On Wednesday 27 October 2004 02:00 pm, Anne Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 Oct 2004 19:16, Ron Hunter-Duvar wrote:
> > Yes, and upgrade _should_ give you exactly the same end
> > result as a clean install. There should be no difference
> > other than the upgrade being faster (due to not having to
> > reinstall packages that are already up to date).
> >
> > But history has shown repeatedly, at least for Mandrake, that
> > this is _not_ true. Perhaps Stephen Kuhn, Hoyt Bailey, or
> > others will pitch in here with their personal experiences
> > (based upon which I have never even attempted a version
> > upgrade, always a clean install).
> >
> > I also suspect the first response back from any bug report
> > will be "Have you tried a clean install of 10.1 Official?"
>
> <sigh> You're probably right, but after 2 installs of it I just
> can't bring myself to start yet again - at least not just at
> this moment.
>
> Anne
IIRC the only anomaly you reported Anne was cpufreq errors in
boot logs. I meant to respond, sorry. I had the same. Cpufreq
is used for laptops to control power usage and heat thru
manipulating processor speed. On a desktop, just 'urpme cpufreq'
As to the "Digital camera kills MDK 10.1" deal, I don't have a
USB camera (mine's serial), but I suspect the problem might be
solved by tryin a different kernel. I believe Stew said much the
same.
I know reverting to 2.6.8.1-10 from -12mdk solved boot up
problems checking (Reiser) FS's after I added an SATA drive into
a mix of IDE drives a few weeks ago. With 2.6.8.1-12 the system
went crazy, but all is well with -10mdk. I've got a hunch the
'camera' problem is similar. Just a suspicion tho
--
Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas
Proud to be an American
____________________________________________________
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
____________________________________________________
