After upgrading from edgy to feisty, no login

[Ryan Rawdon]

Binary package hint: upstart

I have a Dapper machine I was upgrading to edgy, then feisty, then gutsy. This problem showed up after I dist-upgraded from edgy to feisty, then rebooted.

The symptom is no login prompt being presented. The last line printed to the console is "Running local boot scripts [OK]" (though if upstart is booting scripts concurrently, it is possible that this isn't the last line for some people, it'll be something else)

Upon reboot:
init: /etc/event.d/tty1:16: Unknown stanza

repeated for Tty1 through 6. Looking at /etc/event.d/tty* you can see that the last two lines of these files are:
respawn
/sbin/getty 38400 tty1exec /sbin/getty 38400 tty1

There are three problems here:
1) the last line is repeated without a newline
2) the first repetition doesn't contain exec
3) it shouldn't be repeated

This was with a brand new install of dapper, nothing was modified by hand. I was doing this specifically to test for problem cases before upgrading dapper to hardy on semi-production machines.

This is on an amd64 machine

This is related, but not an exact duplicate of https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/95210

I say it is not a duplicate because this seems to only happen on an upgrade from edgy to feisty, and the problem with the ttyX files is different.

[Ryan Rawdon (flieslikeabrick)]

I should also add that this is fixed by changing the last two lines of these event.d files to:
respawn
/sbin/getty 3840 tty1

(or tty<whatever>)

[James Westby (james-w)]

Hi,

I am curious why you say this is not a duplicate of
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/95210. The corruption
you report seems to be identical to that in
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/95210/comments/15
for instance.

Thanks,

James

[Ryan Rawdon (flieslikeabrick)]

Bug 95210 itself is about a different mangling of these files though, and even though a comment indicates the same one as this, this bug is technically a different problem than the one in 95210.

If someone deems that this is indeed a duplicate of that bug, then go ahead and mark it so but please reopen the other bug.