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

Re: [debian-knoppix] EOF[i] - status & diversion file error + suggestion



Hello Martin,

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:10:21PM +0200, Oggi wrote:
> Hello, 
> 
> I installed the DVD Knoppix edition on my notebook Thinkpad T40 what went 
> smooth but encountered pretty fast some serious corrupted files - please see 
> at the bottom for a brief copy of the debian-user list reply mail (I did not  
> know that there is a knoppix mailing list as well until a few days ago). 
> 
> I decided to reinstall knoppix but use this time the cd edition. I wonder if 
> anybody else encountered similar problems and which version you can recommend 
> for a minimum of bugs, the 5.09. version, even though it is labbeled as beta 
> or the 22.09. or even an older version. I know that knoppix is based on 
> debian testing/unstable therefore I have to be aware of some bugs but 
> nevertheless the use of knoppix dvd was pretty stable/reliable up to know 
> (except these corrupted files).
> 
> thanks in advance, cheers Martin

Due to a limitation in the pointer size of cloop 0.68, files above 4GB
in the cloop image on the DVD seem to have wrong contents (the data is
actually read from the wrong location). Unfortunately this error was not
obvious, so the pressed DVDs have some basically useless files under
/var/lib and /usr/src. But because files are sorted in access order on
the DVD, it does not affect any vital data that would be needed to run
from DVD, you will just have trouble with the dpkg database if you try
to install on HD.

It may be possible to obtain a burned, fixed DVD from kernelconcepts.de,
or download a tar archive with the "missing files" from
http://download.linuxtag.org/knoppix-dvd/

cloop >= 1.0 uses 64bit pointers and therefore supports images larger
than 4GB.

Regards
-Klaus Knopper
_______________________________________________
debian-knoppix mailing list
debian-knoppix@linuxtag.org
http://mailman.linuxtag.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-knoppix


Reply to: