On 10/20/2013 05:13 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Casey Daniels wrote:
On 10/20/2013 11:25 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Are these lines split for email or are they that way in the file? I
think you need to escape some newlines. For example,
# net device e1000e
SUBSYSTEM==net, ACTION==add, DRIVERS==?*,
My system was working fine, until I decided that I needed to add an
additional Network interface card (turned on the previous deactivated
onboard NIC). Now my network card names are all messed up. I've edited
the 70-persistent-net.rules file, but udev seems to be ignoring it and
naming
Casey Daniels wrote:
My system was working fine, until I decided that I needed to add an
additional Network interface card (turned on the previous deactivated
onboard NIC). Now my network card names are all messed up. I've edited
the 70-persistent-net.rules file, but udev seems to be
Casey Daniels wrote:
On 10/20/2013 10:36 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Casey Daniels wrote:
My system was working fine, until I decided that I needed to add an
additional Network interface card (turned on the previous deactivated
onboard NIC). Now my network card names are all messed up. I've
On 10/20/2013 11:25 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Casey Daniels wrote:
On 10/20/2013 10:36 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Casey Daniels wrote:
My system was working fine, until I decided that I needed to add an
additional Network interface card (turned on the previous deactivated
onboard NIC). Now my
On 10/20/2013 11:25 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Casey Daniels wrote:
On 10/20/2013 10:36 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Casey Daniels wrote:
My system was working fine, until I decided that I needed to add an
additional Network interface card (turned on the previous deactivated
onboard NIC). Now my
On 10/20/2013 11:25 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Are these lines split for email or are they that way in the file? I
think you need to escape some newlines. For example,
# net device e1000e
SUBSYSTEM==net, ACTION==add, DRIVERS==?*, \
ATTR{address}==XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX, ATTR{dev_id}==0x0, \
Casey Daniels wrote:
On 10/20/2013 11:25 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Are these lines split for email or are they that way in the file? I
think you need to escape some newlines. For example,
# net device e1000e
SUBSYSTEM==net, ACTION==add, DRIVERS==?*, \
ATTR{address}==XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX,
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Ken Moffat zarniwh...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 06:31:31PM -0600, robert wrote:
No, I got the me hopes part ... quite Shakespearean, in fact ... as in
methinks ...
It's the build itself part ... still don't understand what that means.
Do
Stuart Stegall wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Ken Moffat zarniwh...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 06:31:31PM -0600, robert wrote:
No, I got the me hopes part ... quite Shakespearean, in fact ... as in
methinks ...
It's the build itself part ... still don't understand
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:59 AM, robert mullinrob...@gmail.com wrote:
Stuart Stegall wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Ken Moffat zarniwh...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 06:31:31PM -0600, robert wrote:
No, I got the me hopes part ... quite Shakespearean, in fact ... as in
On Thursday 09 December 2010 16:22:34 Stuart Stegall wrote:
My M3 runs better in the cold, and that has everything to do with
cold. In this case though, this is in a temperature controlled Data
Center with no competition for cycles. The program actually runs
during the day, but if the build
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 08:18:17PM -0500, Mike Hollis wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 05:13:19PM -0600, robert wrote:
In other matters, I'm setting up another machine to step thru the LFS
build ... don't know what else to do.
Since your at an impasse here , why not try installing udev
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:12 AM, robert mullinrob...@gmail.com wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 08:18:17PM -0500, Mike Hollis wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 05:13:19PM -0600, robert wrote:
In other matters, I'm setting up another machine to step thru the LFS
build ... don't
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 10:12:52AM -0600, robert wrote:
Partial output of make check:
make --no-print-directory check-recursive
Making check in .
make --no-print-directory libudev/test-libudev udev/test-udev
make[3]: `libudev/test-libudev' is up to date.
make[3]: `udev/test-udev' is up
Stuart Stegall wrote:
udev-test will run 142 tests:
FAIL: test/udev-test.pl
==
1 of 1 test failed
My system has error as expected for tests 1, 48, 81, 82, 139, 140, and
141 for udev-161.
