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

success report - dell gx270 with SATA disks



just filing a success report - the 'current' (2/24?) sarge bootcdimage
managed to install on my SATA-disks-only dell gx270.  i'd been fighting it
for most of a week.  i chose to try it one more time after seeing new
stuff roll into the archive last night - the 2/17 images had not worked.

one quirk i noticed - it never asked me for network configuration
information, at all.  i had to go in post-install and edit resolv.conf and
/etc/network/interfaces by hand.

one other quirk - i installed with usb keyboard and mouse.  asking to use
LILO bootloader seemed to harass 'discover' into running and putting the
system into an endless loop [some failures detecting hardware - maybe
vesafb?  system has an nvidia fx5200 gfx card.  i also saw some messages
about usb scroll by alongside the vesafb diagnostic message, along with a
some executable or another dumping core.] .  i wound up re-starting the
installation and using grub instead.  this is not terribly optimal,
obviously.

anyway, very glad to have this machine up and running - a week of work
lost fighting to get a usable installer with SATA support ;)

--elijah


On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Thomas Poindessous wrote:

> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:25:40 +0100
> From: Thomas Poindessous <thomas@poindessous.com>
> To: Erich Waelde <Erich.Waelde@t-online.de>, debian-boot@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: netcfg broken? (20040224 image)
> Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:44:06 -0600 (CST)
> Resent-From: debian-boot@lists.debian.org
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:45:34AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > netcfg (0.47) unstable; urgency=low
> >
> >   * Joey Hess
> >       - Use three dots in ellipses for consistency.
> >       - Link libiw statically. This is temporary, until there is a libiw-udeb.
> >
> > Joeyh, can you comment on this ?
>
> yesterday, i did a change to build/debian/control to add a dependance
> for libiw27. Please revert this change if you need.
>
>



Reply to: