RE: [Cooker] Totally failed install as of 09.08
On 10 Aug 2001 12:31:09 +0400, Borsenkow Andrej wrote: > > > > Related question: > > What do you prefer when reporting an install time bug? I see people > > that submit reports from stuff other than simply surfing ttys. > Various > > logs and outputs, and of course, whatnot. How (where?) is this made? > > > > In installer, put FAT floppy in drive, change to tty2 and type bug. You > get report.log (I think) on floppy with most logs and some more info. > > -andrej > Danke schon. I'm off to fail an install. ;)
RE: [Cooker] Totally failed install as of 09.08
> > Related question: > What do you prefer when reporting an install time bug? I see people > that submit reports from stuff other than simply surfing ttys. Various > logs and outputs, and of course, whatnot. How (where?) is this made? In installer, put FAT floppy in drive, change to tty2 and type bug. You get report.log (I think) on floppy with most logs and some more info. -andrej
Re: [Cooker] Totally failed install as of 09.08
On 09 Aug 2001 22:33:05 +0200, Pixel wrote: > Blue Lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 09 Aug 2001 15:01:46 +0200, Pixel wrote: > > > Borsenkow Andrej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > /dev/hda7 / jfs defaults 1 1 > > > > > > for the moment, do not use / on jfs... > > > > > > > so the prob is not that it is looking for .i586 and not .i586.rpm? > > nope. The message used to be without the .i586 because DrakX was not handling > multi-architecture. It now does and display the architecture. > Related question: What do you prefer when reporting an install time bug? I see people that submit reports from stuff other than simply surfing ttys. Various logs and outputs, and of course, whatnot. How (where?) is this made? I certainly would use such with that dang rpm problem (could it be related to ext3? I dont think probable, but sorta possible).
Re: [Cooker] Totally failed install as of 09.08
On 09 Aug 2001 15:01:46 +0200, Pixel wrote: > Borsenkow Andrej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > /dev/hda7 / jfs defaults 1 1 > > for the moment, do not use / on jfs... > so the prob is not that it is looking for .i586 and not .i586.rpm?
