Re: test
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 7:16 PM qorg11 wrote: > > this is a test please ignore Try alt.test, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.test
test
this is a test please ignore
kronosnet build test segfault on x32
Hi, As https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=886974 and https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=kronosnet=x32 indicate, kronosnet reliably segfaults in one of its build time tests on x32. At the same time I can't reproduce (thus, debug) this issue in my x32 chroot. Is there an x32 porterbox I could test on? Or would it be possible to manually retry the build on the x32 buildd with core dumps enabled to gain some insight into the problem? Other ideas, maybe? -- Thanks, Feri
Bug#893753: leatherman: FTBFS on x32: test segfaults
Source: leatherman Version: 1.4.0+dfsg-1 Severity: normal Tags: upstream User: debian-...@lists.debian.org Usertags: x32 The build of leatherman for x32 (admittedly not a release architecture) failed, as detailed below. Could you please take a look? Thanks! -- /usr/bin/ctest --force-new-ctest-process -j2 Test project /<>/leatherman-1.4.0+dfsg/obj-x86_64-linux-gnux32 Start 1: leatherman tests 1/1 Test #1: leatherman tests .***Exception: SegFault 0.15 sec ~~~ leatherman_test is a Catch v1.10.0 host application. Run with -? for options --- Scenario: executing commands with execution::execute Given: a command that succeeds When: requested to write stdout to a file in an unknown directory --- /<>/leatherman-1.4.0+dfsg/execution/tests/posix/execution.cc:299 ... /<>/leatherman-1.4.0+dfsg/execution/tests/posix/execution.cc:299: FAILED: due to a fatal error condition: SIGSEGV - Segmentation violation signal === test cases: 81 | 80 passed | 1 failed assertions: 1349 | 1348 passed | 1 failed -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?a...@monk.mit.edu
Bug#892233: guile-2.2: FTBFS on x32: meta/guile test times out with no output
Source: guile-2.2 Version: 2.2.3+1-3 Severity: important Tags: upstream Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past) User: debian-...@lists.debian.org Usertags: x32 Hi, Rob. Builds of guile-2.2 for x32 (admittedly not a release architecture) have been failing lately: Testing /<>/guile-2.2-2.2.3+1/meta/guile ... with GUILE_LOAD_PATH=/<>/guile-2.2-2.2.3+1/test-suite E: Build killed with signal TERM after 600 minutes of inactivity Could you please take a look? Thanks! -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?a...@monk.mit.edu
CUDA bandwidth test
Hello: I am looking for how to test the cuda memory bandwdth for GTX (GTX-680) with cuda tools in amd64 wheezy. I tried GNU CUDA-Z, however it did not find libXrender.so.1. I guess its is looking for it from ia32-libs (as that lib is present in my 64 libs), which is not installed on my servers. Does that CUDA-Z work well and installation of ia32-libs can be safely carried out without any detrimental effect? thanks francesco pietra
Re: CUDA bandwidth test
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 03:06:08PM +0100, Francesco Pietra wrote: Hello: I am looking for how to test the cuda memory bandwdth for GTX (GTX-680) with cuda tools in amd64 wheezy. I tried GNU CUDA-Z, however it did not find libXrender.so.1. I guess its is looking for it from ia32-libs (as that lib is present in my 64 libs), which is not installed on my servers. Does that CUDA-Z work well and installation of ia32-libs can be safely carried out without any detrimental effect? If you are using wheezy, then you should be using multiarch to install 32bit libraries. So something like this: dpkg --add-architecture i386 (only need to do this once ever) apt-get install libcuda1:i386 Or whichever package has the library you want a 32 bit version of. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131029141153.gu13...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
test
Sorry but testing to see if still subscribed. Am seeing on activity since the 17th June. Whit -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e05ea14.2080...@comcast.net
[SPAM detected Spam-Test: True ; 4.0 / 3.0] Re: Re: Grub-pc problem
Hi Simon, After upgrading you may have option for grub legacy or grub2 for use. Please check which one you are using.You have to use command 'upgrade-from-grub-legacy' to use grub2 permanently. grub2 use file /boot/grub/grub.cfg and legacy file /boot/grub/menu.lst compare to use right device for root. /usr/share/doc/grub* may help you. Have fun regards, G.NATH -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [SPAM detected Spam-Test: True ; 4.0 / 3.0] Re: Re: Grub-pc problem
Sorry, I have been able to solve the problem in the mean time. For some reason one of the grub commands called by the script that creates grub.cfg failed. It was the one retrieving the id of the HDD. I changed the grub.cfg file manually to use a /dev/ device instead of uuid and my laptop booted again. After that I tried running the script manually after updating my system again and everything worked again. And I was using grub2 already, I was *not* booting grub2 through grub1.. Simon On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:47 PM, naths prab9...@dataone.in wrote: Hi Simon, After upgrading you may have option for grub legacy or grub2 for use. Please check which one you are using.You have to use command 'upgrade-from-grub-legacy' to use grub2 permanently. grub2 use file /boot/grub/grub.cfg and legacy file /boot/grub/menu.lst compare to use right device for root. /usr/share/doc/grub* may help you. Have fun regards, G.NATH -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Test
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 15:26, Richard Ibbotson richard.ibbot...@googlemail.com wrote: I have worked on the Debian project since 1993 and the RedHat project and Slackware and the others. I have helped Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds and many others. Too many to mention here. Faced with the fact that no one over at the Debian project wants a list to work at all I can only work at a snails pace to try to find a fault or configuration error somewhere. This is not helped by someone who prefers to be rude and unhelpful rather than help out. I wasn't being rude (although that's obviously a matter of opinion), i was merely stating the fact that you weren't following Debian's code of conduct for its mailling lists. If you needed to do a test you could a) reply to a thread that interested you (with relevant information to that thread) and, in the body, ask that someone confirm they had received; or b) search the Debian archive later. But i'm sure an experienced professional like you, who's even worked with the best in the Linux world, will already know such meager means of avoiding sending test messages to mailing lists. I still don't think bragging is an excuse not to follow the CoC. Nuno Magalhães LU#484677 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Re: Test
I'm glad the problems with list access have been worked out, and that the code of conduct has been reiterated for anyone who may not have been aware of it. Now that everyone's had their say, can this conversation please end? This could quickly degenerate into a series of shushes to loud people in a movie theater; it expresses displeasure with people who are being inconsiderate, but does nothing to help anyone hear the movie. If anyone takes issue with my message here, please send that issue to me personally, rather than everyone on the 64 list.
Re: Test
On Tuesday 10 March 2009 18:02:22 you wrote: Oh wow ... aren't you also the guy who invented velcro ? Yep. Velcro was a spin off from something else I was working on. Which was Goretex. Which was patented by Mr Gore. Do you think we can get back to some AMD64 stuff now ? -- Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Test
This one time, at band camp, Manolo Díaz said: You (or your ISP provider?) are launching emails from the googlemail.com domain using the host terra.adsl24.co.uk That may or may not be a problem, depending on whether or not they check for SPF or use other methods to check for forgery. Asking what nodes are expected to send mail from googlemail.com we have: ;googlemail.com. IN MX But querying MX records doesn't get you a list of allowed outbound hosts. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Test
On Tuesday 10 March 2009 19:13:55 Stephen Gran wrote: That may or may not be a problem, depending on whether or not they check for SPF or use other methods to check for forgery. My own ISP have sorted this out now by putting me into their exim.conf file (just me). I seem to have sold an EeePC 701 to their system admin and he's put Lenny into it. Something positive did come out of this after all :) For more info about what I'm ranting on about have a look here http://www.meiring.org.uk/sheflug/mailarchive/2009/03/msg00018.html So, I'm not the world's most useless Debian salesman :) -- Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Test
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:13:55 + Stephen Gran sg...@debian.org wrote: This one time, at band camp, Manolo Díaz said: You (or your ISP provider?) are launching emails from the googlemail.com domain using the host terra.adsl24.co.uk That may or may not be a problem, depending on whether or not they check for SPF or use other methods to check for forgery. That's true. Asking what nodes are expected to send mail from googlemail.com we have: ;googlemail.com. IN MX But querying MX records doesn't get you a list of allowed outbound hosts. Of course. In fact those are the hosts where you can send mails for a given domain, and you can send them from unknown and not listed anywhere hosts. But many MX administrators do not like this because it opens doors for spammers. As you said it can be a problem or not, depending on the recipient domain. Kind Regards, -- Manolo Díaz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Test
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct Please do not ignore. Nuno Magalhães LU#484677 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Test
Please ignore -- Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Test
On Thursday 05 March 2009 14:35:24 Nuno Magalhães wrote: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct Please do not ignore. I've been trying to send mail to Debian lists for more than a month. The Debian lists admin has ignored my e-mail. This has been coming back.. Recipient address rejected: Mail appeared to be SPAM or forged. Ask your Mail/DNS-Administrator to correct HELO and DNS MX settings or to get removed from DNSBLs; in postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org * My ISP can find nothing wrong anywhere * I am not a spammer I am not blacklisted I have worked on the Debian project since 1993 and the RedHat project and Slackware and the others. I have helped Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds and many others. Too many to mention here. Faced with the fact that no one over at the Debian project wants a list to work at all I can only work at a snails pace to try to find a fault or configuration error somewhere. This is not helped by someone who prefers to be rude and unhelpful rather than help out. -- Richard www.sheflug.org.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Pkg-uml-devel] [Help] build/test user-mode-linux and rootstrap on amd64
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 07:07:53PM +0200, Mattia Dongili wrote: Ciao Mattia, Building them should be as easy as adding the Architecture to debian/control and run dpkg-buildpackage. herm, you also need config.amd64 from SVN for user-mode-linux, attached for convenience. Mattia, I told you that I don't own a amd64 cpu pc, but do you think it is possible to test the package with a tool like VMWare (the #3 release, as they say, provides support for amd64)? I am going to plan a help on your amd64, once I download and installed it on my pc. Let me try. Maybe the debian-amd64 list subscribers may help on this way of testing uml on amd64. As soon as I test it, I shall provide more info. Cheers SteX -- Stefano Melchior, GPG key = D52DF829 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.openlabs.it/~stex-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://etinarcadiaego.dyndns.org -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype ID stefanomelchior signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-uml-devel] [Help] build/test user-mode-linux and rootstrap on amd64
On Thu, September 28, 2006 10:43 am, Stefano Melchior said: [...] I am going to plan a help on your amd64, once I download and installed it on my pc. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-uml-devel/2006-September/000297.html http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-uml-pkgs/2006-September/000299.html Let me try. Maybe the debian-amd64 list subscribers may help on this way of testing uml on amd64. This message already was a call for help on the debian-amd64 list (see? it's cc'ed). http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2006/09/msg00043.html -- mattia :wq! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-uml-devel] [Help] build/test user-mode-linux and rootstrap on amd64
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:54:49AM +0200, Mattia Dongili wrote: Dear all, I am going to plan a help on your amd64, once I download and installed it on my pc. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-uml-devel/2006-September/000297.html http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-uml-pkgs/2006-September/000299.html Let me try. Maybe the debian-amd64 list subscribers may help on this way of testing uml on amd64. This message already was a call for help on the debian-amd64 list (see? it's cc'ed). http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2006/09/msg00043.html sorry, my english is not perfect: I meant to say that the amd64 guys can state if the vmware use can be enough to avoid to have a amd64 cpu pc to test uml. If at the moment I can not afford it, can I emulate the arch with vmware? this is the question. Cheers SteX -- Stefano Melchior, GPG key = D52DF829 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.openlabs.it/~stex-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://etinarcadiaego.dyndns.org -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype ID stefanomelchior signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-uml-devel] [Help] build/test user-mode-linux and rootstrap on amd64
Stefano Melchior wrote: On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:54:49AM +0200, Mattia Dongili wrote: Dear all, I am going to plan a help on your amd64, once I download and installed it on my pc. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-uml-devel/2006-September/000297.html http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-uml-pkgs/2006-September/000299.html Let me try. Maybe the debian-amd64 list subscribers may help on this way of testing uml on amd64. This message already was a call for help on the debian-amd64 list (see? it's cc'ed). http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2006/09/msg00043.html sorry, my english is not perfect: I meant to say that the amd64 guys can state if the vmware use can be enough to avoid to have a amd64 cpu pc to test uml. If at the moment I can not afford it, can I emulate the arch with vmware? this is the question. VMWare can only emulate an AMD64 system on a modern AMD64 host (e.g. an Intel processor with EM64T and VT support) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-uml-devel] [Help] build/test user-mode-linux and rootstrap on amd64
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:15:51PM +0100, Jo Shields wrote: Dear Jo, sorry, my english is not perfect: I meant to say that the amd64 guys can state if the vmware use can be enough to avoid to have a amd64 cpu pc to test uml. If at the moment I can not afford it, can I emulate the arch with vmware? this is the question. VMWare can only emulate an AMD64 system on a modern AMD64 host (e.g. an Intel processor with EM64T and VT support) thus my plan to emulate this arch on a Intel Centrino was wrong a priori. Any other way unless owning an amd64 cpu? does bochs provide 64-bit support? Cheers SteX -- Stefano Melchior, GPG key = D52DF829 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.openlabs.it/~stex-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://etinarcadiaego.dyndns.org -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype ID stefanomelchior signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-uml-devel] [Help] build/test user-mode-linux and rootstrap on amd64
I belive qemu, but On 9/28/06, Stefano Melchior [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:15:51PM +0100, Jo Shields wrote: Dear Jo, sorry, my english is not perfect: I meant to say that the amd64 guys can state if the vmware use can be enough to avoid to have a amd64 cpu pc to test uml. If at the moment I can not afford it, can I emulate the arch with vmware? this is the question. VMWare can only emulate an AMD64 system on a modern AMD64 host (e.g. an Intel processor with EM64T and VT support) thus my plan to emulate this arch on a Intel Centrino was wrong a priori. Any other way unless owning an amd64 cpu? does bochs provide 64-bit support? Cheers SteX -- Stefano Melchior, GPG key = D52DF829 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.openlabs.it/~stex-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://etinarcadiaego.dyndns.org -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype ID stefanomelchior -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBRRu/a4lnkxrVLfgpAQKk5gP+NrbgBz/mXjavKXpm0jIj2UMlfm7k9YXe k2AmAkveJhMT3GveMoEQCC4pdg86SXvC03TXUHPEgG+58oCvyHJh0EjZUujHNXw0 GHml4s/HGE3JTnN6/hLSC2LRdUycX2nnrWZVMvUBZUVZD0CfnD2ykFCQSlK34aV+ qTUQ0eb67MI= =w6iP -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Engañarse por amor es el engaño más terrible; es una pérdida eterna para la que no hay compensación ni en el tiempo ni en la eternidad. Kierkegaard Jaime Ochoa Malagón Integrated Technology Tel: (55) 52 54 26 10
Re: [Pkg-uml-devel] [Help] build/test user-mode-linux and rootstrap on amd64
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 07:23:06AM -0500, Jaime Ochoa Malagón wrote: Dear all, I belive qemu, but well, thanks for the suggestion: http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/emulators.html http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/ http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/status.html it seems to confirm what you stated. Let me try. Cheers SteX -- Stefano Melchior, GPG key = D52DF829 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.openlabs.it/~stex-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://etinarcadiaego.dyndns.org -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype ID stefanomelchior signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-uml-devel] [Help] build/test user-mode-linux and rootstrap on amd64
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 08:19:34PM +0200, Mattia Dongili wrote: Hello, I'm looking for help in building and testing the amd64 version of user-mode-linux and rootstrap packages to be able to ship them in Etch. great, I managed to put my hands on and amd64 system and built/tested rootstrap and user-mode-linux. Will upload updated packages soon. -- mattia :wq! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-uml-devel] [Help] build/test user-mode-linux and rootstrap on amd64
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 08:19:34PM +0200, Mattia Dongili wrote: [...] Building them should be as easy as adding the Architecture to debian/control and run dpkg-buildpackage. herm, you also need config.amd64 from SVN for user-mode-linux, attached for convenience. thanks again -- mattia :wq! # # Automatically generated make config: don't edit # Linux kernel version: 2.6.17 # Sun Aug 27 16:44:57 2006 # CONFIG_GENERIC_HARDIRQS=y CONFIG_UML=y CONFIG_MMU=y CONFIG_GENERIC_CALIBRATE_DELAY=y CONFIG_IRQ_RELEASE_METHOD=y # # UML-specific options # # CONFIG_MODE_TT is not set # CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is not set CONFIG_MODE_SKAS=y CONFIG_UML_X86=y CONFIG_64BIT=y CONFIG_RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK=y CONFIG_SEMAPHORE_SLEEPERS=y CONFIG_TOP_ADDR=0x8000 CONFIG_3_LEVEL_PGTABLES=y CONFIG_STUB_CODE=0x7fbfffe000 CONFIG_STUB_DATA=0x7fb000 CONFIG_STUB_START=0x7fbfffe000 # CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SC_SIGNALS is not set # CONFIG_ARCH_REUSE_HOST_VSYSCALL_AREA is not set CONFIG_SMP_BROKEN=y CONFIG_GENERIC_HWEIGHT=y CONFIG_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL=y CONFIG_FLATMEM_MANUAL=y # CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM_MANUAL is not set # CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_MANUAL is not set CONFIG_FLATMEM=y CONFIG_FLAT_NODE_MEM_MAP=y # CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_STATIC is not set CONFIG_SPLIT_PTLOCK_CPUS=4 CONFIG_LD_SCRIPT_DYN=y CONFIG_NET=y CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF=y CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC=m CONFIG_HOSTFS=y # CONFIG_HPPFS is not set CONFIG_MCONSOLE=y CONFIG_MAGIC_SYSRQ=y CONFIG_NEST_LEVEL=0 CONFIG_KERNEL_STACK_ORDER=2 CONFIG_UML_REAL_TIME_CLOCK=y # # Code maturity level options # CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL=y CONFIG_BROKEN_ON_SMP=y CONFIG_INIT_ENV_ARG_LIMIT=32 # # General setup # CONFIG_LOCALVERSION= CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO=y CONFIG_SWAP=y CONFIG_SYSVIPC=y CONFIG_POSIX_MQUEUE=y CONFIG_BSD_PROCESS_ACCT=y # CONFIG_BSD_PROCESS_ACCT_V3 is not set CONFIG_SYSCTL=y # CONFIG_AUDIT is not set CONFIG_IKCONFIG=y CONFIG_IKCONFIG_PROC=y CONFIG_RELAY=y CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE= CONFIG_UID16=y CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y # CONFIG_EMBEDDED is not set CONFIG_KALLSYMS=y # CONFIG_KALLSYMS_ALL is not set CONFIG_KALLSYMS_EXTRA_PASS=y CONFIG_HOTPLUG=y CONFIG_PRINTK=y CONFIG_BUG=y CONFIG_ELF_CORE=y CONFIG_BASE_FULL=y CONFIG_FUTEX=y CONFIG_EPOLL=y CONFIG_SHMEM=y CONFIG_SLAB=y # CONFIG_TINY_SHMEM is not set CONFIG_BASE_SMALL=0 # CONFIG_SLOB is not set # # Loadable module support # CONFIG_MODULES=y CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD=y # CONFIG_MODULE_FORCE_UNLOAD is not set # CONFIG_MODVERSIONS is not set # CONFIG_MODULE_SRCVERSION_ALL is not set CONFIG_KMOD=y # # Block layer # CONFIG_LBD=y # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IO_TRACE is not set # CONFIG_LSF is not set # # IO Schedulers # CONFIG_IOSCHED_NOOP=y CONFIG_IOSCHED_AS=y CONFIG_IOSCHED_DEADLINE=y CONFIG_IOSCHED_CFQ=y CONFIG_DEFAULT_AS=y # CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEADLINE is not set # CONFIG_DEFAULT_CFQ is not set # CONFIG_DEFAULT_NOOP is not set CONFIG_DEFAULT_IOSCHED=anticipatory # # Block devices # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UBD=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UBD_SYNC=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_COW_COMMON=y # CONFIG_MMAPPER is not set CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_CRYPTOLOOP=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_NBD=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM_COUNT=16 CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM_SIZE=4096 CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD=y # CONFIG_ATA_OVER_ETH is not set # # Character Devices # CONFIG_STDERR_CONSOLE=y CONFIG_STDIO_CONSOLE=y CONFIG_SSL=y CONFIG_NULL_CHAN=y CONFIG_PORT_CHAN=y CONFIG_PTY_CHAN=y CONFIG_TTY_CHAN=y CONFIG_XTERM_CHAN=y # CONFIG_NOCONFIG_CHAN is not set CONFIG_CON_ZERO_CHAN=fd:0,fd:1 CONFIG_CON_CHAN=xterm CONFIG_SSL_CHAN=pty CONFIG_UNIX98_PTYS=y CONFIG_LEGACY_PTYS=y CONFIG_LEGACY_PTY_COUNT=256 # CONFIG_WATCHDOG is not set CONFIG_UML_SOUND=m CONFIG_SOUND=m CONFIG_HOSTAUDIO=m CONFIG_UML_RANDOM=y # # Generic Driver Options # CONFIG_STANDALONE=y CONFIG_PREVENT_FIRMWARE_BUILD=y # CONFIG_FW_LOADER is not set # CONFIG_DEBUG_DRIVER is not set # # Networking # # # Networking options # # CONFIG_NETDEBUG is not set CONFIG_PACKET=y CONFIG_PACKET_MMAP=y CONFIG_UNIX=y CONFIG_XFRM=y # CONFIG_XFRM_USER is not set # CONFIG_NET_KEY is not set CONFIG_INET=y CONFIG_IP_MULTICAST=y CONFIG_IP_ADVANCED_ROUTER=y CONFIG_ASK_IP_FIB_HASH=y # CONFIG_IP_FIB_TRIE is not set CONFIG_IP_FIB_HASH=y CONFIG_IP_MULTIPLE_TABLES=y # CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_FWMARK is not set CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_RR=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_RANDOM=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_WRANDOM=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_DRR=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_VERBOSE=y CONFIG_IP_PNP=y CONFIG_IP_PNP_DHCP=y CONFIG_IP_PNP_BOOTP=y CONFIG_IP_PNP_RARP=y CONFIG_NET_IPIP=y CONFIG_NET_IPGRE=y CONFIG_NET_IPGRE_BROADCAST=y CONFIG_IP_MROUTE=y CONFIG_IP_PIMSM_V1=y CONFIG_IP_PIMSM_V2=y # CONFIG_ARPD is not set CONFIG_SYN_COOKIES=y CONFIG_INET_AH=m CONFIG_INET_ESP=m CONFIG_INET_IPCOMP=m CONFIG_INET_XFRM_TUNNEL=m CONFIG_INET_TUNNEL=y CONFIG_INET_DIAG=m CONFIG_INET_TCP_DIAG=m CONFIG_TCP_CONG_ADVANCED=y # # TCP congestion control # CONFIG_TCP_CONG_BIC=y CONFIG_TCP_CONG_CUBIC=m CONFIG_TCP_CONG_WESTWOOD=m CONFIG_TCP_CONG_HTCP=m CONFIG_TCP_CONG_HSTCP=m CONFIG_TCP_CONG_HYBLA=m
[Help] build/test user-mode-linux and rootstrap on amd64
Hello, I'm looking for help in building and testing the amd64 version of user-mode-linux and rootstrap packages to be able to ship them in Etch. Building them should be as easy as adding the Architecture to debian/control and run dpkg-buildpackage. The first test I'd like to see successfully running is creating a rootfs image with rootstrap and being able to boot into it. Thanks a lot for any help. (Please Cc: me and the uml list, thanks) -- mattia :wq! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: D-I Beta 3 - release update - please test
(Please reply only to debian-boot; reply-to set accordingly; add other recipients only selectively) A week since the planning was posted, time for an update. Thanks to James, the upload of d-i was processed very quickly. Since then various, mostly minor issues have been identified and resolved. We are now at the stage where final tests before the release can be done for all arches, so if you have some time, please run an installation on your favorite architecture(s). Please file an installation report with your results, or, if you are a d-i team member, update [0] directly. Beta 3 candidate images are available from the following locations: Full CD and DVD images: links weekly snapshot images on [1] Netinst and businesscard CD images: links to daily built images on [1] the daily images now point to the etch_d-i builds [2] Images for other installation methods: http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/installer-arch/current/images/ Known issues: - S/390 Beta 3 candidate images are broken; will be fixed with next upload - Lowmem settings in Beta 3 images are not yet correct; see below On Monday 24 July 2006 11:52, Frans Pop wrote: One important TODO item is updates to debian-cd, especially for architectures that are dropping 2.4 support in d-i. If your architecture needs such changes, please contact me. Joey and Steve can probably help with the changes where needed. As far as we know all needed updates in debian-cd have been made and successful builds for all types of CD images are now available. A fair amount of changes were needed, so please test CD-based installs. All this does mean that the current lowmem levels need serious review for all architectures. The good news is that memory requirement for a bare install (lowmem level 2) looks be hardly changed. An updated lowmem was uploaded today and will be included in the final upload for Beta 3. The level 1 limits have been increased substantially for all arches. For a few arches level 2 limits have been adjusted as well. We will need to get back to this before the RC releases. Release planning We are mostly running according to schedule. 29Jul Last chance to upload udebs for inclusion in intrds Last expected uploads (localechooser and lowmem) now done. 30Jul Testbuild of weekly images (using d-i images from unstable) Images for all architectures are now available. 1Aug Final upload of d-i images There is one issue that will probably delay the final upload of d-i images. A new upstream version of directfb was uploaded recently which FTBFS on powerpc. This breaks builds of d-i on arches which support the graphical installer. Hopefully this will be resolved soon. 2- 5 Aug Testing This can already start now. 2Aug Last chance to upload udebs not included in initrds 4- 6 Aug Preparation of release notes, errata, etc. 5Aug Migration of d-i to testing 6Aug CD builds 7Aug Release Will slip too depending on when the issue mentioned above is resolved. Cheers, FJP [0] installer/doc/devel/release-checklist [1] http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ [2] If you need to test sid_d-i images (using daily built d-i images), use http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/etch_d-i/arch-latest/arch/iso-cd/ pgpWaBf3LP6x3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Test wpa-encrypted
Hi, I have installed wpa_supplicant for my wireless connection. Is there a way to test it? I can use internet normally, but I'm not sure that it's using wpa (I have read this tutorial: http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=399787view=getlastpost). Could be good a sniffer like ethereal? And if so, how test it? Thanks, Giulio
Re: Test wpa-encrypted
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 09:23:59AM +, antonio giulio wrote: I have installed wpa_supplicant for my wireless connection. Is there a way to test it? I can use internet normally, but I'm not sure that it's using wpa (I have read this tutorial: http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=399787view=getlastpost). Could be good a sniffer like ethereal? And if so, how test it? Just configure the access point to only allow WPA, and see if you connect at all. I am sure there is a better way but not sure what. You certainly can't tell with any packet sniffer since they only see the stuff after it comes out of the wireless chip. You would need some kind of wireless traffic sniffer with it's own antenna or something to do that. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: Test wpa-encrypted
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=399787view=getlastpost). Could be good a sniffer like ethereal? And if so, how test it? Just configure the access point to only allow WPA, and see if you connect at all. I am sure there is a better way but not sure what. You certainly can't tell with any packet sniffer since they only see the stuff after it comes out of the wireless chip. You would need some kind of wireless traffic sniffer with it's own antenna or something to do that. Yes, using etheral it's unuseful cos package is already decrypted when it's read:) However I have tested with another distro (it was configured to work with no-crypt), and it doesn't work. However, I know that there are many security-problems for wireless connections. WPA apart, it's further possible to inforce via software this connection and avoid external connections to own router? Thanks, Giulio
Re: Request to test a G77 bug on 64-bit platforms
On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 10:47 -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks, Could I request someone to test for the presence of a G77 bug on 64-bit platforms? Please install g77 and gcc on a *Sid* machine and ensure that gcc is a symlink to gcc-4.0 and g77 is a symlink to g77-3.4. Unpack the attached tarball and run make inside, then let me know the results. This is a test for GCC PR15937, here: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15397 The result should look something like this: funct1: return value = 1.11109996 in test1: retval from fortran call is 1.11109996 funct2: return value = 1.00 in test1: retval from c(float) call is 1.11109996 funct2: return value = 2 in test1: retval from c(int) call is 2 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/test$ make gcc -Wall -c test.c -o testc.o g77 -Wall -c test.F -o testf.o g77 testc.o testf.o -o a.out ./a.out funct1: return value = 1.11109996 in test1: retval from fortran call is 1.11109996 funct2: return value = 1.00 in test1: retval from c(float) call is 1.11109996 funct2: return value = 2 in test1: retval from c(int) call is 2 Please also post the output of dpkg -l gcc gcc-4.0 g77 g77-3.4 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/test$ dpkg -l gcc gcc-4.0 g77 g77-3.4 Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold | Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) ||/ Name VersionDescription +++-==-==- ii g773.4.4-5The GNU Fortran 77 compiler ii g77-3.43.4.4-8The GNU Fortran 77 compiler ii gcc4.0.1-3The GNU C compiler ii gcc-4.04.0.1-8The GNU C compiler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
