loaded Linux on the laptop -- I'sd
appreciate it if you would keep me posted.
I finally got 2.0.31 to compile --- and that was achieved by deconfiguring
a whole stack of drivers. I still don't know why I couldn't compile it
with these drivers, but fortunately I didn't need any of them.
I
On 3 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Mark The links I created were:
SNIP
I compile kernels in /usr/local all the time, and I never have
created any of these links ... they are not required.
I made the links because that's what the README file for the linux
kernel says to do. As
Hi,
I think it is time for my canned posting about how kernel
header files are handled by Debian.
manoj
$Id: README.headers,v 1.7 1998/07/14 21:18:38 srivasta Exp $
This is the Debian GNU/Linux prepackaged version of the Linux kernel
headers. Linux was written by Linus
Hi,
I need to compile the 2.0.31 kernel. Unfortunately there is
not a debian package for the 2.0.31 kernel, so I downloaded the upstream
version, unpacked it into /usr/local/src, created links and followed the
instructions for make-kpkg in order to make a kernel image package.
Unfortunately
Hi,
Mark == Mark Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mark I need to compile the 2.0.31 kernel. Unfortunately there is
Mark not a debian package for the 2.0.31 kernel, so I downloaded the
Mark upstream version, unpacked it into /usr/local/src, created
Mark links
What links did you
On 3 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Mark I need to compile the 2.0.31 kernel. Unfortunately there is
Mark not a debian package for the 2.0.31 kernel, so I downloaded the
Mark upstream version, unpacked it into /usr/local/src, created
Mark links
What links did you create
On 3 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Mark == Mark Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mark /usr/include/sys/types.h:45: conflicting types for `mode_t'
Mark /usr/local/src/linux-2.0.31/include/linux/types.h:12: previous
declaration
Mark of `mode_t'
Something is seriously wrong
Hi,
Mark == Mark Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mark On 3 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Mark I need to compile the 2.0.31 kernel. Unfortunately there is
Mark not a debian package for the 2.0.31 kernel, so I downloaded the
Mark upstream version, unpacked it into /usr/local/src
tried 2.0.31 (if I ever did); is there areason you can't just go to
2.0.3[45]?
Yes. I'm actually trying to get a Xircom ethernet/modem PCMCIA card
to configure properly on a digital laptop. I have been in contact with
another guy with exactly the same laptop who has got it working using
RedHat
Hi,
in make menuconfig, turn off anythig you do not need
immediately, like any unknown drivers. (look at makefiles and .config
to know what to turn off).
I too have a hinote vp 575 laptop and a Xircom ehternet/modem
card, but I have not yet loaded Linux on the laptop -- I'sd
On Thu, Nov 13, 1997 at 11:48:38PM +, G. Kapetanios wrote:
I have compiled a 2.0.31 kernel. One of the reasons for doing so was to
use autofs. However when I did make menuconfig I didn't see an option for
autofs support. I thought it was in the kernel anyway and instaled he
package
I tried 2.0.31, but found that it broke my SCSI system - it would no longer
acknowledge the existence of tapedrive or scanner. This was apparent at
boot-time, when they no longer appeared on the SCSI device list.
I am using an Adaptec 2940UW with the aic7xxx SCSI kernel code.
I wanted
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote -
I have compiled a 2.0.31 kernel. One of the reasons for doing so was to
use autofs. However when I did make menuconfig I didn't see an option for
autofs support. I thought it was in the kernel anyway and instaled he
package. However the package does not find autofs
Hi,
I have compiled a 2.0.31 kernel. One of the reasons for doing so was to
use autofs. However when I did make menuconfig I didn't see an option for
autofs support. I thought it was in the kernel anyway and instaled he
package. However the package does not find autofs support and won't start
Hi,
I have just installed 2.0.31. I have heard from the list that it might be
unstable. However, the statistical package I use for my work seems to be
working noticeably faster with this kernel. Has anyone noticed any marked
performance improvement or am I mistaken
Hi,
I am testing a new installation of 2.0.31 on the latetest stable
Debian. Two things to notice up to now.
I left a torture test run on disks (three Bonnie processes running in
parallel). All was okay, apparently. While doing so, I tried to run
mirror on the Debian ftp site, and mirror grew
Does anyone know when the kernel-source-2.0.31 package will be ready ?
Or is it exactly the same as the tar.gz source files available from, say,
www.kernel.org in which case getting that would do the job ?
Thanks
George
On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, G. Kapetanios wrote:
Does anyone know when the kernel-source-2.0.31 package will be ready ?
Or is it exactly the same as the tar.gz source files available from, say,
www.kernel.org in which case getting that would do the job ?
Fetching the source from www.kernel.org
On Tue, Oct 28, 1997 at 12:55:45PM -0700, Sudhakar Chandrasekharan wrote:
Speaking of automounting, have any of you folks come across a way of
automounting SMB volumes? I don't like smbclient/smbmount.
The autofs-pre15 patch updates the man page to show such an example, the
code might be
Sudhakar Chandrasekharan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Speaking of automounting, have any of you folks come across a way of
automounting SMB volumes? I don't like smbclient/smbmount.
You could look at rumba, which might not be in Debian. It does SMB
mounting in an NFS-like way, which might work
I actually looked at rumba with a view to packaging it for Debian. I
think it could be a useful contribution. However I had a devil of a time
trying to compile it. Apparently it partly uses code directly from the
kernel source and headers which as we know change rapidly. I got a
massive amount
Hi,
Thanks, first of all, to all the folks who answered my questions on
getting Sound and CD to work on my Compaq DeskPro XL.
I have been fooling around with kernel 2.0.31 that I downloaded from
funet.fi I see that autofs support is included with this release of the
kernel. Are there docs
On Tue, Oct 28, 1997 at 10:56:28AM -0700, Sudhakar Chandrasekharan wrote:
How should I proceed with kernel 2.0.31 and autofs? Would the autofs
deamon 0.3.14 wouk with the autofs support in kernel 2.0.31?
I'd say, if the patches for autofs are included in 2.0.31, go ahead, just
install autofs
Olivier THARAN wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 1997 at 10:56:28AM -0700, Sudhakar Chandrasekharan wrote:
How should I proceed with kernel 2.0.31 and autofs? Would the autofs
deamon 0.3.14 wouk with the autofs support in kernel 2.0.31?
I'd say, if the patches for autofs are included in 2.0.31, go
Lindsay Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am getting error/warnings on both bo and hamm boxes after installing
2.0.31. Anybody else having trouble with it?
I noticed the following strange bugs:
- a similiar to the one you reported some days before:
Sep 24 19:59:39 marvin kernel
Lindsay Allen wrote:
I am getting error/warnings on both bo and hamm boxes after installing
2.0.31. Anybody else having trouble with it?
Yep. Random freezes, generally when I'm not using the machine, in the dead
of night (the *worst* time for a computer to freeze).
--
see shy jo, back
to be disconnected.
Oct 20 07:14:33 fleming pppd[11094]: Connection terminated.
Getting rid of the module and then reloading it seemed to cure the
problem for at least the next 6-8 hours.
There have been reports of memory leaks with 2.0.31 - I wonder?
And then last night while I was sleeping, the whole
On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Joey Hess wrote:
Lindsay Allen wrote:
I am getting error/warnings on both bo and hamm boxes after installing
2.0.31. Anybody else having trouble with it?
Yep. Random freezes, generally when I'm not using the machine, in the dead
of night (the *worst* time
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Lindsay Allen wrote:
I am getting error/warnings on both bo and hamm boxes after installing
2.0.31. Anybody else having trouble with it?
Nope, Not a problem here. It seems to know my hardware well.
Granted I have only a three day
menuconfig
These are the stats on my system with the new kernel:
Linux shadow 2.0.31 #1 Sun Oct 19 15:49:24 EDT 1997 i486 unknown
BTW: I am running an unstable system, using most of the packages in
hamm/base except sysklogd which I suspect crashed my system before.
G'razel the shifty kitty
Dale Scheetz wrote:
I've been running it for 24 hours now with no problems, other than the map
file error at boot up. Lately I have been building my kernels without
module support. I have heard that some of the modules in .31 don't load
and unload properly at all times. Is it possible this is
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Joey Hess wrote:
Dale Scheetz wrote:
I've been running it for 24 hours now with no problems, other than the map
file error at boot up. Lately I have been building my kernels without
module support. I have heard that some of the modules in .31 don't load
and unload
Dale Scheetz wrote:
That is exactly when they start unloading!