0 errors occured
PASS: test/udev-test.pl
=
1
robert wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Stuart Stegall wrote:
udev-test will run 142 tests:
FAIL: test/udev-test.pl
==
1 of 1 test failed
My system has error as expected for tests 1, 48, 81, 82, 139, 140, and
141 for udev-161.
0 errors occured
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 03:13:58PM -0600, robert wrote:
pastebin URL:
http://pastebin.com/6jaJfxeP
Test 31 (add) - test labelled Program with subshell
plus the 'error as expected' messages for 81, 82.
Possibly, your build of bash will turn out to be damaged, or else
your host maybe has a
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 10:12:52AM -0600, robert wrote:
Partial output of make check:
make --no-print-directory check-recursive
Making check in .
make --no-print-directory libudev/test-libudev udev/test-udev
make[3]: `libudev/test-libudev' is up to date.
make[3]:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 04:46:00PM -0600, robert wrote:
.config of host reveals: # CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED_V2 is not set
gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3
glibc: libc-2.11.1.so
kernel: vmlinuz-2.6.32-26-generic
Those seem adequate
what does this mean?
me hopes this isn't an example of
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 04:48:22PM -0600, robert wrote:
Thanks everyone for the help. I do have /dev/sda5:
/dev/sda5: UUID=a6ce6f3f-7bb5-4069-a32c-a8388472f15d TYPE=ext3
You write English well, but I wonder if you have misunderstood ?
The question can be reworded as in chroot, does
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 04:48:22PM -0600, robert wrote:
Thanks everyone for the help. I do have /dev/sda5:
/dev/sda5: UUID=a6ce6f3f-7bb5-4069-a32c-a8388472f15d TYPE=ext3
You write English well, but I wonder if you have misunderstood ?
The question can be reworded as in
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 04:46:00PM -0600, robert wrote:
.config of host reveals: # CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED_V2 is not set
gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3
glibc: libc-2.11.1.so
kernel: vmlinuz-2.6.32-26-generic
Those seem adequate
what does this mean?
me hopes this isn't
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 06:31:31PM -0600, robert wrote:
No, I got the me hopes part ... quite Shakespearean, in fact ... as in
methinks ...
It's the build itself part ... still don't understand what that means.
Do you mean just write up a script and cut it loose to build the os?
just did the build at host level:
works fine.
any suggestions?
[X] make check
make --no-print-directory check-recursive
Making check in .
make --no-print-directory libudev/test-libudev udev/test-udev
CC libudev/test-libudev.o
CCLD libudev/test-libudev
CC udev/test-udev.o
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 04:55:43 robert wrote:
unpacked udev-161.tar.bz2
cd udev-161
then copy and paste ... (the two dearchive operations are xvf??? and
not jxvf???
'tar xvf' unpacks a noncompressed tar archvie (.tar).
'tar xvfj' unpacks a bz2-compressed archive (.tar.bz2).
'tar xvfz'
Neal Murphy wrote:
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 04:55:43 robert wrote:
unpacked udev-161.tar.bz2
cd udev-161
then copy and paste ... (the two dearchive operations are xvf??? and
not jxvf???
'tar xvf' unpacks a noncompressed tar archvie (.tar).
'tar xvfj' unpacks a bz2-compressed archive
Mike Hollis wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:55:43AM -0600, robert wrote:
Mike H.-
jumped back out to root user
asserted root:root for /tools (verified)
still at root:
copy and paste everything from 6.2 thru 6.6
now in chroot ...
move over to 6.59 and ...
unpacked
robert wrote:
Neal Murphy wrote:
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 04:55:43 robert wrote:
unpacked udev-161.tar.bz2
cd udev-161
then copy and paste ... (the two dearchive operations are xvf??? and
not jxvf???
'tar xvf' unpacks a noncompressed tar archvie (.tar).
'tar xvfj' unpacks a
the compression
type, if any, without being told. This capability has been in place for
several years.