Hi, On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 18:06 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can point apt to: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib non-free I've been running this since shortly after the announcement and it seems to be stable enough for my needs. No crashes or trouble while upgrading or installing other software whatsoever AFAICT. A few bits and pieces have still not propagated to this repository that were in the sid pure64. Evince, libflac6, nvidia-* and kernel-*-2.6.10 are understandable, they're not yet out of sid at all. What is a bit odd is mtr-tiny. I got version .58-1.0.0.1.pure64 installed while both sid and sarge should already be at .67-1. Keep up the great work! regards, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 09:45:31PM +0100, T.J. Zeeman wrote: What is a bit odd is mtr-tiny. I got version .58-1.0.0.1.pure64 installed while both sid and sarge should already be at .67-1. mtr does not build on amd64, which is why it's patched. Neither the maintainer nor upstream has applied the patch I supplied. See bugs.debian.org/254089 for more information. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes: Goswin von Brederlow wrote: the owner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I used the above sources.list with this image: sid-amd64-netinst.iso11-Feb-2005 09:01 193M I can't figure that one out: apt-cache policy libc6 libc6-dev libc6: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages libc6-dev: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages Only sid has 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 which only differs in having a Replaces: base-files ( 3.1.2-0.0.0.1.pure64) for update purposes. I just did virtually this same installation using the same image. The 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 came in through the sid-amd64-netinst.iso image. I have not seen any problems yet due to this issue but the machine is just barely installed to the base system right now. The 2.3.2.ds1-20 and 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 are identical apart from an Replaces on old base-files. The only thing this breaks is the libc6-dev 2.3.2.ds1-20 since it depends on the exact same version. Most things worked well. But upon reboot the grub loader went into an infinite loop loading stage 1.5. I booted grub from a DFS disk and used it to boot the installed kernel. That worked. I reinstalled grub from the installed system and all was good. It rebooted normally after that. Known 2.6.10 issue. Looking forward to the new sarge-amd64-netinst.iso image that I understand from one of your other messages is in the process of uploading now. Bob MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
Dmitry Derjavin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unfortunately current sid image doesn't allow to install on Asus A8V Deluxe with PATA drives because of the bootloader problem described in Another sata failure report and Grub problem? threads. When it comes to installing grub press ESC or select cancel to get back to the main menu. This will automatically lower the debconf priority. Continuing with the install (at that lower priority) should then ask you if you want grub or lilo, choose the later. If it doesn't repeat (or lower the debconf priority in the main menu). Alternatively you can start D-I in expert mode but then you get all the questions even before grub. Are there any known problems with sid netinst image from, say, 24-Jan-2005? Is there one from the 24th? I think I removed all the images with kernel version skews so anything you find should be fine. (if not tell me and it's gone). I still want to try sarge/amd64 on A8V. Thanks again! MfG Goswin PS: new image is rsyncing, will take some hours -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: the owner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I used the above sources.list with this image: sid-amd64-netinst.iso11-Feb-2005 09:01 193M I can't figure that one out: apt-cache policy libc6 libc6-dev libc6: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages libc6-dev: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages Only sid has 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 which only differs in having a Replaces: base-files ( 3.1.2-0.0.0.1.pure64) for update purposes. I just did virtually this same installation using the same image. The 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 came in through the sid-amd64-netinst.iso image. I have not seen any problems yet due to this issue but the machine is just barely installed to the base system right now. Most things worked well. But upon reboot the grub loader went into an infinite loop loading stage 1.5. I booted grub from a DFS disk and used it to boot the installed kernel. That worked. I reinstalled grub from the installed system and all was good. It rebooted normally after that. Looking forward to the new sarge-amd64-netinst.iso image that I understand from one of your other messages is in the process of uploading now. Bob signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Time to test sarge
On Sun, Feb 13 2005 at 17:24, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can point apt to: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib non-free This time I used this image: sarge-amd64-netinst.iso 15-Jan-2005 17:38 125M The sid one was the right one to test. The sarge one has kernel/module version skews. It's rather useless and I removed it. I will build a new sarge image once the ~500MB remaining debs are uploaded. Could you please tell -- when (or if) new sarge netinst images will be available? Or maybe it's better now to install from the sid one and point apt to testing? Thanks! -- ~dd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
Dmitry Derjavin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Feb 13 2005 at 17:24, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can point apt to: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib non-free This time I used this image: sarge-amd64-netinst.iso 15-Jan-2005 17:38 125M The sid one was the right one to test. The sarge one has kernel/module version skews. It's rather useless and I removed it. I will build a new sarge image once the ~500MB remaining debs are uploaded. Could you please tell -- when (or if) new sarge netinst images will be available? Or maybe it's better now to install from the sid one and point apt to testing? Thanks! Use sid to install, point apt to testing and then downgrade the libc6/libc6-dev to avoid the conflict. Or pin testing to 1000 and apt will do it automatically. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 06:06:15PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can point apt to: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib non-free Hi, Thank you very much for your work! I pointed a gcc-3.4 machine that hasn't been updated in a few months to your archive, and started by trying to install libc6, which resulted in this: Unpacking replacement libc6 ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb (--unpack): trying to overwrite `/usr/lib64', which is also in package base-files Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) My /usr/lib* looks like this: % ls -ld /usr/lib* drwxr-xr-x 37 root root 12288 Feb 15 10:26 /usr/lib/ lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 Jan 3 2001 /usr/lib64 - lib/ Do I need to replace /usr/lib64 with a real directory, or is there something else obviously wrong? Many thanks, -- Pete Harlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Harlan) writes: I pointed a gcc-3.4 machine that hasn't been updated in a few months to your archive, and started by trying to install libc6, which resulted in this: Unpacking replacement libc6 ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb (--unpack): trying to overwrite `/usr/lib64', which is also in package base-files Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) You just missed the everyone needs to update now sice we will break the upgrade path soon mails a while back. The /lib64 and /usr/lib64 links have been moved from base-files to libc6 and the required hints for a smooth upgrade were only added temporarily. You have to use --force-overwrite now. MfG Goswin PS: going from gcc-3.4 back to pure64 can cause more problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Time to test sarge
Goswin wrote: I tried again and base config failed again on file server config and manual package config. This could be the same problem as below. I don't understand what you mean here. I guess I have to see it with my own eyes. I suspect some deb is stuck the upload queue that base-config needs or something. An error for this just flashes by and is hard to spot or actualy read what is missing. +++ I should try an installer on sid to be sure. The problem has been occurring when the dialog pops up and say Base Package Config and shows a list of choices for example: Web Server File Server Mail Server DNS Server Manual Package Selection I make a choice and the next dialog pops up and says there is a problem and maybe broken packages will result. None of the choices has ever worked with the three images I have tried when using the debian-pure64 testing for an archive. The only thing that has worked at this time is to Exit the Base Config. Then I go to dselect and try to finish getting the rest installed. I haven't tried this with sid yet only testing. I don't know if the installer goes to fetch the information or if that is built into the installer. :-( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Time to test sarge
