On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 11:45:01AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 May 2012 11:06:42 William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:59:02AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > the fact that the script leaves your system in a hard to recover state is
> > > what i'm whining about, not that udev requires devtmpfs.
> > So why did you decide to whine instead of opening a bug?
> based on past behavior, i assumed it was operating as indented
> > > we already have examples of the init scripts modifying /etc/issue to
> > > notify login entry points that their system needs manual attention to
> > > recover.
> > This part can't happen in the udev init script since / is ro when it is
> > run. Doing something in udev-postmount is also eroneous because that
> > assumes that the user is booting to the default runlevel which they may
> > not be.
> in the past, we would `mount -o remount,rw /`, but that was because we needed
> to add missing dirs in /.
Hmm, if I do that I would also have to put it back ro after I modify
issue because fsck hasn't run yet...
Do we want to mess around with the fs before fsck is run?