Initng burned my hands

frank_einstien · 2006-09-04 16:40:14

Hi

I just installed initng 0.6.7 and ifiles from the website and ( otherwise no other configureation) I edited my menu.lst. It gives the following errors

FAILSAFE ERROR ** "/home/jj/packages/temp/initng-0.6.7/src/main.c", main() line 227:
 09:27:36 -- WARN:      Initng is running in fake-mode, fake-default runlevel will be started instead.

        Next Generation Init version ( 0.6.7 Never been so good (Part 4) )
        http://www.initng.org
        Author: Jimmy Wennlund <jimmy>
        If you find initng useful, please consider a small donation.

        System is starting up!



 ** "/home/jj/packages/temp/initng-0.6.7/src/main.c", main()  line:281:
 09:27:36 -- FAIL:      Failed to load runlevel (fake-default)!
This is a sulogin offer,
you will be able to login for 2 times (now 0),
and on return initng will try continue where it was,
if the times go out, initng will launch
/sbin/initng-segfault on next su_login request.

Give root password for maintenance
(or type Control-D to continue):

So I boot into knoppix and edit menu.lst again and remembers to keep a woking boot entry handy

I used cmake and make to install it. I wonder why ng-config and ng-update are not installed. So i gave it a shot...

I believe that many are actually using initng. I would like help to get it working.

Thanks

kill · 2006-09-05 01:51:52

From the looks of it, you never configured your runlevels. Initng does not use the same rc files that arch does to run daemons. Nor does it use the same config to setup the runlevels. Runlevel actually... as both only Arch and Initng use only one by default.

frank_einstien · 2006-09-05 02:33:51

Hi

Yes, I never configured runlevels specific for initng. :oops: Where can I find doc about this?

Thanks

somairotevoli · 2006-09-05 03:30:37

I too am interested in this.

iphitus · 2006-09-05 06:36:05

Don't waste your time.

somairotevoli · 2006-09-05 06:41:01

^on?
care to elaborate?
I find it interesting and I have all the time in the world to waste.

benplaut · 2006-09-05 07:06:33

InitNG is the equivelent of an ugly hack. It doesn't have much in the way of error checking, takes alot of time to set up because of different RC, and arch boot is already relatively fast...

just repeating what i've heard, but i used to use initng. Sure, it made boot extremely fast, but i ended up with some corruption, and i had to reinstall...

suspend is much better than a fast boot...

PJ · 2006-09-05 08:11:27

I used to run it on my computer (which of course runs Arch). Sure it boots fast but there are some errors which happens from time to time. In short: problems with timing between different services and/or module loading.

InitNG is an ugly hack which needs some more ugly hacks to work on Arch. Don't waste your time (hours-days) for a ~2 seconds faster boottime. It's not worth it.

<Edit>
Upstart seems more interesting as concept.
</Edit>

frank_einstien · 2006-09-05 13:59:01

Hi

Now that you call it a waste of time....*standing in corner* :oops: But please tell me how to do it.

And whats suspend? Could you elaborate?

kill · 2006-09-05 14:00:02

frank_einstien wrote:

I never configured runlevels specific for initng. Embarassed Where can I find doc about this?

Have a look at the general installation guide. #4 speciffically.

benplaut wrote:

takes alot of time to set up because of different RC

Initng comes with over 180 RC's for a variety of common daemons. Litte had has to be done in the way of setting them up now.

PJ wrote:

InitNG is an ugly hack which needs some more ugly hacks to work on Arch.

It does not take any ugly hacks to get working on Arch. Also it is no more of an ungly hack than appending @ to a daemon in rc.conf is in Arch.

iphitus wrote:

Don't waste your time.

Why discourage someone from trying some thing new just because you don't like it. Personally I believe that Arch's init setup is superior but that doesn't mean alternatives should be dismissed and people asking for help should be treated poorly.

This is a support forum and the mostly what I can see of this topic is someone asking a vaild support question and getting responses that aren't helpful in the least. The closest was someone misinformed about initng and giving incorrect information. If you don't like a specific program give some technical reason not hearsay or your opinion. Otherwise don't waste space and give people wanting help the impression that no one here cases about helping.

frank_einstien · 2006-09-05 15:48:42

Hi

Now I configured my runlevels but when it boots it spews all kinds of errors after whiich it offers me a root console.

I took a moment to read the errors and (AAAGG) the source had all sorts of errors which caused initng to segfault. I did a make uninstall and pac'ed subversion to install from SVN.

On a different note whys the SVN command asking me to set locales? Mines supposed to be asia/calcutta and with everytihin US (keymaps, lang, fonts)

Thanks

PJ · 2006-09-05 17:00:12

kill wrote:

PJ wrote:
InitNG is an ugly hack which needs some more ugly hacks to work on Arch.
It does not take any ugly hacks to get working on Arch. Also it is no more of an ungly hack than appending @ to a daemon in rc.conf is in Arch.