Goswin wrote: I exited the base config and tried dselect and there were conflicts with dependency on libc6. The libc6-dev depends on libc6 = 2.3.2.ds1-20 and libc6 was version 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64. I think that would be fixed in a day or two. I think everything will work after sarge is updated to yesterdays sid. No, patched sources/debs don't enter sarge (not automatically, not yet). This needs manual fixing, see below. I have tried another image and the same problem occurs: sid-amd64-netinst.iso 24-Jan-2005 08:46 126M That confirms sarge libc6-dev is at least 17 days later. Both the 11Feb and 24Jan images must have been built from sid containing the libc6 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 package except sarge libc6-dev requires libc6 2.3.2.ds1-20. I would need to try a netinst built from libc6 = 2.3.2.ds1-20 to avoid the need to downgrade. I could try a very old installer from way last year and then everything in sarge would be an upgrade. I'm plaing to downgrade the sid libc6 to an unpatched form to fix this. The patch was only needed for upgrades and hopefully everyone has done so now. Any objections? Now I'm confused about that. Was the patch to do with linking /lib/amd64? I have downgraded packages before using dpkg not using apt-get or dselect. These problems should be blamed on the installer not on sid. Please don't experiment with the most excellent sid for this reason. * * Could you post an iso built from the sarge packages? * * Maybe the same routine used to build the 11Feb images only build * from * sarge * instead * of * sid. Is the point of sarge to build a full CD image to install without a network? That is going to need a sarge installer. I forgot how to build my own image from the files so I would need to actually read the manual to make my own. None of the recent install-images are suitable for installing sarge. .. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Time to test sarge
Goswin wrote already: I will build a new sarge image once the ~500MB remaining debs are uploaded. Whoops! That would be great! Sorry for the previous trivia. :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
the owner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Goswin wrote: I tried again and base config failed again on file server config and manual package config. This could be the same problem as below. I don't understand what you mean here. I guess I have to see it with my own eyes. I suspect some deb is stuck the upload queue that base-config needs or something. An error for this just flashes by and is hard to spot or actualy read what is missing. +++ I should try an installer on sid to be sure. The problem has been occurring when the dialog pops up and say Base Package Config and shows a list of choices for example: Web Server File Server Mail Server DNS Server Manual Package Selection I make a choice and the next dialog pops up and says there is a problem and maybe broken packages will result. None of the choices has ever worked with the three images I have tried when using the debian-pure64 testing for an archive. That sounds like tasksel. Since we have no task: xyz infos in the Packages file that won't work. The task infor comes from some override file and has to be added to the Packages file somehow. Script to add it is welcome. The only thing that has worked at this time is to Exit the Base Config. Then I go to dselect and try to finish getting the rest installed. I haven't tried this with sid yet only testing. I don't know if the installer goes to fetch the information or if that is built into the installer. :-( If it is tasksel then this is normal. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
the owner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That confirms sarge libc6-dev is at least 17 days later. Both the 11Feb and 24Jan images must have been built from sid containing the libc6 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 package except sarge libc6-dev requires libc6 2.3.2.ds1-20. I would need to try a netinst built from libc6 = 2.3.2.ds1-20 to avoid the need to downgrade. I could try a very old installer from way last year and then everything in sarge would be an upgrade. I'm plaing to downgrade the sid libc6 to an unpatched form to fix this. The patch was only needed for upgrades and hopefully everyone has done so now. Any objections? Now I'm confused about that. Was the patch to do with linking /lib/amd64? I have downgraded packages before using dpkg not using apt-get or dselect. These problems should be blamed on the installer not on sid. Please don't experiment with the most excellent sid for this reason. When we started we had the /lib64 - /lib link in base-files as patch. Recently the /lib64 link has been added to debians glibc package and we had to remove it from base-files to avoid conflicts. For this move (base-files - libc6) to work without self destructing the system some extra infos in the control file are needed, included in the libc6 patch. Now that everyone has upgraded they are no longer needed and I plan to downgrade libc6 instead of maintaining a now useless patch. (Unless a new glibc upload beats me to it). * * Could you post an iso built from the sarge packages? * * Maybe the same routine used to build the 11Feb images only build * from * sarge * instead * of * sid. Is the point of sarge to build a full CD image to install without a network? That is going to need a sarge installer. I forgot how to build my own image from the files so I would need to actually read the manual to make my own. None of the recent install-images are suitable for installing sarge. http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/tools/make-cd.sh But you need the kernel-image and linux-kernel-di packages in sarge first for it to build a CD. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
the owner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Goswin wrote: So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can point apt to: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib non-free OK. I remember some things from my first install so now I can check. I used the above sources.list with this image: sid-amd64-netinst.iso11-Feb-2005 09:01 193M Maybe that is the wrong image to test the debian-pure64 testing. The installation went very smoothly with no difficulty through reboot. That is good to hear. It has been a while since an image worked. After reboot the base config did not allow manual package selection. I exited the base config and tried dselect and there were conflicts with dependency on libc6. The libc6-dev depends on libc6 = 2.3.2.ds1-20 and libc6 was version 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64. I think that would be fixed in a day or two. I can't figure that one out: apt-cache policy libc6 libc6-dev libc6: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages libc6-dev: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages Only sid has 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 which only differs in having a Replaces: base-files ( 3.1.2-0.0.0.1.pure64) for update purposes. ... I tried to use the netinst image as a rescue disk and could not make the kernel boot my good partition. There were no instructions on how to use the netinst as a rescue disk so maybe that is not possible. I could use the F2 key for a few things, probably not enough. I didn't read the Debian Installation Manual so that should be the same as everybody else. The debian kernels have everything build as modules except the initrd support. As a result the kernel fits on a floppy but you can only boot from initrd. And I haven't yet found a way to tell the D-I initrd to act as a rescue image and boot an existing linux. I think the only problem is with the libc6-dev testing package. The kernel finally worked perfectly and automatically. The Installer was very easy to use. Thanks for testing. Could you try the libc6/libc6-dev again though and check with apt-cache policy where it comes from? MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
the owner wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the installation, can DFS be used to install amd64-sarge? I tried this last year using the same images from October. The DFS takes more expertise to use than the Debian Installer. The DFS boots into ram like a LiveCD unless you tell the kernel to boot an existing root installation. While in ram you can then partition the disk and create the filesystems from the programs on the CD. Then chroot to the new partition and debootstrap. That takes some experience with debian or at least another Linux dist. I can't remember if the Debian Installer is included. There is a debian package to build a custom DFS. That is not too easy. Be sure to modprobe sk98lin for the Yukon ethernet controller used on many AMD64 motherboards because that didn't get recognized. I've used DFS for the past 20 or so Debian installations and I find it to be a good tool. It's actually far simpler than I thought at first. I was just hoping to see a newer version of it, with newer kernel images available. As you noted, its not too easy to build a custom DFS, so I'd rather skip that. /v\ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Time to test sarge
