[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: debian on ruffian



On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, David Monro wrote:

> Well, I just got a ruffian (or rather my SO did for work) and I've attempted to
> install debian-unstable on it. It now seems to be mostly working, but I did
> stumble a few times on the way.

FINALLY!  We got a Ruffian around!  I've been dying for one of these
babies to test our stuff on because of the newness of it all.  Glad to
hear from you.

> 1a) The machine would crash after a while unless I told milo that there was ony
> 224 rather than 256 M of memory (after reading about this problem on axp-list).

That's odd, but will probably be solved by a new Milo when it comes out.

> 2) X server wouldn't start with errors about IOPL. Making /etc/alpha_systype ->
> Miata cured it (after a couple of guesses). I suppose this will have to wait
> for a fixed libc. Could the install process at least make a guess or ask the
> user?

I can fix glibc if necessary, but try rolling your own kernel first to see
if it fixes the problem.  I doubt it will, but it's worth a shot.  Anyway,
if you can dig up the glibc patch I need, I'd be happy to do it.

> 3) hwclock still complains about IOPL after the above fix. Is this normal?

Unknown.  AFAIK, you're the only Ruffian around here so far.

> 4) During the install stage some of the dependencies seemed to cause problems;
> in particular the tex packages wouldn't install the first time round. Rerunning
> the install stage cured it. Unfortunately I didn't catch the reason for the
> failure before it scrolled off the screen.

Doh!  I'll look at that soon when my access to master speeds up a bit.

> The machine is now working (and I even got OSF/1 netscape running). A few
> things are still kooky:
> 
> The X server generates unaligned accesses when running netscape.

Normal.  I wouldn't worry too much about unaligned accesses (just a sign
of poor coding and non-portability).  You can even comment out the lines
in the kernel source that report that stuff if you REALLY don't want to be
bothered.

> The X font server segfaults and dies when contacted by the X server.
> fdisk generates unaligned accesses.
> update-menus segfaulted during the install; looked like a near-null pointer
> dereference (00000010).

Damn...fdisk again!?!?!  I've got a new way of fixing fdisk now, so I'm
gonna give that a shot.  Either that or rewrite the backend like I've been
talking about for a year now.

As for the font server and such...I may have to defer that to any
interested party.  I don't run X, so I can't test this stuff.

> Anyway, looks like it is working, and I'm really glad not to have to run Red
> Hat :-)

And we're really glad to finally get a Ruffian user to run Debian! :)

C


Reply to: