Linux-Setup Digest #481, Volume #19 Sat, 26 Aug 00 15:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Stupid Question - 1 (PlzBeMine)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("paul snow")
Re: imwheel stopped working (Dances With Crows)
Re: can't activate netcfg ("Elhanan Maayan")
Re: Problems with ppp (Bill Unruh)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("paul snow")
Re: Lotus Mail (Marcus Webb)
wron major or minor version number for partitions. What am I doing wrong? (Marcus
Webb)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("paul snow")
Re: modules.conf and fstab ignored in RedHat 6.2 (Colin Watson)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("paul snow")
stupid simple question, please help ("Dan")
kernel 2.2.16: no sound or parport "unresolved symbols" error. ("Richard M. Denney")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PlzBeMine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stupid Question - 1
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:02:14 GMT
Linux Gurus,
I have almost similar problem with Bing. I have a 20Gb HDD with pre-
installed Win98 and now I want to install Redhat Linux as well.
I have this Partition Magix but I really dont know what the software
can do aside from partitioning your hard drive withour destroying your
current setup.
Question : Is Partition Magic applicable to dos and linux os as well? I
am assuming that Partition Magic will just partition the drive on the
Win98 system.
If I use Partition Magic will Linux installation recognize the
partitioned space? Please advise...
thanks...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "paul snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:13:05 GMT
I gave you 26 concrete points to argue. If you can't pick one and state why
it can not be implemented, or why the logic is faulty, you should just go
away.
And learn to read. "XML isn't magic..." right there in my post!
Argue if you want, but why throw rocks?
Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:12:53 GMT, paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Let me get this straight. I have posted a fairly long document that
claims
> >that installation of software is nothing more than properly rendering
> >storage.
>
> You have posted a fairly long document that doesn't really say much
> that is concrete and implementable. You essentially trust that somehow
> XML can solve the problem but don't say how exactly. And you don't
> seem to have investigated what has already been done in this area.
>
> While using XML as a way to structure dependency lists and databases
> for a system-level software installer might have some merit, there is
> a lot more that needs to go into it. Using XML does not by itself solve
> any of the well-known problems of software installation.
>
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: imwheel stopped working
Date: 26 Aug 2000 17:22:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:03:36 +0100, Anton Suchaneck wrote:
>Since I changed th configuration of imwheel, imwheel stopped working.
>It starts without complaining but my wheel doesnt work. Has anyone have
>a suggestion?
Change /etc/imwheelrc back to the way it used to be, of course! If you
didn't make a backup of the file that worked before changing things,
then I strongly suggest you do that next time.
--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / Those who do not understand Unix are
http://www.brainbench.com / condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
=============================/ ==Henry Spencer
------------------------------
From: "Elhanan Maayan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: can't activate netcfg
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:26:09 +0200
what do u mean run it from a desktop?
the first message is :
file: "/usr/lib/rhs/netcfg//netcfg.py", line 24 in ? from rhtkinter import
*
"Elhanan Maayan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8o3mbb$fs8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> i have redhat 6.2 which i installed with the gnome config package...
> when i try to activate the netcfg i get
> traceback (innermost last):
> and then a lot of messages like:
> file "path/filename" , line "line number" in ?
> ""
> ""
>
> and in the end:
> tclError: no display name and no $DISPLAY Envioment variable.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: Problems with ppp
Date: 26 Aug 2000 17:41:41 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Frank Geschner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>****************Begin Message**********************
>pppd: By default the remote system is required to authenticate itself
>pppd: (because this system has a default route to the internet)
>pppd: but I couldn't find any suitable secret (password) for it to use
>to do so.pppd: (None of the available passwords would let it use an IP
>address.)
>******************End Messager**********************
>I dont know, what i can do to solve this problem.
>Can anybody help me?
Youhave an etehrnet card. Many distro by default puts in a default route to
that ethernet. Remove it. Eitehr find out where it is set (rummage
around in /etc/sysconfig) or put
route del default
at the end of /etc/rc.d/rc.local (or wherever your rc.local is.
Also put
noauth
into /etc/ppp/options. HOwever this will not totally help as you will
find when you connect that you do not have a default route on ppp unless
you get rid of the one on the ehternet.
------------------------------
From: "paul snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:48:43 GMT
Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:52:59 GMT, paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps the developer doesn't WANT me to know what they are going to do
to
> >my computer's storage in order to install their program. Well, in that
> >case, I don't want their product. I am sick and tired of having a dead
> >machine because some stinking DLL or registry setting is screwed up, and
I
> >haven't got any reasonable way of figuring it out. In fact, I have such
a
> >laptop (a four week old, top of the line Dell with a dead Windows 98)
> >sitting right over there in the corner.
>
> Oh, so you're trying to solve the *Windows* install problem. Oh, I see
> now. Well, that *is* a problem. Not for me, as I avoid Windows, but
> apparently for lots of people. And while the install problem isn't
> just a Windows problem, that system does seem to do things less well
> than others.
Oh, so all those hours I spent installing stuff on Solaris was really
Windows?
The point is that we need to get over the idea that installing is part of
the abstractions that the OS provides. That mindset prevents us from
developing technologies (such as those I am describing here) that can
install across platforms.
The only thing such a facility needs is really basic I/O and access to
stroage. This is a great application for Linux. So I have a Windows
laptop. I think I would be far happier if when it ran, it did so because it
was properly constructued and maintained from a facility running under a
simple, bullet proof Linux. The same facility could maintain my Solaris
box. And my other Linux boxes. Why not?
Say I have DB2 defined in abstract, as I suggest. Then I could "render" an
installation on Linux, or render an installation onto NT, or onto Solaris.
DB2 also provides server versions, client versions, versions for embedded
systems, etc. All of these can be viewed as different renderings of the
same DB2 product, in abstract.
No, all these versions don't have to be on the same CD. XML provides
linking (as does about any other structured format now days). And besides,
with DVD, and a reasonable subset of targets, it just might have them all.
> Since you posted this to a bunch of non-Windows groups, I should point
> out that here are existing system-level installers for Linux and
> FreeBSD that more or less provide what you want. They will give you a
> list of files that are to be installed, tell you what other packages
> this one depends on (and in some systems they will install those for
> you too). The file formats are documented and tools are provided to
> extract various information. You can extract all the components and
> install them by hand if you want, if not the software keeps a database
> of what is installed where so you can do upgrades, a clean uninstall
> (modulo files that the program creates at runtime), get verification
> that files have not been tampered with, and the like.
Can I use FreeBSD to manage my Windows system? Linux? Solaris? Does Linux's
install program work if Linux isn't operational? Can I use these installers
to define DB2 in one abstraction so that it can be expressed on a number of
different targets? And once I do have a properly configured system, can I
back up that configuration information in a way that will allow me to
replace that box in the future, with one running a different OS?
Yeah, in the old days of the early 90's we didn't have to worry about this
stuff. Two months to bring up a new box was just fine, since only 20 people
in the company needed access to that machine. But now I have everyone that
needs these boxes, and their distributed applications.
The same old, same old, only done bigger and better just isn't enough.
> These programs are not perfect, but they are vastly better than the
> one's I've seen for Windows. Perhaps you should look at these before
> you go off redesigning the world in XML. You might get some good ideas
> at least, even if they don't do everything you dream of.
> >My point is we have gotten past the idea that the writer is responsible
> >for laying out each page in a document.
>
> We have? You'd better explain that concept to the 75% of webmasters
> who think HTML is a page-layout language.
So you think the guys that write the content also design these pages? You
think people write in HTML? Or do you think they might use tools to render
those documents into HTML for page layout?
Clearly, you *aren't* a writer.
> >Let's get over the idea that each developer has the responsibility for
> >laying out my storage.
>
> In his copious spare time, the developer will program so that you can
> install any components anywhere and it'll still work.
>
> Clearly, you *aren't* a developer.
My point: In his copious spare time, the developer could specify what their
programs require.
Building components so they can install anywhere is simply increasing the
number of valid representations for the program. This is what we do now
(And have done because *I am* a developer) and it is often a waste of time.
Bottom Line:
I spend a good bit of time reading through install instructions and manuals
and filling out options (as documented) to make part A work with part B over
connector C to server D where E is running on port F and supplying service
G, etc. etc.
These are not usually Windows boxes, but sometimes they are. I end up
typing, clicking, and pushing lots of information into all these programs.
We get something wrong, we pound and pound, reinstall, reformat, click,
poke, and pull. And we get things running. Change something, and we do it
all over again.
You might be the one developer who never deals with configuration
information. Or who thinks learing how to do this on every system, and
(doing it over and over) is just a great way to build up job security. But
I think it is a waste of time.
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Webb)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Lotus Mail
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:01:07 GMT
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 07:30:00 +0800, "someone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Assuming we are talking about Lotus Notes or Domino, you just ned to
persuaed the guys running it to load the HTTPD task on the serverf and
then get its IP address, then you can access your mail via a web
browser. We did that for all the guys who wanted to access stuff in
Asia in places where the phone lines are crap, but the net cafes are
prolific, for some reason. Hope this helps.
