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

Re: Problems debootstrapping armhf

On 15/10/11 16:15, Hector Oron wrote:
> Right, firmware-ralink is 'non-free', debian-ports.org only has 'main'
> but being an arch all package I guess you could enable an official
> debian non-free repository in your sources.list

I thought it might be something like that; ta. However, adding
ftp.uk.debian.org to my sources.list doesn't appear to work because it's
expecting to see a 'main/binary-armhf/Packages' line in debian.org's
Release file. Is there a magic apt incantation to work around this? If
not, not big deal, but it does make it harder for other people (one
reason I'm reporting all this stuff is to actually get what I've found
out written down).

Some of the other weirdnesses I've noticed so far:

- iceweasel and icedove crash if I try to start them. iceweasel -g
doesn't show much of a backtrace, but something appears to have called

- the AC100's CPU:bandwidth ratio for the SD card suggests that a
compressed file system will be worth it; some simple tests with btrfs
and compress=lzo validate this. But while doing the tests I kept getting
kernel page allocation failure messages in the syslog. Everything
*worked* --- are these cosmetic or a symptom of Something Nasty? Are
there any other (hopefully more lightweight) compressed read-write
filesystems it's worth looking at?

- I did once have it fail to start up entirely, getting to the login:
prompt with the keyboard disabled and spitting out 'nvrec: unable to
allocate TX buffer' messages (exact wording lost, I'm afraid). I had to
hard reset it and it was fine next time. *shrug*

But I have it running X with the notion window manager perfectly
happily; it's all quite usable and I can actually get real work done on
it. So thanks very much.

┌─── dg@cowlark.com ───── http://www.cowlark.com ─────
│ "Under communism, man exploits man. Under capitalism, it's just the
│ opposite." --- John Kenneth Galbrith

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: