Re: LILO 21.5-1 beta, LILO 21.4.32
Hi, I figured out the why I was having that compatability problem. I had installed from a Corel Linux CD, then upgraded to potato, and now to woody. Corel has it's own bootblock which was cboot.b This still doesn't explain the lilo version being different for the package and the binary contained therin. I guess I'll send an email to the package maintainer. Colin R. R. Johnson wrote: Hi, I just upgraded to woody (apt-get dist-upgrade) which worked extremely well except for lilo. The lilo 21.4.32 package contains lilo 21.5-1 beta. Further, when I run Lilo (I compiled a 2.4 kernel) I get the following: LILO version 21.5-1 beta, Copyright (C) 1992-1998 Werner Almesberger 'lba32' extensions Copyright (C) 1999,2999 John Coffman Reading boot sector from /dev/hda Merging with /boot/cboot.b Fatal: First boot sector is version 20.0. Expecting version 21.5. I downloaded the potato package and it has the same lilo version I then downloaded the source for the package and compiled it. The source package has version 21.4.32, and I compiled that and with that version of LILO get: Fatal: First boot sector is version 20.0. Expecting version 21.4 From what I can tell the problem is with the cboot.b file. I've looked in the LILO documentation and can't figure out how to resolve this problem. I suspect it's something obvious and that I'm going to feel like hitting myself when I find the solution. I did indeed feel like hitting myself when I realized this. Thanks, Colin Johnson -- Colin Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember: Everything you see on screen is but ones and zeroes. -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- Colin Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember: Everything you see on screen is but ones and zeroes.
LILO 21.5-1 beta, LILO 21.4.32
Hi, I just upgraded to woody (apt-get dist-upgrade) which worked extremely well except for lilo. The lilo 21.4.32 package contains lilo 21.5-1 beta. Further, when I run Lilo (I compiled a 2.4 kernel) I get the following: LILO version 21.5-1 beta, Copyright (C) 1992-1998 Werner Almesberger 'lba32' extensions Copyright (C) 1999,2999 John Coffman Reading boot sector from /dev/hda Merging with /boot/cboot.b Fatal: First boot sector is version 20.0. Expecting version 21.5. I downloaded the potato package and it has the same lilo version I then downloaded the source for the package and compiled it. The source package has version 21.4.32, and I compiled that and with that version of LILO get: Fatal: First boot sector is version 20.0. Expecting version 21.4 From what I can tell the problem is with the cboot.b file. I've looked in the LILO documentation and can't figure out how to resolve this problem. I suspect it's something obvious and that I'm going to feel like hitting myself when I find the solution. Thanks, Colin Johnson -- Colin Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember: Everything you see on screen is but ones and zeroes.
Re: Unable to click on links in Navigator 4.61
Dan Everton wrote: On Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 09:20:44AM -0400, Colin R. R. Johnson wrote: Dan Everton wrote: On Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 01:18:50PM +0200, Joop Stakenborg wrote: On Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 07:26:29PM +1000, Dan Everton wrote: In the past few days (today and yesterday to be precise) I've noticed that I can no longer click on links in Navigator. All mouse related events work it's just those that are on the rendered HTML page that don't work. This includes both left and right mouse clicks on links. [...] Got the same problem here yesterday. Restarting X-windows helped in my case Can you try that? Joop Hmm... that works. Any idea why? I'd rather find the root cause of the problem rather than a work around. Thanks for that though. Dan -- [...] I have found that the problem seems to be related to Java. I too had this problem and when I looked a little deeper I discovered that it only happened after Netscape tried to run a Java Applet. My solution was to just disable Java from running. Colin. I normally have Java disabled and only enable it when I need it. I haven't used Java in a long time in Netscape, so in my case it wasn't related to that. Did you get the same error messages on the console at the time? Dan For me disabling Java as well as Java Scripts seems to have done it. I have also changed window managers, and am using Gnome so it could have something to do with the window manager. I seem to recall that checking with ps x showed that a piece of netscape was just locked up and if I remember correctly it was related to the Java. This was a situation where I had other things that needed to be worked on and I was just happy to have the problem go away and I didn't really think about it again until now. Maybe if I have some time I'll play with it again. Colin. -- Colin Johnson. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.interlog.com/~cjohnson Remember, Everything you see on screen is but ones and zeros.
Re: Unable to click on links in Navigator 4.61
Dan Everton wrote: On Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 01:18:50PM +0200, Joop Stakenborg wrote: On Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 07:26:29PM +1000, Dan Everton wrote: In the past few days (today and yesterday to be precise) I've noticed that I can no longer click on links in Navigator. All mouse related events work it's just those that are on the rendered HTML page that don't work. This includes both left and right mouse clicks on links. [...] Got the same problem here yesterday. Restarting X-windows helped in my case Can you try that? Joop Hmm... that works. Any idea why? I'd rather find the root cause of the problem rather than a work around. Thanks for that though. Dan -- [...] I have found that the problem seems to be related to Java. I too had this problem and when I looked a little deeper I discovered that it only happened after Netscape tried to run a Java Applet. My solution was to just disable Java from running. Colin. -- Colin Johnson. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.interlog.com/~cjohnson Remember, Everything you see on screen is but ones and zeros.
Re: New drive
Stephan A Suerken wrote: Nils Rennebarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should not 'copy the partitions'. Don't know what ghost is, but I doubt it supports the ext2 filesystem. With GNU cp, copying whole partitions is ok via cp -a, so tar is not needed (if one can mount both partitions simultaneously). There is also a mini HOWTO to this subject called /usr/doc/HOWTO/mini/Hard-Disk-Upgrade.* ...snip There is also information about moving a tree in Linux Gazette #22 in the answer guy column, it explains how to move your /usr tree without a problem. Rather than booting from a floppy and then changing things it is easiest just to edit fstab to switch mount points for the old and new trees of which ever directory tree /usr, /home etc. that you are moving. I have done it twice now and it worked beautifully. I did not move the root of the filesystem though, that's still on the original drive. There is a truth to the statement that programs and data will expand to fill any and all available disk space :-) Colin Johnson -- Colin Johnson. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.interlog.com/~cjohnson Remember, Everything you see on screen is but ones and zeros.