-- Bruce
Thanks. I'd examined the directories and all seemed nicely unpacked.
Was just wondering if the absence of the bz2 filter was causing my udev
problem.
r.
--
http
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 14:53:10 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
When extracting, GNU tar is smart enough to recognize the compression
type, if any, without being told. This capability has been in place for
several years.
Learn something new every day! I've been using the specific option for so
long,
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Neal Murphy neal.p.mur...@alum.wpi.edu wrote:
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 14:53:10 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
When extracting, GNU tar is smart enough to recognize the compression
type, if any, without being told. This capability has been in place for
several years.
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 01:36:31PM -0600, robert wrote:
So, I don't follow then. Instructions at 6.59. Udev-161
say: tar -xvf ../udev-config-20100128.tar.bz2 ...
why not *J*xvf?
Apart from the other responses, I can't help commenting that 'J' is
not 'j'. I assume you wrote it as a
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 01:36:31PM -0600, robert wrote:
So, I don't follow then. Instructions at 6.59. Udev-161
say: tar -xvf ../udev-config-20100128.tar.bz2 ...
why not *J*xvf?
Apart from the other responses, I can't help commenting that 'J' is
not 'j'. I assume you
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 05:13:19PM -0600, robert wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
Apart from the other responses, I can't help commenting that 'J' is
not 'j'. I assume you wrote it as a capital for more emphasis, but
with the last two or three releases of tar 'J' is used for xz
compression
robert wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 01:36:31PM -0600, robert wrote:
So, I don't follow then. Instructions at 6.59. Udev-161
say: tar -xvf ../udev-config-20100128.tar.bz2 ...
why not *J*xvf?
Apart from the other responses, I can't help commenting that 'J' is
not 'j'.
6.59.1 says, in part:
Create some devices and directories that Udev cannot handle due to them
being required very early in the boot process, or by Udev itself:
$install -dv /lib/{firmware,udev/devices/{pts,shm}}
$mknod -m0666 /lib/udev/devices/null c 1 3
Does this mean, then, that I am
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
robert wrote:
Does this mean, then, that I am supposed to receive the message:
FAIL: test/udev-test.pl
Do you have the filesystems mounted in the chroot environment? (Section
6.2.3)
-- Bruce
yes, in chroot environment.
when I de-archive the bz2 files, they
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:39:13PM -0600, robert wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
robert wrote:
Does this mean, then, that I am supposed to receive the message:
FAIL: test/udev-test.pl
Do you have the filesystems mounted in the chroot environment? (Section
6.2.3)
-- Bruce
2008/4/2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Greetings,On Wednesday 02 April 2008 09:30:12 you wrote: You probably
forgot to mount /dev/pts. Add to /etc/fstab: devpts
/dev/pts devpts gid=4,mode=620 0 0 /dev/shm seems to be
automatically created on my system. Maybe you missed a
On Thursday 03 April 2008 13:59:20 Wilco Beekhuizen wrote: I remember
/dev/pts is for secure shells or something like that. There is a
kernel option for that. But do you use the correct bootscripts? The
default udev configuration should work. Have you installed the default
rules?it was a
2008/4/2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Greetings,I seem to have a problem with udev with an LFS build I did in
January. I used kernel-2.6.23.12 (then development lfs).I get to boot
prompt but the booting reports:mount: mount point /dev/pts does not
existmount: mount point
Greetings,On Wednesday 02 April 2008 09:30:12 you wrote: You probably
forgot to mount /dev/pts. Add to /etc/fstab: devpts
/dev/pts devpts gid=4,mode=620 0 0 /dev/shm seems to be
automatically created on my system. Maybe you missed a kernel option?
thanks for your suggestion, but
Greetings,I seem to have a problem with udev with an LFS build I did in
January. I used kernel-2.6.23.12 (then development lfs).I get to boot
prompt but the booting reports:mount: mount point /dev/pts does not
existmount: mount point /dev/shm does not existhelp will be
appreciatedblux
44 matches
Mail list logo
