FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-22-2012, 11:39 AM
Øyvind Heggstad
 
Default testing/systemd 191-1 failed to boot

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 15:37:26 +0900
Zhengyu Xu <xzy3186@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 12:00 +0530, Aurko Roy wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Zhengyu Xu <xzy3186@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > After updating systemd to 191-1 in testing repo, I had following
> > > messages during booting and the process was stuck (crashed).
> > >
> > > [ 10.539416] systemd[1]: segfault at 7d ip b75a97b7 sp bfb0ece8
> > > error 4 in libc-2.16.so[b752a000+1a4000]
> > > [ 10.539700] systemd[1]: Caught <SEGV>, core dump failed.
> > >
> > > Downgrade to 189-4 can solve this problem. I want to know if this
> > > is a personal problem or a general bug affecting others as well.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Z.
> > >
> > >
> > Boots fine on my x86_64 desktop.
> >
>
> Thank you, I forgot to say that mine is i686.
>


For those interested in the actual problem at hand and not the trolling
loser (unsubscribing == letting the troll win btw, so imo don't do it)

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/31645
 
Old 09-22-2012, 11:40 AM
Allan McRae
 
Default testing/systemd 191-1 failed to boot

On 22/09/12 21:39, Øyvind Heggstad wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 15:37:26 +0900
> Zhengyu Xu <xzy3186@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 12:00 +0530, Aurko Roy wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Zhengyu Xu <xzy3186@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> After updating systemd to 191-1 in testing repo, I had following
>>>> messages during booting and the process was stuck (crashed).
>>>>
>>>> [ 10.539416] systemd[1]: segfault at 7d ip b75a97b7 sp bfb0ece8
>>>> error 4 in libc-2.16.so[b752a000+1a4000]
>>>> [ 10.539700] systemd[1]: Caught <SEGV>, core dump failed.
>>>>
>>>> Downgrade to 189-4 can solve this problem. I want to know if this
>>>> is a personal problem or a general bug affecting others as well.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Z.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Boots fine on my x86_64 desktop.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you, I forgot to say that mine is i686.
>>
>
>
> For those interested in the actual problem at hand and not the trolling
> loser (unsubscribing == letting the troll win btw, so imo don't do it)
>
> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/31645
>

This is more informative...
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55213
 
Old 09-22-2012, 11:52 AM
Zhengyu Xu
 
Default testing/systemd 191-1 failed to boot

Hi Allan,

Thank you very much for the link as well as the removal of systemd i686
from testing repo. Sorry for generating some unnecessary noise in this
list.

Best regards,
Z.


On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 21:40 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 22/09/12 21:39, Øyvind Heggstad wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 15:37:26 +0900
> > Zhengyu Xu <xzy3186@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 12:00 +0530, Aurko Roy wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Zhengyu Xu <xzy3186@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dear all,
> >>>>
> >>>> After updating systemd to 191-1 in testing repo, I had following
> >>>> messages during booting and the process was stuck (crashed).
> >>>>
> >>>> [ 10.539416] systemd[1]: segfault at 7d ip b75a97b7 sp bfb0ece8
> >>>> error 4 in libc-2.16.so[b752a000+1a4000]
> >>>> [ 10.539700] systemd[1]: Caught <SEGV>, core dump failed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Downgrade to 189-4 can solve this problem. I want to know if this
> >>>> is a personal problem or a general bug affecting others as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> Z.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Boots fine on my x86_64 desktop.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thank you, I forgot to say that mine is i686.
> >>
> >
> >
> > For those interested in the actual problem at hand and not the trolling
> > loser (unsubscribing == letting the troll win btw, so imo don't do it)
> >
> > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/31645
> >
>
> This is more informative...
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55213
>
>
>
>
 
Old 09-22-2012, 12:05 PM
Kevin Chadwick
 
Default testing/systemd 191-1 failed to boot

> And now you have them. Did you have even one totally unbootable system
> with sysvinit and initscripts? I doubt that.

That's true, you could almost always use init=/bin/ksh|/bin/zsh etc. and
have a largely usable system, more so than the in-built busybox but as
the reason is unclear at the moment, it would be wrong to point the
finger, however I guess many binaries would be segfaulting if it wasn't
systemds fault.

Heiko was a little over zealous likely because of abuse he has taken
in the past but now he is insulted when he has atleast had reasoning
in his words.

Divide and conquer tactics, how lovely. The theme continues.

--
__________________________________________________ _____________________

'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface'

(Doug McIlroy)
__________________________________________________ _____________________
 
Old 09-22-2012, 01:06 PM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default testing/systemd 191-1 failed to boot

Am 22.09.2012 10:07, schrieb Heiko Baums:
> Am Sat, 22 Sep 2012 15:09:02 +0900
> schrieb Zhengyu Xu <xzy3186@gmail.com>:
>
>> After updating systemd to 191-1 in testing repo, I had following
>> messages during booting and the process was stuck (crashed).
>>
>> [ 10.539416] systemd[1]: segfault at 7d ip b75a97b7 sp bfb0ece8
>> error 4 in libc-2.16.so[b752a000+1a4000]
>> [ 10.539700] systemd[1]: Caught <SEGV>, core dump failed.
>>
>> Downgrade to 189-4 can solve this problem. I want to know if this
>> is a personal problem or a general bug affecting others as well.
>
> Why am I not surprised?
>
> Yes, binary init system is so much better than a script based init
> system. And Poetterix is so damn good, so advanced, such an evolution
> and so much better than the common and over 40 years well tested
> sysvinit.
>
> Come on systemd fanboys, here you have the first example. There's more
> to come. I'll get my popcorn.

After the recent outbreaks, we have been discussing banning people from
arch-general. At the time, the people we talked about had calmed down
and everything went back to normal, so there was no point in going
forward with it. However, your name just made top of the list.

