Willie Wong wrote:
Is net.eth0 a symlink to net.lo? If not, remove net.eth0 and symlink
it to net.lo.
wasn't and did. now fighting with squirrelmail upgrade and apache ssl
not fun day.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 03:34:25PM -0400, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> Renat Golubchyk wrote:
> >On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:06:26 -0400 "Eric S. Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >>The problem was /etc/init.d/net.eth0 and /etc/init.d/net.lo were the
> >>same. The net.eth0 code was overwritten
Renat Golubchyk wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:06:26 -0400 "Eric S. Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The problem was /etc/init.d/net.eth0 and /etc/init.d/net.lo were the
same. The net.eth0 code was overwritten with the lo code.
This happened on two machines and I'm wondering how it happen
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:06:26 -0400 "Eric S. Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The problem was /etc/init.d/net.eth0 and /etc/init.d/net.lo were the
> same. The net.eth0 code was overwritten with the lo code.
>
> This happened on two machines and I'm wondering how it happened? Did
> someth
updated a couple of machines to 2005.1+ sometime in the past month.
Everything went fine or so I thought. Had to reboot one of the machines
today. It wouldn't boot. Everything started okay or so it seemed
except eth0 wasn't present. The module was compiled in the kernel, the
configuration w
5 matches
Mail list logo