Yep, you're right, I've relaized that my sounds module could be unloading
about then.
--
see shy jo
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL
Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Joey Hess wrote:
Lindsay Allen wrote:
I am getting error/warnings on both bo and hamm boxes after
installing 2.0.31. Anybody else having trouble with it?
Yep. Random freezes, generally when I'm not using the machine, in
the dead of night
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Joey Hess wrote:
Dale Scheetz wrote:
That is exactly when they start unloading!
Yep, you're right, I've relaized that my sounds module could be unloading
about then.
Make an explicit entry in /etc/modules for that module and it will stay
installed. (even if you have
I am getting error/warnings on both bo and hamm boxes after installing
2.0.31. Anybody else having trouble with it?
Lindsay
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lindsay Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perth, Western Australia
voice +61 8 9316 248632.0125S
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Lindsay Allen wrote:
I am getting error/warnings on both bo and hamm boxes after installing
2.0.31. Anybody else having trouble with it?
Yes. In fact, I had so much troubles with it I am now back to 2.0.30. I
had two problems that caused hardware not to be detected
-sf asm-i386 asm)
make -C scripts/lxdialog all
make[1]: Entering directory
/usr/src/kernel-source-2.0.31/scripts/lxdialog'
gcc -O2 -Wall -fomit-frame-pointer -DLOCALE -DCURSES_LOC=curses.h
-c
lxdialog.c -o lxdialog.o
In file included from lxdialog.c:22:
dialog.h:29
1997-10-18 at approximately 09:58 AM -0700, Shaleh wrote:
Anyone care to give their opinion on the new 2.0.31 kernel? Manoj any
idea when the package will be out?
Why wait? Just use the kernel-package package. If that's installed, take
a look at /usr/doc/kernel-package/README.gz, kernel
I downloaded the .31 kernel and tried to do a make menuconfig and got the
following:
rm -f include/asm
( cd include ; ln -sf asm-i386 asm)
make -C scripts/lxdialog all
make[1]: Entering directory /usr/src/kernel-source-2.0.31/scripts/lxdialog'
gcc -O2 -Wall -fomit-frame-pointer -DLOCALE
On Sun, 19 Oct 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I downloaded the .31 kernel and tried to do a make menuconfig and got the
following:
rm -f include/asm
( cd include ; ln -sf asm-i386 asm)
make -C scripts/lxdialog all
make[1]: Entering directory /usr/src/kernel-source-2.0.31/scripts/lxdialog
make[1]: Entering directory /usr/src/kernel-source-2.0.31/scripts/lxdialog'
gcc -O2 -Wall -fomit-frame-pointer -DLOCALE -DCURSES_LOC=curses.h -c
lxdialog.c -o lxdialog.o
In file included from lxdialog.c:22:
dialog.h:29: curses.h: No such file or directory
make[1]: *** [lxdialog.o] Error 1
Anyone care to give their opinion on the new 2.0.31 kernel? Manoj any
idea when the package will be out?
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
I had sucessfully installed the 2.0.31 2 days ago, have not working out
about the advantage of it, a major notice after rebooting is the
disappearance of pci unknown, where it used to be coming out every time I
boot my 2.0.30 kernel, that is all I know..:-)
good luck
kusuma
-Original Message
I agree with jon here. A few weeks ago i tried to compile and run a
pre-release of 2.0.31 and had all kinds of problems. I went back to
2.0.30 and everything has been peachy so far.
There were two different threads of development for 2.0.31. For a few
months David Miller was doing
Every Linux production server I work on is 2.0.29. Not one single 2.0.30
in the bunch...
what's wrong with 2.0.30? am i missing something?
I've accidentally deleted the message that talked about ip_masq being
fixed in 2.0.30. I think it is fixed by applying a patch to 2.0.30, not
your
buffers and experience problems on 2.0.30.
We've had no problems whatsoever running pre-patch-7 applied to
2.0.30; I'd recommend at least testing it, because if you don't find
problems with it it will soon become 2.0.31. (After a couple of known
minorkinks are worked out.)
--
Pete Harlan
When is 31 going to be finished? There are already pre-31 patches out..
all the way up to 5.