Goswin wrote: I used the above sources.list with this image: sid-amd64-netinst.iso11-Feb-2005 09:01 193M Maybe that is the wrong image to test the debian-pure64 testing. After reboot the base config did not allow manual package selection. I tried again and base config failed again on file server config and manual package config. This could be the same problem as below. I exited the base config and tried dselect and there were conflicts with dependency on libc6. The libc6-dev depends on libc6 = 2.3.2.ds1-20 and libc6 was version 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64. I think that would be fixed in a day or two. I think everything will work after sarge is updated to yesterdays sid. I can't figure that one out: apt-cache policy libc6 libc6-dev libc6: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages libc6-dev: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages Only sid has 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 which only differs in having a Replaces: base-files ( 3.1.2-0.0.0.1.pure64) for update purposes. Could you try the libc6/libc6-dev again though and check with apt-cache policy where it comes from? MfG Goswin +++ I really think I used a netinst image that was too new. The libc6 must have come from sid in the sid-amd64-netinst.iso and conflicted with the Packages in testing. I think I should have tried sarge-amd64-netinst.iso because the 11 Febuary unstable sid must be ahead of testing sarge. Here is more info than you requested: libc6: Installed: 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 Candidate: 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 Version Table: *** 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 500 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org testing/main Packages libc6-dev: Installed: (none) Candidate: 2.3.2.ds1-20 Version Table: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 500 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org testing/main Packages Package: libc6 Versions: 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64(/var/lib/dpkg/status) 2.3.2.ds1-20(/var/lib/apt/lists/debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org_debian-pure64_dists_testing_main_binary-amd64_Packages) Reverse Depends: omitted Dependencies: 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 - libdb1-compat (0 (null)) locales (0 (null)) glibc-doc (0 (null)) strace (3 4.0-0) libnss-db (1 2.2-6.1.1) timezone (0 (null)) timezones (0 (null)) gconv-modules (0 (null)) libtricks (0 (null)) libc6-doc (0 (null)) netkit-rpc (0 (null)) wine (3 0.0.20031118-1) cyrus-imapd (3 1.5.19-15) ldso (1 1.9.11-9) timezone (0 (null)) timezones (0 (null)) gconv-modules (0 (null)) libtricks (0 (null)) netkit-rpc (0 (null)) netbase (3 4.0) libc6-dev (3 2.3.2.ds1-14) base-files (3 3.1.2-0.0.0.1.pure64) 2.3.2.ds1-20 - libdb1-compat (0 (null)) locales (0 (null)) glibc-doc (0 (null)) strace (3 4.0-0) libnss-db (1 2.2-6.1.1) timezone (0 (null)) timezones (0 (null)) gconv-modules (0 (null)) libtricks (0 (null)) libc6-doc (0 (null)) netkit-rpc (0 (null)) wine (3 0.0.20031118-1) cyrus-imapd (3 1.5.19-15) ldso (1 1.9.11-9) timezone (0 (null)) timezones (0 (null)) gconv-modules (0 (null)) libtricks (0 (null)) netkit-rpc (0 (null)) netbase (3 4.0) libc6-dev (3 2.3.2.ds1-14) Provides: 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 - glibc-2.3.2.ds1-20 2.3.2.ds1-20 - glibc-2.3.2.ds1-20 Reverse Provides: Package: libc6-dev Versions: 2.3.2.ds1-20(/var/lib/apt/lists/debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org_debian-pure64_dists_testing_main_binary-amd64_Packages) Reverse Depends: omitted Dependencies: 2.3.2.ds1-20 - libc6 (5 2.3.2.ds1-20) linux-kernel-headers (0 (null)) glibc-doc (0 (null)) manpages-dev (0 (null)) gcc (16 (null)) c-compiler (0 (null)) libstdc++2.10-dev (3 1:2.95.2-15) gcc-2.95 (3 1:2.95.3-8) netkit-rpc (0 (null)) libc-dev (0 (null)) man-db (1 2.3.10-41) gettext (1 0.10.26-1) ppp (1 2.2.0f-24) libgdbmg1-dev (1 1.7.3-24) ldso (1 1.9.11-9) netkit-rpc (0 (null)) netbase (3 4.0) kerberos4kth-dev (3 1.2.2-10) Provides: 2.3.2.ds1-20 - libc-dev Reverse Provides: ## -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
Goswin wrote: So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can point apt to: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib non-free This time I used this image: sarge-amd64-netinst.iso 15-Jan-2005 17:38 125M The installer from 15 January was terrible compared to the 11 February version. There was only the ext2 and xfs file systems to choose from and the kernel had problems with the sk98lin. I recommend the 15 January sarge netinst iso not be used. I was able to get to the reboot and finish just to test the upgrading of packages from debian-pure64 testing. I used my current kernel to reboot into the sarge partition so I could avoid the grub gamble. I finished the installation and then went to upgrade from the debian-pure64 testing just to see if everything worked. I used dselect and just chose all of the identified new and upgraded packages from testing. This was the problem after downloading the 99MB of debs and trying to install: (Reading database ... 9668 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace libc6 2.3.2.ds1-18 (using .../libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb) ... Unpacking replacement libc6 ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb(--unpack): trying to overwrite `/usr/lib64', which is also in package base-files Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) +++ Here is the info from apt-cache policy base-files: Installed: 3.1-0.0.0.2.pure64 Candidate: 3.1.2 Version Table: 3.1.2 0 500 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org testing/main Packages *** 3.1-0.0.0.2.pure64 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status libc6: Installed: 2.3.2.ds1-18 Candidate: 2.3.2.ds1-20 Version Table: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 500 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org testing/main Packages *** 2.3.2.ds1-18 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status +++ I had to fix the /usr/lib64 link about six weeks ago for my own installation and the problem still seems to exist. Maybe the sarge-amd64-netinst.iso from 15 January had the problem and a newer iso would be fixed or the problem is in the packages in testing. I could try to manually install the newer base-files before the newer libc6. If the problem is due to the base-files-3.1-0.0.0.2.pure64 being used in that netinst then maybe removing that image would stop the problem. That image should be removed anyway because of the kernel module problems and bad features in my opinion. I don't know if the problem is with the netinst iso or the testing sarge. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
the owner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Goswin wrote: I used the above sources.list with this image: sid-amd64-netinst.iso11-Feb-2005 09:01 193M Maybe that is the wrong image to test the debian-pure64 testing. After reboot the base config did not allow manual package selection. I tried again and base config failed again on file server config and manual package config. This could be the same problem as below. I don't understand what you mean here. I guess I have to see it with my own eyes. I suspect some deb is stuck the upload queue that base-config needs or something. An error for this just flashes by and is hard to spot or actualy read what is missing. I exited the base config and tried dselect and there were conflicts with dependency on libc6. The libc6-dev depends on libc6 = 2.3.2.ds1-20 and libc6 was version 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64. I think that would be fixed in a day or two. I think everything will work after sarge is updated to yesterdays sid. No, patched sources/debs don't enter sarge (not automatically, not yet). This needs manual fixing, see below. I can't figure that one out: apt-cache policy libc6 libc6-dev libc6: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages libc6-dev: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages Only sid has 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 which only differs in having a Replaces: base-files ( 3.1.2-0.0.0.1.pure64) for update purposes. Could you try the libc6/libc6-dev again though and check with apt-cache policy where it comes from? MfG Goswin +++ I really think I used a netinst image that was too new. The libc6 must have come from sid in the sid-amd64-netinst.iso and conflicted with the Packages in testing. I think I should have tried sarge-amd64-netinst.iso because the 11 Febuary unstable sid must be ahead of testing sarge. Ahh, right. That is the case. I'm plaing to downgrade the sid libc6 to an unpatched form to fix this. The patch was only needed for upgrades and hopefully everyone has done so now. Any objections? MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