Regards
Marcus
>Thanks for the reply.
>Is there a mail connector I can use with sendmail/qmail/fetchmail, etc..
>that allows me to get mails from the server if the server is not configured
>for pop/imap due to whatever reasons ?
>
>Thanks again.
>
>
>
>"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8o0khd$rvv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.help someone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : My company uses lotus mail server for their internal email needs. My
>problem
>> : is this :- I'll be setting up a internet gateway on a linux box. Is
>there
>> : anyway to setup a linux web-base email server to interface to the lotus
>> : server so that I can read my mails anywhere in the world ?
>>
>> ?? If the lotus mail server supports pop or imap you can get email from
>> it anywhere anyway. Maybe lotus mail isn't mail. Doesn't it have a web
>> interface too? Just curious.
>>
>> Peter
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Webb)
Subject: wron major or minor version number for partitions. What am I doing wrong?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:06:19 GMT
Hi there
Hoping that someone here can help. I have a home built system that has
two SCSI CD Drives and an IDE Hard drive. The partitioning work has
all been done and Linux installs from a bootable CD in either drive -
no probs there. I mount the partitions I want when setting up under
the install, but when I reboot if I try to mount any partition other
than the Linux ones (i.e. my Windoze 98 stuff) I get the error "wrong
major or minor version number". This is very frustrating.
I can reinstall if necessary to fix this, so am not too fussed by the
situation, but it would be nice to get it fixed. Any suggestions?
I can use RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake or TurboLinux to install. and they
all produce the same probs.
Regards
Marcus
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:09:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Christopher Browne
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 26 Aug 2000 03:45:27 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when The Ghost In The Machine
>would say:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mlw
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>That's all that XML is, nothing more. It can not replace programs, it is
>>>not a new concept in operating systems.
>>
>>It might replace programs (programs are interpreted data in their
>>own right, after all -- to the right interpreter, such as an x86
>>micro, a JVM, or even a BASIC environment), but it sure looks
>>hard to manage, although not too hard to generate.
>
>It only "replaces" programs if it can express programs itself.
>Note that providing the ability to _embed_ programs is not that;
>that merely replaces one language with another.
>
>>But why can't we use a schema/data approach? Something like:
>>
>>first 8 bytes - magic signature number, just because
>>byte - endianity
>>byte - user-defined version ID
>>2 bytes - number of fields
>>field descriptor byte: 0=short, 1=long, 2=float, 3=double,
>> 4=zero-terminated string
>>field name: zero-terminated string
>>field descriptor byte:
>>field name:
>>...
>>
>>(The floats would be in IEEE format, which is the one 680x0 and
>>80x86 micros use -- and possibly a large number of other computer
>>systems.)
>>
>>Surely somebody out there's thought of a standard for this.
>
>There's not one; there's several.
Doesn't surprise me too much. :-)
>
>Leaping to mind are:
>a) IIOP - the Internet protocol defined for CORBA that does
> essentially what you describe, albeit a _little_ differently;
>b) Casbah's LDO (Lightweight Distributed Objects)
I'll have to check out IIOP. Another obvious one -- albeit it's
not clear it's documented yet -- is Java's persistence format.
(Is it specced to be JVM-compatible?)
>
>>Or one can use a chunky format, something a la Amiga's IFF,
>>where data is in chunks, understood by each program. Chunks
>>could even have DTD-like structures if necessary.
>>
>>But nooooooo....we get to clutter up what is essentially a
>>data-centric stream with a lot of framing clutter. Unless
>>I'm missing something in the DTD spec which allows for the
>>specification in binary of all of this data...?
>
>I think WAP provides some such mapping...
I don't know WAP from THWAP, admittedly. :-)
Is this on the www.w3c.org site?
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/corba.html>
>"What did we agree about a leader??"
>"We agreed we wouldn't have one."
>"Good. Now shut up and do as I say..."
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "paul snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:13:31 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8o8qsi$urf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:52:59 GMT, paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > Clearly, you *aren't* a developer.
>
> And that give him the perfect qualifications to determine what developers
> should be doing. Read a little about the latest fad, like XML,
> understanding less than half of the information, credit it with magical
> properties to solve all ills and then direct developers to make it work
> somehow. Sounds familiar?
What is the deal here? I write a post or two that claims that we can manage
computer systems directly, on their storage, outside the abstractions of the
Operating Systems and their Services. I claim that these abstractions and
services simply clutter up the configuration management tasks and get in the
way, cause problems, and waste our time.
I claim that storage is nothing more than structured data, and can be
managed as just that, structured data.
Get over XML already! There is no magic, it is just a means of defining
structured data, and translations of structured data from one form to
another! Tagged file formats have been around since the late 60's! No
magic!
Would it make you happier if we quit talking about XML and said we would
hold the configuration information in TIFF files instead? Those are tagged
files too, and they handle binary! Who even cares, already!
You want to claim that the storage in a computer system is so complex, and
applications are so mysterious that it can't be defined using a simple
format for structured data. It isn't magic, it is just simple structured
data. You want to claim we can't have cross platform installation
facilities because of what? The complexity?
Well I have news for you. If you are a developer, you are a sad one,
because you should know and understand that there isn't much complexity at
the storage level. Files, Directories, and some attributes. That's it.
Very simple, Very structured. The only problem I can see is the possiblity
that Operating Systems are magic, but I don't believe in magic.
XML isn't magic, it is just good at describing structured data.
And storage is just structured data, nothing more, no magic.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson)
Subject: Re: modules.conf and fstab ignored in RedHat 6.2
Date: 26 Aug 2000 08:44:15 GMT
D G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have the cdrom set up in fstab as follows:
>
>/dev/cdrom /mnt/cdrom iso9660 defaults,ro,users,noauto,unhide 0 0
>
>However, everytime I mount it, RedHat 6.2 insists on mounting it as
>noexec, nosuid. So I change the line explicitly to
>
>/dev/cdrom /mnt/cdrom iso9660 ro,suid,dev,users,exec,noauto,unhide 0 0
>
>And it *still* gets mounted as noexec,nosuid. So now I have to mount it
>with -o exec on the command line. How can I fix this behavior?
>Everything worked fine with RedHat 6.1.
You should at least change it to ro,users,exec,suid,dev,noauto,unhide;
users implies noexec, nosuid, and nodev, unless overridden by
*subsequent* options. See 'man mount'.
I don't know why it's getting mounted noexec above, though ...
>Also, the modules.conf file is getting ignored. Modules won't load or
>unload automatically, even though they worked fine under 6.1. I did
>have to change conf.modules to modules.conf to make 6.2 happy, but that
>was the only change I made. Anyone else having these problems?
Check /var/log/messages or /var/log/kern.log or wherever kernel log
messages go in RH 6.2, as if loading a module fails then it will
probably be logged there.
Check, perhaps, that kmod support is compiled into the kernel (it's in
"Loadable module support" if you end up needing to recompile). You can
tell because /proc/sys/kernel/modprobe exists if and only if kmod is
there. Also, that file should contain the correct path to your modprobe
executable (probably /sbin/modprobe). If you need to change it, note
that you'll need to put something in your startup scripts to do so every
time you boot; /proc isn't a real filesystem, it's just created by the
kernel as an interface to some of its internals.
--
Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
"And after the fire there came a still small voice ..."
------------------------------
From: "paul snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:26:26 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8o8q6v$spd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:L4Pp5.19468$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > This is really getting close to what the origional post was all about!
> Only
> > it is isn't what is in the document that I want to know, but the
> information
> > that is typically "encrypted" into the installation program! I want to
> know
> > what files, directories, configuration settings, etc. that a program
> relies
> > on in order to be operational. I know this information is in the
install
> > program the developer provided. Thus I often uninstall and reinstall
the
> > program to try to fix the program (success rate: 20 percent).
> >
> > The problem is that every software component is handed to me in the
same,
> > encrypted format (a pile of installs from various venders). No meta
> > information about how these structures are supposed to be interrelated.
> No
> > single and separate "installation" facility (or what I would call a
> > "Software Rendering Facility") for collecting and tracking this
> information.
> >
> > Perhaps the developer doesn't WANT me to know what they are going to do
to
> > my computer's storage in order to install their program. Well, in that
> > case, I don't want their product. I am sick and tired of having a dead
> > machine because some stinking DLL or registry setting is screwed up, and
I
> > haven't got any reasonable way of figuring it out. In fact, I have such
a
> > laptop (a four week old, top of the line Dell with a dead Windows 98)
> > sitting right over there in the corner.
> >
> > My point is we have gotten past the idea that the writer is responsible
> for
> > laying out each page in a document. Let's get over the idea that each
> > developer has the responsibility for laying out my storage.
> >
> > There is little to hide when it comes to how to install software. So
why
> > don't developers just lay out what they need done in plain English (or
> > swahili whatever) already!