No, it isn't that hard do have it running on Arch, except for have it running without errors appearing. I am sorry if my previous post was a bit missinformative. But the problem was at least for me, that it takes a bit of effort (and some ugly hacks) to get rid of all error messages that probably will appear after a clean installation. I didn't like the gentoo specific configuration that appear in the initng config files, which meant that I had to add some ugly hacks to read Arch specific configuration files like rc.conf.

I think the concept is great but I am not a fan of the implementation.

kill · 2006-09-05 21:30:04

@frank_einstien, I'm not sure why it's segfaulting.... if you still want to see if you can get it working post the exact errors, maybe someone will know what to do, PJ perhaps.

PJ wrote:

I didn't like the gentoo specific configuration that appear in the initng config files, which meant that I had to add some ugly hacks to read Arch specific configuration files like rc.conf.

As far as it needed a very Gentoo specific configuration, it's because the developer of Initng develops it on a Gentoo system and it was originally for Gentoo only.

PJ · 2006-09-05 21:51:34

kill wrote:

@frank_einstien, I'm not sure why it's segfaulting.... if you still want to see if you can get it working post the exact errors, maybe someone will know what to do, PJ perhaps.

I haven't used it in a while, so I am not sure how much help I can offer. At least I could try, but I need some more information.

kill wrote:

PJ wrote:
I didn't like the gentoo specific configuration that appear in the initng config files, which meant that I had to add some ugly hacks to read Arch specific configuration files like rc.conf.
As far as it needed a very Gentoo specific configuration, it's because the developer of Initng develops it on a Gentoo system and it was originally for Gentoo only.

Yes, I am aware of that.

frank_einstien · 2006-09-06 03:52:35

Hi

I only remember the first and last message. Looks like everythings is full of errors.

/home/jj/packages/temp/initng/main.c: error in it_function()
...
...
lots of text
...
...
launching initng-segfault
...
enter root password for maintenece 
contol+D to continue
...

Well I dont think it is simple so as to correect a typo in a C program :evil:

So I did a make uninstall and decide to install via SVN. Ill keep you updated

Thanks

iphitus · 2006-09-06 04:22:47

kill wrote:

PJ wrote:
InitNG is an ugly hack which needs some more ugly hacks to work on Arch.
It does not take any ugly hacks to get working on Arch. Also it is no more of an ungly hack than appending @ to a daemon in rc.conf is in Arch.

I always thought it was a nice tidy solution...

iphitus wrote:
Don't waste your time.
Why discourage someone from trying some thing new just because you don't like it. Personally I believe that Arch's init setup is superior but that doesn't mean alternatives should be dismissed and people asking for help should be treated poorly.

Nice assumption. Pity it's wrong, i've got nothing against it. Excuse me for my brief comment without reasoning, but benplaut and PJ picked up the trail for me. If it was worth using initng on Arch, there would be more widespread use, and almost certainly a well setup package.

When setting up and dealing with this, you're overriding some pretty low level parts of Arch, how we load modules, how we setup our network, arch's whole configuration, the rc.conf is entirely ignored for a more complex setup. To make initNG work with all these will either take some dirty hacks, or some extensive porting and testing. And im sure that the latter has not yet happened.

Not to mention also, that by using initNG, you're probably causing yourself more problems than you are fixing. many of the included daemons will not work because Arch positions things differently, or configures them differently.

initNG offers little over Arch's setup, and ultimately you're wasting countless hours to setup and reconfigure something, that may save only a second or two -- that you could probably more easily save in Arch's setup.

James

Arch Linux

#1 2006-09-04 16:40:14

Initng burned my hands

#2 2006-09-05 01:51:52

Re: Initng burned my hands

#3 2006-09-05 02:33:51

Re: Initng burned my hands

#4 2006-09-05 03:30:37

Re: Initng burned my hands

#5 2006-09-05 06:36:05

Re: Initng burned my hands

#6 2006-09-05 06:41:01

Re: Initng burned my hands

#7 2006-09-05 07:06:33

Re: Initng burned my hands

#8 2006-09-05 08:11:27

Re: Initng burned my hands

#9 2006-09-05 13:59:01

Re: Initng burned my hands

#10 2006-09-05 14:00:02

Re: Initng burned my hands

#11 2006-09-05 15:48:42

Re: Initng burned my hands

#12 2006-09-05 17:00:12

Re: Initng burned my hands

#13 2006-09-05 21:30:04

Re: Initng burned my hands

#14 2006-09-05 21:51:34

Re: Initng burned my hands

#15 2006-09-06 03:52:35

Re: Initng burned my hands

#16 2006-09-06 04:22:47

Re: Initng burned my hands

Board footer