the owner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Goswin wrote: So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can point apt to: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib non-free This time I used this image: sarge-amd64-netinst.iso 15-Jan-2005 17:38 125M The sid one was the right one to test. The sarge one has kernel/module version skews. It's rather useless and I removed it. I will build a new sarge image once the ~500MB remaining debs are uploaded. The installer from 15 January was terrible compared to the 11 February version. There was only the ext2 and xfs file systems to choose from and the kernel had problems with the sk98lin. I recommend the 15 January sarge netinst iso not be used. I was able to get to the reboot and finish just to test the upgrading of packages from debian-pure64 testing. I used my current kernel to reboot into the sarge partition so I could avoid the grub gamble. I finished the installation and then went to upgrade from the debian-pure64 testing just to see if everything worked. I used dselect and just chose all of the identified new and upgraded packages from testing. This was the problem after downloading the 99MB of debs and trying to install: (Reading database ... 9668 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace libc6 2.3.2.ds1-18 (using .../libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb) ... Unpacking replacement libc6 ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb(--unpack): trying to overwrite `/usr/lib64', which is also in package base-files Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) Expected since the sarge image was from before the transition and needs the 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 to upgrade cleanly. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Time to test sarge
Hi, I declare testing season opened. I think I have all the scripts for sarge straighted out now and packages are progressing from sid to sarge at the same time they do in Debian (+- a day). There are still some packages that are older in sarge than in sid and not yet rebuild, only 12932 out of 14904 (for main) debs are uploaded with more on the way. So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can point apt to: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib non-free For a fresh install you need a netinst or monolithic CD as the kernel-image udebs have not moved to sarge yet. The netboot would fail to find the modules. In case of failures I need to know the name of the missing package so I can fasttrack them. I'm sure some basic thing is stuck at the end of the queue. MfG Goswin PS: 'debian-pure64 sid' works also and should be a 1:1 of pure64 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib non-free In my boxes I already have such lines pointing to sarge, plus very high pinning priorities for testing and/or stable, which ought to force downgrade from sid if the same package is present both in sid and in sarge. Is this supposed to work? Bye Giacomo -- _ Giacomo Mulas [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ OSSERVATORIO ASTRONOMICO DI CAGLIARI Str. 54, Loc. Poggio dei Pini * 09012 Capoterra (CA) Tel. (OAC): +39 070 71180 248 Fax : +39 070 71180 222 Tel. (UNICA): +39 070 675 4916 _ When the storms are raging around you, stay right where you are (Freddy Mercury) _ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
Giacomo Mulas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib non-free In my boxes I already have such lines pointing to sarge, plus very high pinning priorities for testing and/or stable, which ought to force downgrade from sid if the same package is present both in sid and in sarge. Is this supposed to work? Bye Giacomo If it is debian-pure64 then yes. If it is just pure64 then no since there sarge links to sid. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
On 11 Feb 2005, 18:06, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can point apt to: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib non-free Hopefully it will be soon propagated on mirrors too. As far as I can see, debian-pure64/pool directory is still empty on bytekeeper.as28747.net Btw, many *thanks* for the great port. Keep up the good job *8) -- @,@ Il corpo del povero cadrebbe subito in pezzi [`-'] se non fosse legato ben stretto dal filo dei sogni -----Anonimo indiano -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: For a fresh install you need a netinst or monolithic CD as the kernel-image udebs have not moved to sarge yet. The netboot would fail to find the modules. I'll try to test this on a few systems sometime soon. As for the installation, can DFS be used to install amd64-sarge? And for that matter, does anyone have information on DFS future plans - will we be seeing one with a newer kernel at some point? /v\ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Time to test sarge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the installation, can DFS be used to install amd64-sarge? I tried this last year using the same images from October. The DFS takes more expertise to use than the Debian Installer. The DFS boots into ram like a LiveCD unless you tell the kernel to boot an existing root installation. While in ram you can then partition the disk and create the filesystems from the programs on the CD. Then chroot to the new partition and debootstrap. That takes some experience with debian or at least another Linux dist. I can't remember if the Debian Installer is included. There is a debian package to build a custom DFS. That is not too easy. Be sure to modprobe sk98lin for the Yukon ethernet controller used on many AMD64 motherboards because that didn't get recognized. !! We don't need no stinking modules !! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
Goswin wrote: So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can point apt to: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib non-free OK. I remember some things from my first install so now I can check. I used the above sources.list with this image: sid-amd64-netinst.iso11-Feb-2005 09:01 193M Maybe that is the wrong image to test the debian-pure64 testing. The installation went very smoothly with no difficulty through reboot. After reboot the base config did not allow manual package selection. I exited the base config and tried dselect and there were conflicts with dependency on libc6. The libc6-dev depends on libc6 = 2.3.2.ds1-20 and libc6 was version 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64. I think that would be fixed in a day or two. Many problems were gone and the Installer was fairly perfect for my computer. My computer is an ASUS A8V with WD Raptor SATA boot partition and IDE home partition. I did not test the grub bootloader to prevent disturbing my current setup. I first created a ReiserFS partition just for a test and continued until the Installer rebooted. I then reinstalled again making an ext3 partition with no difficulty. There were no problems until finding the debian-pure64 package dependency with dselect. The kernel setup worked properly and the ethernet worked without any intervention. That had been a problem before. There was no problem this time easily getting to alioth after reboot. I have previously had a problem with getting the correct broadcast address in the network. I manually configure and ask for a 192.168.x.255 address and found 0.0.0.0 when checking with ifconfig before reboot. The correct broadcast was entered into the /etc/network/interfaces file so everything worked properly after rebooting. Some installers access the internet before rebooting so that could be a problem. That is the same problem with the Debian-i386 installer and not unique to AMD64. That broadcast address would crash my DSLmodem so I had to push the reset button and the installer would then timeout and start over instead of resuming in the middle of the installation. There were no problems this time except the 0.0.0.0 should not be a broadcast address. I tried to use the netinst image as a rescue disk and could not make the kernel boot my good partition. There were no instructions on how to use the netinst as a rescue disk so maybe that is not possible. I could use the F2 key for a few things, probably not enough. I didn't read the Debian Installation Manual so that should be the same as everybody else. I think the only problem is with the libc6-dev testing package. The kernel finally worked perfectly and automatically. The Installer was very easy to use. :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
test message to test my filters, do not respond
test -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
