptys From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2FuZWsgUGVsw6FleiBWYWxkw6lz?= To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 76e664ee-8377-4bbc-9c9b-87e11ac8bd65 X-Archives-Hash: 29c8294c439aae184b7e4c91d12abbc8 On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:35 PM, 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 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. > 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. I don't see how an error about pseudo terminals could affect the compilation. You could also try to compile with &> to a log file, and prepare a binary package instead of installing it immediately. The log file actually could help to find the problem. [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/3609 Regards. --=20 Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingenier=C3=ADa de la Computaci=C3=B3n Universidad Nacional Aut=C3=B3noma de M=C3=A9xico