Linux-Setup Digest #991, Volume #20 Thu, 5 Apr 01 10:13:13 EDT
Contents:
Re: Upgrading packages with RPM ("ne...")
Re: Sharing with Sco Opendesktop (Marc Ledauphin)
Re: How to Install Wine! help!!! (Marc Ledauphin)
Re: Can't build kernel--"redefinition of `struct user_struct'" (Marc Ledauphin)
Re: Help installing from source.?! (Marc Ledauphin)
Re: Swap: how big? (Marc Ledauphin)
Re: hdb boot ("Andrey Shcherbina")
Re: Primary partition... on every HDD? (Steve Martin)
Re: Kernel size and modules (Steve Martin)
sound (wave) files ("Ron Nicholls")
Re: hdb boot ("Eric")
linux newbie (Riyaz Mansoor)
Re: Upgrading RH 6.2 to 7.0 ("Chris Coyle")
Re: New Kernel? ("Chris Coyle")
mail and attachments (ImaLuzer)
Re: Upgrading packages with RPM (Warren Thompson)
Re: New Kernel? ("" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "ne..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Upgrading packages with RPM
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 12:10:55 GMT
On Apr 5, 2001 at 03:34, H.Bruijn eloquently wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 20:53:22 -0400, KCmaniac allegedly wrote:
>>When using the -U switch with RPM I keep getting this same message:
>>
>>"only packages with major numbers <=3 are supported by this
>>version of RPM.
>>package <rpm name> can not be installed"
>>
>>Anybody know what major numbers are or what this means?
>>
>>Any help on this would be appreciated, thanks.
>
>RedHat released a new version of the Redhat Package Manager, it is now
>at major number (releas number) 4. With the new version there have also
>been some changes in the way the .rpm packages are created. The older
>versions of the Redhat Package Manager can't handle the newer packages.
>
>You apperently still have version 3 of the Redhat Package Manager, but
>are trying to install a package created with version 4.
>So there are three options:
>* upgrade your version of the Redhat Package Manager to major number 4
>* download the piece of software in a version 3 package
>* download the source code, and compile and install the software
> yourself.
Fourth option: upgrade rpm to version 3.0.5-9. This handles
version 4.x rpms.
--
Registered Linux User # 125653 (http://counter.li.org)
"Trust me":
Translation of the Latin "caveat emptor."
8:06am up 19 days, 8:05, 9 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.16
------------------------------
From: Marc Ledauphin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sharing with Sco Opendesktop
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:18:00 GMT
When you install microsoft, on any system, the track 0 is rewrited by th=
e=20
installation procedure, so you loose the others bootable flags . Linux=20
respect the others OS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message d'origine <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Le 03/04/2001, =E0 16:05:12 h, "Martin Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =
vous=20
a =E9crit sur le sujet suivant Sharing with Sco Opendesktop:
> Hi,
> I've already got Sco Opendesktop 5.0.5 installed on my machine. I'd li=
ke
> to install Caldera Linux onto the free space on the disk (~1GB).=20
Opendesktop
> is very fussy about the partition table. I know this from experience. =
If=20
you
> install
> Microsoft into a partition on a disk which has an existing Opendesktop=
> installation, you'll have to reinstall Opendesktop.
> Does anyone have any experience with doing this?
> Thanks,
> Martin.
------------------------------
From: Marc Ledauphin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to Install Wine! help!!!
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:21:04 GMT
All you need is to set the /etc/wine.conf file Goto samba web site at=20
http://www.samba.org all is describe here step by step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message d'origine <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Le 01/04/2001, =E0 03:24:55 h, "Ferdinand Rey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]=
om>=20
vous a =E9crit sur le sujet suivant Re: How to Install Wine! help!!!:
> Yes I download it. If only you know a web site or you have good and st=
ep=20
by
> step manual, that will help thanks
> "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <9a5h3s$46q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ferdinand Rey"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm really new to this Wine stuff. I already download it but how d=
o I
> > > install it? Please show me how to install it step by step commands=
if
> > > there is...
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > ferdie
> > >
> > >
> >
> > did u dowload the tar.gz or the rpm???? It makes a difference.
