Re: some hamm install notes
Paul Slootman <paul@wau.mis.ah.nl> writes:
> IMHO leave MILO in flash. I understand that doing that saves some memory
> (MILO doesn't have to remain resident).
Weird. Why would it have to remain resident if you boot from disk?
> > Since I don't have a cd-rom of hamm nor a local mirror, I wanted to do
> > the install by ftp, straight from ftp.debian.org. I didn't see
> > anything that told me not to, and I certainly didn't want to do it all
> > by floppy. But ftp wasn't on my system after I finished with base14-1
> > through -6.
>
> I got the impression that simply doesn't work yet. I *have* created
> a local (sub-)mirror. Luckily on the boss's dime.
For something that simply doesn't work, it went surprisingly well. :-)
If it's generally believed not to work, it probably shouldn't be
provided as one of the options. But it looked darn close to working,
except for that little problem with the pathnames.
So, for the local-disk install, are you giving it the pathname to
"unstable" with "main" etc as subdirectories? If that works for you,
perhaps there's a clue as to what the ftp code is doing wrong. Of
course, I haven't looked at the internals of dpkg yet, maybe if I get
some time this week... I just rebuilt most of my software base and I
now know most of the stuff I should save; a new install to try some
fixes should be no big deal, right?
> I've tracked it down to something like ip_recv in net/ipv4/ip_input.c.
> However, I have no idea what to do about unaligned traps :-( It
> dissappeared after I built and booted a 2.1.87 kernel.
Updating is probably the right fix then, if the kernel doesn't have
other surprises in store.
> > different VC, or just the log file, or (less desirable) turn them off
> > altogether?
>
> Doesn't it go through syslogd?
Well, syslog does log them too, but as far as I can see, it's not
what's writing them to the console.
> > Package ldso wants libc6 which isn't there. Package libc6.1-dev wants
> > gcc which wants binutils-alpha which isn't there. Then several other
> > packages refuse to install after that. A couple iterations through
> > "install" and "configure" steps seemed to resolve some of that (which
> > suggests the installation order isn't being determined properly?). I
>
> I think the order is not being determined at all :-(
That's what I suspected, but I was being optimistic, and hoping that
it was at least trying.
> There's a new XFree on the ftp sites now that has at least the xterm
> fixed (at least, that's what it said in the debian-changes digest).
Great, I'll try updating... thanks.
Ken
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-alpha-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: