Re: kernel 2.4.10 blues
Perhaps i should have worded it a bit differently. You are correct, i meant to say that there aren't any new features in 2.4.x, which is the way it should be. --- Myles Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Net Llama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From the release notes, it looks to me that most of the changes are > > *alot* of Alan Cox merges and other assorted stupid bug fixes. Not > > much > > in the way of new features (as it should be). > > ...but I thought new features were introduced in the devel series > (2.1.x, 2.3.x, 2.5.x) and only patches and fixes went into the stable > series (2.2.x, 2.4.x, 2.6.x). or have I got that wrong? Version > level=2, > Release level=4, Patch level=x > > just wondering... = Lonni J. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux FAQ & Step-by-step help: http://netllama.ipfox.com . __ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com ___ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: kernel 2.4.10 blues
Net Llama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From the release notes, it looks to me that most of the changes are > *alot* of Alan Cox merges and other assorted stupid bug fixes. Not > much > in the way of new features (as it should be). ...but I thought new features were introduced in the devel series (2.1.x, 2.3.x, 2.5.x) and only patches and fixes went into the stable series (2.2.x, 2.4.x, 2.6.x). or have I got that wrong? Version level=2, Release level=4, Patch level=x just wondering... -- Myles Green Calgary AB Canada Alberta Step by Step Mirror: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/mylesg/ ___ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: kernel 2.4.10 blues
--- Mike Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 29 October 2001 05:08, Net Llama wrote: > > > Quite honestly, i haven't had much of a problem with the 2.4.x tree. > > There were some problems with 2.4.7 & 2.4.8 but other than those, > every > > single kernel has been rock solid for me. > > > > I phrased that wrongly llama. I agree that compile and run-wise > there > isn't any more issues than usual it just seems a very large swag of > updates > have come thru in such a short period of time. After all, we are at > #13 > already. Is it because new tweaks and devices are getting added every > day? or > is it because the development cycle has accelerated, or is it genuine > nasty > bugs reuiqring instant fixes? > > (It turns out that my problem was self induced, I compiled elf kernel > binaries as a module. DUH) > > >From the release notes, it looks to me that most of the changes are *alot* of Alan Cox merges and other assorted stupid bug fixes. Not much in the way of new features (as it should be). = Lonni J. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux FAQ & Step-by-step help: http://netllama.ipfox.com . __ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com ___ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: kernel 2.4.10 blues
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:26:42 +1130, Mike Andrew wrote: >On Monday 29 October 2001 10:43, stayler wrote: > >> With the exception of ieee-1284 support. 12 is broke, 13 seems ok. > >do you mean .13 has Ieee problems? Damned typos fairies are at it again No 12 has a problem building ieee-1284 support, but 13 seems to build fine with it stayler ___ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: kernel 2.4.10 blues
On Monday 29 October 2001 05:08, Net Llama wrote: > Quite honestly, i haven't had much of a problem with the 2.4.x tree. > There were some problems with 2.4.7 & 2.4.8 but other than those, every > single kernel has been rock solid for me. > I phrased that wrongly llama. I agree that compile and run-wise there isn't any more issues than usual it just seems a very large swag of updates have come thru in such a short period of time. After all, we are at #13 already. Is it because new tweaks and devices are getting added every day? or is it because the development cycle has accelerated, or is it genuine nasty bugs reuiqring instant fixes? (It turns out that my problem was self induced, I compiled elf kernel binaries as a module. DUH) -- http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: kernel 2.4.10 blues
On Monday 29 October 2001 10:43, stayler wrote: > With the exception of ieee-1284 support. 12 is broke, 13 seems ok. do you mean .13 has Ieee problems? -- http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: kernel 2.4.10 blues
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:06:30 -0400, Keith Antoine wrote: >I read somewhere were it was said that 01 and 11 were broken and 12 etc were >ok. With the exception of ieee-1284 support. 12 is broke, 13 seems ok. stayler ___ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: kernel 2.4.10 blues
--- Mike Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > FWIW, i've successfully built & booted every kernel since 2.4.3. > Some > > have turned out to be duds, but they did boot. Also, i'll note that > > running any 2.4.x kernel less than 2.2.12 is a very bad idea, as > they > > have known root exploits. > > > > I'm currently running 2.4.12 & 2.4.13 on my boxes. > > > erk! There I was thinking 2.4.10 would be pretty close to the bleeding > edge > and #13 is there already! Yea, #13 popped out last week. > > What gives with maintstream kernels these days? It seems everything > put out > so far should have been called 2.5.x for the amount of problems each > one has > caused. Quite honestly, i haven't had much of a problem with the 2.4.x tree. There were some problems with 2.4.7 & 2.4.8 but other than those, every single kernel has been rock solid for me. = Lonni J. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux FAQ & Step-by-step help: http://netllama.ipfox.com . __ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com ___ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: kernel 2.4.10 blues