------------------------------
From: Marc Ledauphin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can't build kernel--"redefinition of `struct user_struct'"
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:22:23 GMT
Before setting values of the new kernel type make mrproper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message d'origine <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Le 31/03/2001, =E0 23:53:40 h, Brue Halco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> vou=
s a=20
=E9crit sur le sujet suivant Can't build kernel--"redefinition of `struc=
t=20
user_struct'":
> This is a Mandrake 6.0 system. I can compile the original 2.2.13
> kernel ok, but it seems like time for an upgrade. I downloaded
> the 2.2.18 sources and header files, (and various and sundry other
> stuff to resolve dependency problems, RPM upgrade, etc). Got
> everything seemingly installed ok.
> "make xconfig" -- ok
> "make dep" -- ok
> "make" -- NOT ok
> make trundles along for a short while, then dies at
> make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.2.18/kernel'
> cc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -=
O2
> -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -fno-strength-reduce=
> -m486 -malign-loops=3D2 -malign-jumps=3D2 -malign-functions=3D2 -DCP=
U=3D586
> -c -o fork.o fork.c
> fork.c:48: redefinition of `struct user_struct'
> make[2]: *** [fork.o] Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.2.18/kernel'
> make[1]: *** [first_rule] Error 2
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.2.18/kernel'
> make: *** [_dir_kernel] Error 2
> I gather the conflict is with the definition of user_struct in sched.h=
,
> but I have no clue what to do next (I'm *not* a c programmer).
> I'd appreciate any pointers about how to deal with this.
> Thanks
> Bruce Halco
------------------------------
From: Marc Ledauphin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help installing from source.?!
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:23:18 GMT
Did you install all sources (linux, kde, gnome and so on ?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message d'origine <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Le 31/03/2001, =E0 21:27:19 h, "Jake Burns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> vous a =
=E9crit=20
sur le sujet suivant Help installing from source.?!:
> I have RHat 6.2, just a simple install from the disk. Everytime I try=
to
> install a program doing the typical:
> $./configure
> $make
> $make install
> The configure command seems to work fine, but my make and make install=
> commands ALWAYS fail. I can install just about any program from a bin=
ary
> release, but there's so much software out there that I'd like to use t=
hat
> only comes in source form. I have tried setiathome, xmms, paradise, x=
mms
> plugins, and more, none have worked. What am I doing wrong?
> Thanks
> Jake
------------------------------
From: Marc Ledauphin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Swap: how big?
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:26:31 GMT
Yes, the older kernel (less than 2.2) don't support swap bigger than 128=
=20
Mo, but you can add several 128 swap partitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message d'origine <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Le 30/03/2001, =E0 20:17:15 h, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> vous a=
=20
=E9crit sur le sujet suivant Re: Swap: how big?:
> Tomaz Cedilnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > > > wonder if the swapfile is big enough. I have got 256 MB RAM, is=
a
> > > > swapfile really even necessary?
> > >
> > > YES. You want a place to put stuff that isn't being used, and you=
r
> > > system will run slower without the swap file. 128MB is probably f=
ine.
> >
> > Doesn't it depend on how much memory gets used? I know about I/O
> > buffers, but with a lot of RAM I don't think you should worry. Unles=
s
> > you have bigger needs.
> >
> > I've got 128 MB RAM and 126 MB swap. Wouldn't for example 256 MB of =
RAM
> > and no swap be better?
> Yes, but 256MB with swap would be even better than that.
> > However, since this is not much disk usage (comparing to gigabytes o=
f
> > disk size), I normally choose the swap partition to be same size as =
RAM.
> >
> > Just remembered - when I bought a 128 MB RAM and installed Linux, I
> > tried to make a swap partition bigger but it didn't let me. The
> > explaination was that the first block is used for addressing others =
and
> > therefore the limit is something like that if the blocks are 1k. Is =
it
> > just that the old kernel and mkswap that don't support bigger swap? =
I've
> > got Red Hat 6.0 (didn't like 6.1 with KDE, GNOME and user-unfriendly=
> > installation).
> Strange, I have machines with much more swap space. Perhaps it was a
> limitation in older kernels (?)
