On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Jerry Vonau <jvo...@shaw.ca> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:19 -0800, Sameer Verma wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Jerry Vonau <jvo...@shaw.ca> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 23:30 -0800, Sameer Verma wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Sameer Verma <sve...@sfsu.edu> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Martin Langhoff >> >> > <martin.langh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Sameer Verma <sve...@sfsu.edu> wrote: >> >> >>> was with eth0 not showing up. It looks like I am the victim of the >> >> >>> dreaded Realtek 8139 bug. It worked in XS 0.4 but in 0.5.1 it refuses >> >> >>> to show up. >> >> >> >> >> >> Strange, but it does look like a driver problem. >> >> >> >> >> >> The links you provide show various different problems with that NIC. >> >> >> In some cases, irqpoll in the kernel boot line fixes, in others some >> >> >> fiddling with ethtool was needed... >> >> >> >> >> >> It'll be good to know which of the fixes helps you :-) >> >> > >> >> > appending irqpoll has fixed that problem. Now, I've hit another bug. >> >> > This is yum broken with _sha256 as stated here. >> >> > http://fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t=193507 >> >> > >> >> > I'm going to try the workaround. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> BTW, if you upgraded from XS-0.4, it might be a good idea to rm >> >> >> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules >> >> > >> >> > No, this was a clean install. I'm running the server for testing only, >> >> > so I can afford to wipe it clean. >> >> > >> >> > Sameer >> >> > -- >> >> > Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D. >> >> > Associate Professor of Information Systems >> >> > San Francisco State University >> >> > San Francisco CA 94132 USA >> >> > http://verma.sfsu.edu/ >> >> > http://opensource.sfsu.edu/ >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> So, after mucking around last night and today, I wiped my XS box and >> >> reformatted it to remove ALL traces of 0.4 I have a clean 0.5.1 >> >> install on it. md5sum of the ISO is c0fde10b93cab3cb1a3bc3a42ceb5408 >> >> >> >> I've circumvented the realtek 8139 problem by appending irqpoll in >> >> grub.conf That seems to work, although I have to bring up eth0 >> >> manually and issuing dhcient eth0 >> >> >> >> I still hit the bug of _sha256 as mentioned here: >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454179 >> >> >> >> Note that I am not upgrading anything. Its a clean install. I believe >> >> the appropriate word for this is: AARGH! >> >> >> >> I wish Fedora had LTS or "Stable" branch (it does...kinda...in >> >> RHEL...are we allowed to say CentOS here?) but that's another thread >> >> and another rant. It does remind me of why I don't run anything on >> >> Fedora anymore. >> >> >> >> Anyway, this is getting in the way. Is anyone seeing this too? If so, >> >> then its a significant barrier for 0.5.1 >> >> >> >> Suggestions? >> > >> > Can you post the /root/install.log and /root/anaconda.log or just send >> > them to me. >> > >> > Jerry >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> I've attached both. Note: anaconda.log was in /var/log/ and not in /root >> >> Sameer > > Martin: > > I'm seeing the same errors in the install log as Sameer while installing > on an XO. openssl does not get installed, because uname returns as an > i586 while there is no openssl.586 in the repo just .686. Just to backup > my hunch note that a 586 kernel gets installed as recorded in the > install log. "yum repolist" returns the same error as mentioned in the > BZ on the XO. > > Sameer: > What does "uname -a" return on this laptop? > > > Jerry >
uname -a on the fujitsu laptop returns: Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.27.9-73.fc9.i586 #1 SMP Tue Dec 16 14:34:16 EST 2008 i586 i586 i386 GNU/Linux Sameer -- Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Information Systems San Francisco State University San Francisco CA 94132 USA http://verma.sfsu.edu/ http://opensource.sfsu.edu/ _______________________________________________ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel