Your message dated Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:02:26 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Package: installation-reports: r8169 module broken has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -------------------------------------- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Jul 2004 14:34:17 +0000 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 12 07:34:17 2004 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from jadmin1.flyingj.com [204.110.224.42] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1Bk1sn-0005oJ-00; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:34:17 -0700 Received: from flyingj.com ([10.1.8.139]) by jadmin1.flyingj.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.0.2CF1) with ESMTP id 2004071208334005-9368 ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 08:33:40 -0600 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 08:32:45 -0600 From: Brett Dalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040306) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Package: installation-reports: r8169 module broken X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jadmin1/Flyingj(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 07/12/2004 08:33:40 AM, Serialize by Router on jadmin1/Flyingj(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 07/12/2004 08:33:40 AM, Serialize complete at 07/12/2004 08:33:40 AM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 X-Spam-Level: Package: installation-reports Version: Sarge (testing) Beta 4 Debian-installer-version: Sarge Beta 4 (official 110Mb release) Date: 07-11-2004 Machine: Biostar IDEQ 200P Processor: AMD Athlon 64 Memory: 1 Gb Root Device: IDE HD0 Base System Installation Checklist: Initial boot worked: [0] Configure network HW: [E] Config network: [0] Detect CD: [0] Load installer modules: [0] Detect hard drives: [0] Partition hard drives: [0] Create file systems: [0] Mount partitions: [0] Install base system: [0] Install boot loader: [0] Reboot: [0] Comments/Problems: The r8169 driver was loaded due to the Realtek RTL8110S GigE (onboard) NIC. The driver loads OK, but the network configuration fails to communicate over the network to configure with DHCP, and when hand-entered the continues to fail all communication over the network! I cannot download any packages to install beyond what is on the install CD. The apt-get portion of the installation fails. I downloaded the daily build (07/11/2004) of the Sarge installer, but it was no better than the official release -- the network still remains unavailable... I even retried the installers with the "linux26" argument to try the 2.6 kernel, but no better results. I had an old version of the Sarge installer (dated 1-10-2004) that works. It installs the 2.4.23-1-386 kernel.The installation configures the network HW with the r8169 module and I can download packages from the Internet. There is a flaw when using ftp to move very large files, but I can seem to correct that if I set "append="mem=1000M"" in my lilo.conf file. I have performed several installations of Sarge using various versions of the installer (on various platforms and configurations) over the past 7 months. I have been installing and using Debian for nearly 7 years and have been very happy, but this is the first time an installation has stumped me... I have read that the r8169 may be broken in several newsgroups. There appears to be debate on whether the flaw is in the driver or in the kernel headers... Is there any work being done on this to correct the r8169 problem? Brett Dalla [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------- Received: (at 258984-done) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Jul 2004 06:02:31 +0000 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 16 23:02:30 2004 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from pico.surpasshosting.com [66.194.152.191] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1BliHG-0005FO-00; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:02:30 -0700 Received: from cdm-208-180-235-136.cnro.cox-internet.com ([208.180.235.136] helo=calc-amd64) by pico.surpasshosting.com with esmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.34) id 1BliHF-0006kE-6O for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:02:29 -0400 Received: from ccheney by calc-amd64 with local (Exim 4.34) id 1BliHC-00079V-3y for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:02:26 -0500 Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:02:26 -0500 From: Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Package: installation-reports: r8169 module broken Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/cFG30PKHi9lwv6o" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i Sender: Christopher L Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - pico.surpasshosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - bugs.debian.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - cheney.cx X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 X-Spam-Level: --/cFG30PKHi9lwv6o Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Thank you for taking the time to fill out an Installation Report for the Debian Installer. Your report is much appreciated. The bugs you mentioned in your report have been categorized and forwarded to the proper maintainers. I am closing this report now. Thanks, Chris Cheney --/cFG30PKHi9lwv6o Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA+MDy0QZas444SvIRAmqyAJ0RnzzkIcdfuHMkaA8+OLzZ100DRACgqFEg vZzesuLPGVc4zcS1PQVDggA= =nzE4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/cFG30PKHi9lwv6o-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]