> --
> It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX=20
videoboard
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Andrey Shcherbina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hdb boot
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:20:28 -0400
Hi,
cat /etc/lilo.conf returned the following (I left only few lines that
matter):
lba32
boot=/dev/hdb3
root=/dev/hdb3
install=/boot/boot.b
map=/boot/map
fdisk -l /dev/hdb returned this:
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hdb1 1 16 128488+ 82 Linux Swap
/dev/hdb2 772 1027 2056320 f Win95 Ext'd
(LBA)
/dev/hdb3 * 17 771 6064537+ 83 Linux
/dev/hdb5 772 1027 2056288+ b Win95 FAT32
"Andrey Shcherbina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:UxGy6.464$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'll try that and get back with the results tomorrow, as it's on my home
> machine.
>
> "Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9af9ld$lgv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > And lilo is at hdb3?
> > > > could you post `cat /etc/lilo.conf`
> > > > and `fdisk -l /dev/hd[ab]`
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's pretty hard to run any commands if Linux can't load :) And I
don't
> > > think a floppy would help as LILO actually starts but then can't load
> > > anything.
> >
> > It can't find the files required to boot.
> > If these would be on the floppy, you'd have no problem.
> >
> > If you have a floppy, put it in, and boot from that.
> > If not, put the CD in again, and at the lilo prompt enter
> > "linux root=/dev/hdcXXX" (or "linux rescue root=/dev/hdcXXX")
> >
> > The XXX should be replaced by the partition number of your root
partition.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: Steve Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Primary partition... on every HDD?
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 07:29:36 -0400
Darin Johnson wrote:
> (One might say that PC partition tables are brain dead and illogical,
> but then I'd have to counter that using partition "c" to refer to the
> entire disk is pretty wacky too.)
Not so whacky... assigning the letter "C" to the hard drive
is a thowback to when IBM PCs came with one or two floppy
disks. When the XT came out, the two existing floppy disks
were called "A" and "B", so the next letter available for
assignment was, of course, "C".
If I remember correctly, the original reason for partitions
was that DOS prior to 4.0 could only access a maximum of
32 Mb of hard disk space. If you had anything larger, then you
had to do multiple partitions (we had a PS/2 in our place with
an 80-Mb drive, which was chopped up into four 20-Mb partitions,
labelled "C", "D", "E", and "F", which gave rise to great
confusion on occasion).
------------------------------
From: Steve Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Kernel size and modules
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 07:35:57 -0400
Alberto Arribas wrote:
> has this size. Following your recomendation I run make mrproper, make
> xconfig, make dep, make clean, make bzImage, make modules and make
> modules_install. Then I rename properly the kernel and run lilo.
> Everytime I get "Kernel is too big".
Okay, stupid question time... did you in fact *move* the bzImage
file to where /etc/lilo.conf says it should be? If not, then
you're just booting the same wrong kernel over and over again.
Other than that, I can't figure what's wrong.. anyone out there
with an idea?
------------------------------
From: "Ron Nicholls" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: sound (wave) files
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:42:51 +1000
Where does enlightenment store it sound files
A quick search turned up docs and themes but no wave
files. I'd like to play with the friendly greetings.
--
-
-
Regards
RonN
------------------------------
From: "Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hdb boot
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:48:15 +0200
First of all, how do you boot linux?
through the NT loader? Or are have you changed the
bootorder in the BIOS?
If it is the latter, add to lilo.conf
disk=/dev/hdb
bios=0x80
disk=/dev/hda
bios=0x81
disk=/dev/hdc
bios=0x82
The numbers depend on what your BIOS does when you
choose to boot from hdb. I suppose it will number as above,
but cannot be sure. It doesn't hurt to try though.
> cat /etc/lilo.conf returned the following (I left only few lines that
> matter):
let's hope you're right.
I'd rather see it all, and then decide what matters
> lba32
> boot=/dev/hdb3
And you're sure that nothing was written to hdb's MBR?
If there's an old/incorrect piece of LILO code, it could be the cause.
I'd try to run `/sbin/lilo -v` once more. See if that changes anything.
(Something may have gone wrong the first time).
If it stil doesn't boot, change the line to boot=/dev/hdb
and rerun `/sbin/lilo -v`
<snip>
The rest looks good.
Eric
------------------------------
From: Riyaz Mansoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: linux newbie
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 08:38:08 +1000
i've installed rh6.2 and am just learing ...
need help on two things at the moment.
when i run clock from the prompt it gives me the correct time but the
clock on gnome is 10 hours ahead. i think i selected gmt time and then
selected my timezone (10 hours ahead) , thinking this is the reason. how
do i correct this?
rh6.2 recognized all my hardware except my soundcard which is C-Media
SoundPro card. how do i go about manuall installing this card?
thanx
riyaz
------------------------------
From: "Chris Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: Upgrading RH 6.2 to 7.0
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:32:18 -0400
"KW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0bLy6.8485$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The path to the web pages has changed
> /home/httpd or whatever it was is now
> /var/www/html
>
> and inetd is now xinetd
>
> I'm sure there's more but I don't recall right off hand....
>
Yes I've heard that a few things have moved.
So the question is: when you install 7.0 as an upgrade
(rather than afresh), does it reuse the old locations,
or install into new locations and clean up the old,
or blindly install into the new locations?
I suppose this is a question for Redhat.
I guess if you're an expert (or you want to become one :)
you can install it and figure this all out yourself.
Personally, and I've heard others say, when moving to a
new major release, you can avoid doubt and confusion by
wiping the slate clean and doing a fresh install.
The only significant bad things I've heard about 7.0
are 1) dubious choice of default compiler version
(you should see the comments at gnu.org), and
2) there is a problem with some of the newer AMD
processors (you can read about that at redhat.com)
------------------------------
From: "Chris Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Kernel?
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:36:37 -0400
"<toor>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9agcj8$hs3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So 2.2.19 is more stable then the one I have before?
No not necessarily. I've heard some earlier releases were very stable.
------------------------------
From: ImaLuzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: mail and attachments
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 09:38:34 -0400
Can the "mail" program send attachments? I've been looking ALL OVER for
information on this and have come up empty.
------------------------------
From: Warren Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Upgrading packages with RPM
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:38:38 GMT
"ne..." wrote:
>
> On Apr 5, 2001 at 03:34, H.Bruijn eloquently wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 20:53:22 -0400, KCmaniac allegedly wrote:
> >>When using the -U switch with RPM I keep getting this same message:
> >>
> >>"only packages with major numbers <=3 are supported by this
> >>version of RPM.
> >>package <rpm name> can not be installed"
> >>
> >>Anybody know what major numbers are or what this means?
> >>
> >>Any help on this would be appreciated, thanks.
> >
> >RedHat released a new version of the Redhat Package Manager, it is now
> >at major number (releas number) 4. With the new version there have also
> >been some changes in the way the .rpm packages are created. The older
> >versions of the Redhat Package Manager can't handle the newer packages.
> >
> >You apperently still have version 3 of the Redhat Package Manager, but
> >are trying to install a package created with version 4.
> >So there are three options:
> >* upgrade your version of the Redhat Package Manager to major number 4
> >* download the piece of software in a version 3 package
> >* download the source code, and compile and install the software
> > yourself.
> Fourth option: upgrade rpm to version 3.0.5-9. This handles
> version 4.x rpms.
But Red Hat and the mirrors have removed 3.0.5-9 when 4.x was released.
So how can someone find 3.0.5-9 to install?
I've been looking for 3.0.5-9 since I installed a new RH 6.2 machine a
couple of weeks ago. My old RH 6.1 had been upgraded to 3.0.5-9 using an
ftp upgrade, so I don't have the 3.0.5-9 rpm that I can use on my RH 6.2
machine.
>
> --
> Registered Linux User # 125653 (http://counter.li.org)
> "Trust me":
> Translation of the Latin "caveat emptor."
> 8:06am up 19 days, 8:05, 9 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.16
--
The warranty and liability expired as you read this message.
If the above breaks your system, it's yours and you keep both pieces.
Practice safe computing. Backup the file before you change it.
Do a, man command_here or cat command_here, before using it.
------------------------------
From: "<toor>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Kernel?
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:52:27 -0400
But why was this kernel released recently (April 4)? Where can I get this
new stable one? I tried kernel.org, but its the old 2.2.19 version.
Chris Coyle wrote in message ...
>
>"<toor>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9agcj8$hs3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> So 2.2.19 is more stable then the one I have before?
>
>No not necessarily. I've heard some earlier releases were very stable.
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.setup.
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
******************************