If I see you interrupting one more technical discussion with trolls and
flames, you will be banned indefinitely without further notice. I will
not see another one week flamewar on this list.

You are a grown man (at least you look like one), so you should know
that this kind of post adds nothing to the discussion, but starts yet
another flamewar. Start acting like a grown man and keep it to yourself,
unless you have something to say that's worth saying.

I am completely against banning people, but at this point, it is either
banning people or shutting down this list entirely.
 
Old 09-22-2012, 01:57 PM
Dave Reisner
 
Default testing/systemd 191-1 failed to boot

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 06:23:13PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 22/09/12 17:24, Allan McRae wrote:
> > FYI, many people are reporting this on i686.
>
> I removed the i686 systemd package from [testing]. No point keeping
> this there...
>
> Allan
>

Fun. There's already a bug report and patch upstream for this:

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55213

d
 
Old 09-22-2012, 02:05 PM
Heiko Baums
 
Default testing/systemd 191-1 failed to boot

Am Sat, 22 Sep 2012 15:06:28 +0200
schrieb Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org>:

> After the recent outbreaks, we have been discussing banning people
> from arch-general. At the time, the people we talked about had calmed
> down and everything went back to normal, so there was no point in
> going forward with it. However, your name just made top of the list.
>
> If I see you interrupting one more technical discussion with trolls
> and flames, you will be banned indefinitely without further notice. I
> will not see another one week flamewar on this list.

Sorry, but the flamewar was not started by me but by all of the systemd
fanboys who also infiltrated initscripts with those crappy
systemd-tools which make the boot process slower, more error-prone and
more instable, not only because of this systemd-cryptsetup and its new
syntax.

I always said, keep systemd totally optional and keep initscripts as
they have been (without this systemd(-tools) crap), and you won't have
any problems, no discussions and totally no flamewar.

So it was your decision. So don't blame me. And, btw., I was really not
the loudest one in this flamewar. And I always said that it sometimes
can be worth thinking about what I say, even if I don't always give
exact technical proof.

And you also should know that the GDR doesn't exist anymore.

Btw., I think you can imagine that I know how to get a new e-mail
address. Without wanting to be offensive. But you really should think
before threatening people. And I don't let myself being threatened.
Sorry to have to get rude now. You of all people here should know that
I'm usually not, and that one can talk to me.

If you can't live with other people's opinions it's your problem, not
mine.

> You are a grown man (at least you look like one), so you should know
> that this kind of post adds nothing to the discussion, but starts yet
> another flamewar. Start acting like a grown man and keep it to
> yourself, unless you have something to say that's worth saying.

I had and have something to say and I did that. And I did that like a
grown up. And that had not only but also technical reasons. If you think
you should ignore the people who are totally concerned about Poetterix
then you have to live with those consequences. And again, I was
definitely not the one who made the most noise.

But I and all the other people who criticized systemd have always been
asked to give technical proof without giving technical proof for
systemd's superiority. Now you really don't need to wonder that you get
corresponding comments.

> I am completely against banning people, but at this point, it is
> either banning people or shutting down this list entirely.

Then you should think at least twice about both. Both won't stop this
discussion. And think this mailing list is not the only mailing list
with such a long discussion about systemd. Why? Because it is crap,
not only in Arch Linux.

Even if you don't want to hear this, but PA and systemd are both crap.
E.g. why does a logfile need to be in an unreadable binary form so that
the logfile can only be read with an additional tool instead of just
cat, less and grep? And why does everything need to be written into one
single log file? And meanwhile I tested both, PA and systemd. And no, I
don't file bug reports for crappy software I totally don't want to have
anyway.

But don't worry. As soon as I find a systemd free Arch Linux like
alternative to Arch Linux I will switch to it. It's a pity, because
Arch Linux was actually and could still be one of the best distros
until you started switching to systemd. There's a reason why I'm using
Arch Linux for about 5 years now.

Heiko
 
Old 09-22-2012, 02:20 PM
Heiko Baums
 
Default testing/systemd 191-1 failed to boot

Am Sat, 22 Sep 2012 15:06:28 +0200
schrieb Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org>:

> After the recent outbreaks, we have been discussing banning people
> from arch-general. At the time, the people we talked about had calmed
> down and everything went back to normal, so there was no point in
> going forward with it. However, your name just made top of the list.

And, btw., instead of threatening and banning people with different
opinions you rather should take their criticisms serious and take them
as an incentive to improve Arch Linux and to make it better instead of
worse.

Heiko
 
Old 09-22-2012, 02:22 PM
Alexandre Ferrando
 
Default testing/systemd 191-1 failed to boot

On 22 September 2012 16:20, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
> And, btw., instead of threatening and banning people with different
> opinions you rather should take their criticisms serious and take them
> as an incentive to improve Arch Linux and to make it better instead of
> worse.
>
> Heiko

They're not going to ban anyone for having a different opinion, but
for trolling.
 
Old 09-22-2012, 02:41 PM
"P .NIKOLIC"
 
Default testing/systemd 191-1 failed to boot

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:22:06 +0200
Alexandre Ferrando <alferpal@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 22 September 2012 16:20, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
> > And, btw., instead of threatening and banning people with different
> > opinions you rather should take their criticisms serious and take
> > them as an incentive to improve Arch Linux and to make it better
> > instead of worse.
> >
> > Heiko
>
> They're not going to ban anyone for having a different opinion, but
> for trolling.

Please explain just who has trolled .. i saw an opinion about systemd
thats about all ..

Pete


--
Linux 7-of-9 3.5.4-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat Sep 15 08:12:04 CEST 2012
x86_64 GNU/Linux
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:06 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org