On Sunday 28 October 2001 04:32, Net Llama wrote: > Well, i don't know diddly about devfs, so i have no clue how that I implemented it as early as 2.4.3 and was vey dissapointed with the attrocious lack of documentation for it. It's a very promising 'idea' and ultimately will have to be implemented as there just aren't enuff device nodes 'out there' anymore. But god help me it sucks badly if you have non mainstream devices. > FWIW, i've successfully built & booted every kernel since 2.4.3. Some > have turned out to be duds, but they did boot. Also, i'll note that > running any 2.4.x kernel less than 2.2.12 is a very bad idea, as they > have known root exploits. > > I'm currently running 2.4.12 & 2.4.13 on my boxes. erk! There I was thinking 2.4.10 would be pretty close to the bleeding edge and #13 is there already! What gives with maintstream kernels these days? It seems everything put out so far should have been called 2.5.x for the amount of problems each one has caused. -- http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: kernel 2.4.10 blues
On Saturday 27 October 2001 10:06 am, you sent an epistle: > from Keith Antoine: > > [...] > > " I read somewhere were it was said that 01 and 11 were broken and 12 etc > were " ok. > > iirc 2.4.11 shows up at kernel.org (I think) as 2.4.11-dont use or similar. Damd I meant 10 not 01, thick finger, but then I cannot type. > 2.4.12-ac3 (patched) resulted in a couple of boot errors (re my 8139 card) > going away. > > > I've seen some comments to the effect that the Alan Cox patches are > seen, at the moment, as the more stable series. I use 8 at the moment and trying 13. -- - To those who have been in harms way, to those that have made the sacrifice in humanities name. At the going down of the sun and in the morning I shall remember them. - Keith Antoine aka "skippy" 18 Arkana St The Gap Queensland 4061 Australia PH 16 7 33002161 Retired Geriatric and Sometime Electronics Engineer : Knowall ___ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: kernel 2.4.10 blues
Well, i don't know diddly about devfs, so i have no clue how that impacts the situation. However, it sounds to me like you're either running an older version of modultils, or the executable bit on modprobe got turned off. FWIW, i've successfully built & booted every kernel since 2.4.3. Some have turned out to be duds, but they did boot. Also, i'll note that running any 2.4.x kernel less than 2.2.12 is a very bad idea, as they have known root exploits. I'm currently running 2.4.12 & 2.4.13 on my boxes. --- Mike Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > After compiling succesfully I get the following (paraphrased) error > message > almost immediately on booting > > "unable to exec /sbin/modrobe " > > I have torn my hair out with this kernel release as it comes with > devfs and > resierfs auto enabled and a few other things. My kernel 2.4.7 works > like a > bought one. > > --- > Also, the /devfs file system if enabled, cannot handle the fstab entry > LABEL=/ > > I cannot find *any* documentation on what this #@E)(*) command > actually does > and how to get round it. = Lonni J. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux FAQ & Step-by-step help: http://netllama.ipfox.com . __ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com ___ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: kernel 2.4.10 blues
from Keith Antoine: [...] " I read somewhere were it was said that 01 and 11 were broken and 12 etc were " ok. iirc 2.4.11 shows up at kernel.org (I think) as 2.4.11-dont use or similar. 2.4.12-ac3 (patched) resulted in a couple of boot errors (re my 8139 card) going away. I've seen some comments to the effect that the Alan Cox patches are seen, at the moment, as the more stable series. R -- "Protecting the Freedom of Speech necessarily means protecting the freedom of offensive speech because noone ever tries to censor the other kind." R ___ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: kernel 2.4.10 blues
On Friday 26 October 2001 10:33 pm, you sent an epistle: > After compiling succesfully I get the following (paraphrased) error message > almost immediately on booting > > "unable to exec /sbin/modrobe " > > I have torn my hair out with this kernel release as it comes with devfs and > resierfs auto enabled and a few other things. My kernel 2.4.7 works like a > bought one. > > --- > Also, the /devfs file system if enabled, cannot handle the fstab entry > LABEL=/ > > I cannot find *any* documentation on what this #@E)(*) command actually > does and how to get round it. > > > Help please? I read somewhere were it was said that 01 and 11 were broken and 12 etc were ok. -- - To those who have been in harms way, to those that have made the sacrifice in humanities name. At the going down of the sun and in the morning I shall remember them. - Keith Antoine aka "skippy" 18 Arkana St The Gap Queensland 4061 Australia PH 16 7 33002161 Retired Geriatric and Sometime Electronics Engineer : Knowall ___ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
kernel 2.4.10 blues
After compiling succesfully I get the following (paraphrased) error message almost immediately on booting "unable to exec /sbin/modrobe " I have torn my hair out with this kernel release as it comes with devfs and resierfs auto enabled and a few other things. My kernel 2.4.7 works like a bought one. --- Also, the /devfs file system if enabled, cannot handle the fstab entry LABEL=/ I cannot find *any* documentation on what this #@E)(*) command actually does and how to get round it. Help please? -- http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