>
> If that is your concern, then you didn't word it very well and bringing
XML
> in to the discussion was pointless side issue that you gave center stage
to.
>
> If all you want is information and control over your system when
installing
> new software and have the power to override bad installation ideas in
> relations to your hosts needs; then WELCOME TO THE ALMOST FORGOTTEN PAST
OF
> COMPUTING! That is just the way things were before Microsoft along with a
> few other companies together desided that we neither needed to know or
even
> could handle these issues.
>
> To fix thing we don't need a redesigned package manager as you now seem to
> be championing. All we need is for the software to be delivered in a
format
> that we can control its installation. At one time all we had to do was
copy
> the programs and their supporting files onto our systems, we were in
control
> of that process, we knew what was being done and could select to locations
> of the programs. Then they started to be shipped in standard compressed
> archives. We could still examine the contents of the archives and control
> and override the installation process as we saw fit.
>
> Over time the process has become more and more automated with less and
less
> control on the part of the humans responsible for the installation. What
we
> need is to reject Redmond's way of doing thing and a return to the past.
> When you depend on a standard installation program/package manager you are
> surrendering control. You are right if you believe we need to eliminate
> installation programs for most cases, but you don't do that by just
> introducing another package manager. You do that by returning to the way
> things were done right before the installation programs and package
managers
> came along.
Ah those simple days of yore! But we can't and we won't go back.
Today we have Java VMs and Adobe Acrobat viewers, and browsers, and browser
plug-ins, word processing packages, and stock tickers, Internet based games,
etc. Never mind that we are going to be configuring systems to connect with
other systems, and use databases, and database clients, and we need to set
up security, and down load the new versions of our clients, etc.
It isn't going to be simple in the future. It is going to get worse. In
another post I list a set of requirements we are going to need from a
package manager. Not want, need. Typewriters are out for good. And
Redmond may be at fault to some degree, but if so they only pushed us ahead
in time a bit. It was going to happen to us anyway.
We have to have package managers, but they need to be based on open
standards. And they need to operate in an environment outside the execution
environment of the supported computer systems. They need to be able to
manage cross platform, distributed applications. Why? Because we are on
the Internet already! We want to bank, we want to order hamburgers on the
Interstate Hwy so I don't wait for my order! I want to use my PDA to adjust
my lights in my hotel (cause I don't know where the switches are, but I have
my PDA), I want to listen to my MP3 files on the rental car's stereo, from
the station I programmed on the Internet.
We can't do all of this by coping all our files onto our bin directory.
Sorry.
------------------------------
From: "Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: stupid simple question, please help
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:39:22 GMT
Hi Everyone,
I have:
1) redhat 6.2 (just installed) on a hard drive
2) win2000 (w/NTFS) installed on another hard drive
I know how to configure LILO to do dual boot.
But during the installation, I believe by default, the kernel is not
configure to read NTFS.
The question is, can I just load a module for that or do I have to
recompile the kernel.
either way, how would I do it?
Thanks,
Dan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:38:32 -0500
From: "Richard M. Denney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: kernel 2.2.16: no sound or parport "unresolved symbols" error.
Well, I am doing what I know I shouldn't do, attempting to upgrade a
kernel when everything is working OK. Nevertheless, here is the
situation.
Currently running RH 6.0 with a previous kernel upgrade to 2.2.14.
Everything works fine.
Attempting to update the kernel to 2.2.16 (from a kernel.org mirror
site). Everything compiles fine with no evidence of errors.
When the new kernel boots, the sound fails to come up and the parallel
port fails to operate. Both these are compiled as modules (with kernel
module loader compiled into the kernel). (Other modules, the ethernet
ne.o for example, automatically configure and appear with lsmod.)
Attempting to load any sound-related or parport-related module results
in the message "unresolved symbols". I have compared the modules in
/lib/modules/2.2.X/misc directory for kernels 2.2.14 and 2.2.16
(generated at compile time). For sound, they seem to all be there
(soundcore.o, sound.o, uart401, awe_wave.o, mpu401.o, opl3.o, v_midi.o,
and sb.o. For the parallel port, they are parport.o, parport_pc.o and
lp.o. (Not sure about the function of uart6850.o, but it is present in
both versions.) None of these modules can be manually loaded with
modprobe without the "unresolved symbols" error.
I have tried recompiling a couple of times on the possibility that a
random error made these modules unusable, but to no avail. Any adeas?
I am NOT in dire straights because I am using LILO so that I can boot
either the new or the old kernel. Nevertheless, this problem has me
baffled.
Rick
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.setup) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Setup Digest
******************************