-Paul
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have been just WAINTING for someone to bring this up. In my personal
opinion, Linus is making a mistake by introducing new features in the
release tree and it results in having two development trees going at the
Which features in 2.0.31 are the new
to virtual memory management.
They are now actively persuing development of .30. It seemed for a while
work on the 2.0 series had stopped. Linus planned to release 2.0.31 last
weekend, if there were no more problems.. Well, it hasn't been released
yet...
Dave
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Dave Wreski wrote:
When is 31 going to be finished? There are already pre-31 patches out..
all the way up to 5.
They are up to pre-7 now. Looks like there's still a few problems to be
worked out, to be sure we have a nice stable kernel. The best thing you
can do
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, J. Paul Reed wrote:
I would say for those of us who don't know how (or don't want to) mess
with it, the BEST thing you can do at this point is install 2.0.29 and
leave it at that.
Every Linux production server I work on is 2.0.29. Not one single 2.0.30
in the
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, J. Paul Reed wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Dave Wreski wrote:
When is 31 going to be finished? There are already pre-31 patches out..
all the way up to 5.
They are up to pre-7 now. Looks like there's still a few problems to be
worked out, to be sure we have a
J. Paul Reed wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Dave Wreski wrote:
When is 31 going to be finished? There are already pre-31 patches out..
all the way up to 5.
They are up to pre-7 now. Looks like there's still a few problems to be
worked out, to be sure we have a nice stable kernel.
boy, your slighly behind :)
Its up to pre7 -- its too bad that the pre's are having more trouble on
the even note than the development i run 2.1.50 at home just peachy and
here at LBJ High School we run 2.0.30 pre3 with a few little nicks here
and there and its buggy :(
2.0.29, but doesn't mean
I'd run that kernel ;) I think I'll wait for 2.0.31, unless it turns out
it has some nasty bugs too.
As a friend of mine was explaining it, the non-development kernels are for
the most part pretty stable, but if you find a bug, lots of things can
break then :)
Later,
Paul
and there and its buggy :(
I agree with jon here. A few weeks ago i tried to compile and run a
pre-release of 2.0.31 and had all kinds of problems. I went back to
2.0.30 and everything has been peachy so far.
Cheers
Juan Casero
I tested the kernel pre-patch-2.0.31-3 from www.linuxhq.com
because it's got support for hardware I use. I use Debian 1.3
with upgrades for 2.1.X kernels.
Under this kernel, I'm logging errors like:
Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address e0202024
current-tss.cr3 = 00742000
It looks like I have to retract that change. Linus has released another pre
patch for 2.0.31 today
without the SO_BINDTODEVICE patches. You can find the necessary patches at
www.linuxhq.com.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
: On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:
: : I wanted
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:
It looks like I have to retract that change. Linus has released another
pre patch for 2.0.31 today without the SO_BINDTODEVICE patches. You can
find the necessary patches at www.linuxhq.com.
Where? I couldn't
2.0.31-pre2 for example
On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Nils Rennebarth wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:
It looks like I have to retract that change. Linus has released another
pre patch for 2.0.31 today without the SO_BINDTODEVICE patches. You can
: I wanted to upgrade my DHCP daemon to the latest upstream version
: that is already packaged in Hamm (dhpcd_0.5.16.1-2). However,
: the package says that it won't work with kernels = 2.0.30 so
: it needs at least 2.0.31.
: How come this happens when 2.0.31 hasn't been released yet
On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:
: I wanted to upgrade my DHCP daemon to the latest upstream version
: that is already packaged in Hamm (dhpcd_0.5.16.1-2). However,
: the package says that it won't work with kernels = 2.0.30 so
: it needs at least 2.0.31.
There was a promise
Hi,
I wanted to upgrade my DHCP daemon to the latest upstream version
that is already packaged in Hamm (dhpcd_0.5.16.1-2). However,
the package says that it won't work with kernels = 2.0.30 so
it needs at least 2.0.31.
How come this happens when 2.0.31 hasn't been released yet
Hey
I thought you might be interested in this message from David Miller.
Apart from the link that is mentioned in the message, for European users it
might be faster to download from
ftp://oloon.student.utwente.nl/pub/linux/test-kernels/pre-patch-2.0.31.gz
Good luck!
// Remco van de Meent
65 matches
Mail list logo
