Re: minicom crashes after upgrade
On 26 Apr, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> Miquel van Smoorenburg writes:
>>
>> In article <cistron.199904261423.KAA04396@fcrao1.phast.umass.edu>,
>> Gopal Narayanan <gopal@fcrao1.phast.umass.edu> wrote:
>> >I upgraded one of our machines to slink from hamm. The upgrade went
>> >well. But after the upgrade I keep getting segmentation violations when
>> >I run minicom. We use minicom to talk to another local machine through
>> >the serial port. It was working fine before the upgrade. I am running
>> >kernal 2.0.34.
>>
>> Well from the message you are including below (a kernel oops), it
>> is clear that it isn't minicom that crashes, it's the kernel that
>> crashes! Fortunately only minicom is killed and not the whole machine..
>>
>> >When I start up minicom, it is fine until I give it one keystroke, upon
>> >which it segfaults. Any help will be much appreciated. Will a kernel
>> >upgrade be helpful. If so what kernel should I upgrade to?
>>
>> Oh yes, that will probbaly help. 2.0.36 is the latest stable kernel
>> in the 2.0.x series, try that one.
>>
>
> Thanks for your message. I did upgrade to 2.0.36. Still no luck. Same
> problem.
>
I found the problem. Kernel upgrades did not help as mentioned above.
It appears that during the upgrade of the setserial package, I said yes
to the installation of a new /etc/rc.boot/0setserial.
That seems to break serial port access. When I put back the old
0setserial, and rebooted, minicom worked fine. Inspecting the two
scripts, the old and new, I see enough differences. I will try to
understand this and turn in a bug report if warranted. Has anyone else
had a problem with the 0setserial bootup script in setserial-2.14-3 ?
Gopal.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gopal Narayanan Ph #: (413) 545 0925
Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory Fax#: (413) 545 4223
University of Massachusetts e-mail: gopal@fcrao1.phast.umass.edu
Amherst MA 01003
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: