Re: Installing Debian on sata drive with adaptec aic-8130 controller
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:41:35PM +0100, Marc Blumentritt wrote: > Just for your notice: my vendor told me, if I change the SATA > controller, I will loose every support from HP, which we paid for. So I > looked at the newest Kernel 2.6.15 . You were right, that the marvel > driver was marked highly experimental, but it is working (as far as I > can see). So I hope, that it will be stable as soon as possible. Well if you asked them for a machine that would run linux, they failed to deliver one at the time it seems. After all linux is not redhat or suse. Redhat and suse are just some types of linux. But if things are working with the new kernel, then that is probably OK. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get update error libswt-mozilla-gtk-3.1-jni
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:56:50PM +0100, Andrea Gasparini wrote: > you can force the installation giving as root: > # dpkg -i > --force-overwrite > /var/cache/apt/archives/libswt-mozilla-gtk-3.1-jni_3.1.2-1_amd64.deb --force should not be used unless you know what you are doing. If something like this happens, it is a bug and should be filed as one. If packages conflict, uninstall one of them, or don't upgrade until the maintainer fixes the bug. Using --force leaves the system in a somewhat broken state where in the future removing one of the packages that had a file conflict may cause the file to be removed even though the other packages still says it is installed and may require it. So it is a very very bad idea. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freeradius
Hello, I don't find freeradius paquet for sarge amd64. Is there a pacquet existing? thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kernel Names (was Kernel 2.6.15-4 freeze)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ach so! Thank you very much for clearing up this little item that was bothering me. I did experience loss of the ndiswrapper - Broadcom XP wireless driver when I went from the generic 2.6.12 kernel to the 2.6.14 kernel specific to the amd64-k8. Then the kernel moved to the 2.6.15 series and I was in the 2.6.15-1 version -3 before I got the wireless working again. I _did_ have to recompile the ndiswrapper which had gone from version 1.7 to 1.8 in the meantime and apparently is only available as source in the Debian distribution. Then I noticed, after the update to version -4 of the kernel, I did _not_ have to recompile ndiswrapper. The wireless just kept working! Great! Thanks again. fgd. Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:31:37PM -0900, Fielder George Dowding wrote: > >>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >>I have noticed an unusual naming situation with the Debian 2.6.15-x >>series of kernel updates on my HP Pavilion zv6000 series (amd64 3200+) >>laptop. >> >>The usual situation I have come to expect with installing a kernel >>update under Debian using grub is to have the kernel name, shown as the >>installed version in the dselect listing, >> eg.: linux-image-2.6.15-1, >>be reflected in the boot menu (from /boot/grub/menu.lst), >> eg.: Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.15-1-amd64-k8 >> >>However, I note, since the kernel update to the Debian -2, the listing >>in the grub menu has not changed. I now (suposedly) have the 2.6.15-4 >>version of the Debian linux-image installed according to the dselect >>listing, but there is no other indication that the -4 update is >>installed. Here are examples of the strings I get identifying the >>installed and running kernel: >> >>$ uname -a >>Linux caleb 2.6.15-1-amd64-k8 #2 Sat Feb 4 00:09:56 UTC 2006\ >> x86_64 GNU/Linux >> >>(title of default kernel in grub's menu.lst) >>Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.15-1-amd64-k8 >> >>(there are three lines in dselect that refer to the currently installed >>kernel. The first is the update depends pseudo/meta package:) >>linux-image-2.6-amd64-k8 - Linux kernel 2.6 image on AMD64 K8 machines >>(with the comment:) >>This package depends on the latest binary image for Linux kernel 2.6 on >>64bit AMD Athlon64, AthlonFX, Opteron1xx and Turion64 machines. >>(under the Inst.ver and Avail.ver columns, it shows:) >>2.6.15-4 >>(the next line in the listing is apparently the real kernel image. It >>show the following:) >>linux-image-s.2.15-1-amd64-k8 - Linux kernel 2.6.15 image\ >> on AMD64 K8 machines >>(under the Inst.ver and Avail.ver columns, it shows:) >>2.6.15-4 >>(finally, the third line shows:) >>linux-image-amd64-k8 - Linux kernel image on AMD64 K8 machines >>(under the Inst.ver and Avail.ver columns, it shows:) >>2.6.15-4 >> >>I am just wondering why the current Debian version is not reflected in >>all the listings. Is this a problem? Should I be conserned? Should I >>change something in my setup? Should I just ingore this and unimportant >>and let the dd's get on with the important things in Debian? >> >>With a sincere desire to learn, fgd. > > > Grub lists the same info as the package name, which is the kernel > version and ABI version. There are usually multiple debian package > versions for a given ABI version. > > ie: > > vmlinuz-2.6.14-1-k7 is a 2.6.14 kernel with ABI 1 for a k7 cpu. > > The version of this kernel in dpkg right now is: > ii linux-image-2.6.14-1-k7 2.6.14-2 > > So it is the second release of the 2.6.14-1 kernel. > > Another one I have had was: > ii linux-image-2.6.12-1-k7 2.6.12-10 > > So 10th release of 2.6.12 ABI v1. > > After all the changes could be as simple as a change in a package > description or a dependancy. It doesn't have to involve changing the > binary kernel. Or perhaps an additional module was enabled. This > doesn't make the kernel incompatible with the previous ones after all. > > The ABI version only changes when a change is made that makes the binary > interface incompatible which would require a rebuild of external kernel > modules. > > Very few kernels in debian have gone through ABI changes within one > kernel version so you will usually only see -1 kernels. > > Len Sorensen > > - -- Fielder George Dowding, Chief Iceworm.^. Debian/GNU Linux dba Iceworm Enterprises, Anchorage, Alaska /v\ "etch" Testing Since 1976 - Over 25 Years of Service. /( )\ User Number 269482 ^^-^^ "irad" 301256 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD64/62kl99FX0AIkRAtk9AJ0WWTUH9zaEVLPQBAHirOi8wHqQCwCgkV/T GbBQ68PwnmHzVDvC06KXhos= =IpPb -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec 2230SLP RAID (aacraid): how to install Sarge/AMD64
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:28:21AM +, Dave Ewart wrote: > Ah, interesting. Thanks for the reply, Jo. > > "sarge-amd64-2.6.12-netinst.iso 08-Sep-2005 14:39" > > I think I might have tried that one: have you used that one to install > to an aacraid subsystem? It didn't seem to detect it automatically > certainly... Anything not autodetected by sarge is not going to be autodetected by mine either. I just updated the kernel so you can load newer drivers that were included with modprobe on console 2. Unfortunately the web server is misbehaving right now (someone turned of directory index permissions). I guess I should add a index.html for now with static links to the files. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SPAM] Re: Kernel 2.6.15-4 freeze
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:31:37PM -0900, Fielder George Dowding wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > I have noticed an unusual naming situation with the Debian 2.6.15-x > series of kernel updates on my HP Pavilion zv6000 series (amd64 3200+) > laptop. > > The usual situation I have come to expect with installing a kernel > update under Debian using grub is to have the kernel name, shown as the > installed version in the dselect listing, > eg.: linux-image-2.6.15-1, > be reflected in the boot menu (from /boot/grub/menu.lst), > eg.: Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.15-1-amd64-k8 > > However, I note, since the kernel update to the Debian -2, the listing > in the grub menu has not changed. I now (suposedly) have the 2.6.15-4 > version of the Debian linux-image installed according to the dselect > listing, but there is no other indication that the -4 update is > installed. Here are examples of the strings I get identifying the > installed and running kernel: > > $ uname -a > Linux caleb 2.6.15-1-amd64-k8 #2 Sat Feb 4 00:09:56 UTC 2006\ > x86_64 GNU/Linux > > (title of default kernel in grub's menu.lst) > Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.15-1-amd64-k8 > > (there are three lines in dselect that refer to the currently installed > kernel. The first is the update depends pseudo/meta package:) > linux-image-2.6-amd64-k8 - Linux kernel 2.6 image on AMD64 K8 machines > (with the comment:) > This package depends on the latest binary image for Linux kernel 2.6 on > 64bit AMD Athlon64, AthlonFX, Opteron1xx and Turion64 machines. > (under the Inst.ver and Avail.ver columns, it shows:) > 2.6.15-4 > (the next line in the listing is apparently the real kernel image. It > show the following:) > linux-image-s.2.15-1-amd64-k8 - Linux kernel 2.6.15 image\ > on AMD64 K8 machines > (under the Inst.ver and Avail.ver columns, it shows:) > 2.6.15-4 > (finally, the third line shows:) > linux-image-amd64-k8 - Linux kernel image on AMD64 K8 machines > (under the Inst.ver and Avail.ver columns, it shows:) > 2.6.15-4 > > I am just wondering why the current Debian version is not reflected in > all the listings. Is this a problem? Should I be conserned? Should I > change something in my setup? Should I just ingore this and unimportant > and let the dd's get on with the important things in Debian? > > With a sincere desire to learn, fgd. Grub lists the same info as the package name, which is the kernel version and ABI version. There are usually multiple debian package versions for a given ABI version. ie: vmlinuz-2.6.14-1-k7 is a 2.6.14 kernel with ABI 1 for a k7 cpu. The version of this kernel in dpkg right now is: ii linux-image-2.6.14-1-k7 2.6.14-2 So it is the second release of the 2.6.14-1 kernel. Another one I have had was: ii linux-image-2.6.12-1-k7 2.6.12-10 So 10th release of 2.6.12 ABI v1. After all the changes could be as simple as a change in a package description or a dependancy. It doesn't have to involve changing the binary kernel. Or perhaps an additional module was enabled. This doesn't make the kernel incompatible with the previous ones after all. The ABI version only changes when a change is made that makes the binary interface incompatible which would require a rebuild of external kernel modules. Very few kernels in debian have gone through ABI changes within one kernel version so you will usually only see -1 kernels. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Debian on sata drive with adaptec aic-8130 controller
Marc Blumentritt wrote: Hi, Lennart Sorensen schrieb: On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:27:14PM +0100, Marc Blumentritt wrote: Thanks for the info. I will write my hardware-vender, that when I say, I want Linux compatible hardware, that I really mean it. I will replace the controller. Any sugesstions for a SATA PCI controller with 4 ports? Yeah, redhat/suse binary drivers != Linux support. Hmm, well for supported chipsets there are: Sil3112/3114 3ware cards (which do hardware raid.) Areca (although their drivers have not yet been merged into the kernel, so they take more work. Also hardware raid.) Some promise based cards are supported too, although I am not currently up to date on which ones. Just for your notice: my vendor told me, if I change the SATA controller, I will loose every support from HP, which we paid for. So I looked at the newest Kernel 2.6.15 . You were right, that the marvel driver was marked highly experimental, but it is working (as far as I can see). So I hope, that it will be stable as soon as possible. Regards, Marc I have an associate who's been helping to test sata_mv.ko - apparently, "highly experimental" doesn't come near the true state of play -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Debian on sata drive with adaptec aic-8130 controller
Hi, Lennart Sorensen schrieb: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:27:14PM +0100, Marc Blumentritt wrote: > >>Thanks for the info. I will write my hardware-vender, that when I say, I >>want Linux compatible hardware, that I really mean it. I will replace >>the controller. Any sugesstions for a SATA PCI controller with 4 ports? > > > Yeah, redhat/suse binary drivers != Linux support. > > Hmm, well for supported chipsets there are: > > Sil3112/3114 > 3ware cards (which do hardware raid.) > Areca (although their drivers have not yet been merged into the kernel, > so they take more work. Also hardware raid.) > Some promise based cards are supported too, although I am not currently > up to date on which ones. Just for your notice: my vendor told me, if I change the SATA controller, I will loose every support from HP, which we paid for. So I looked at the newest Kernel 2.6.15 . You were right, that the marvel driver was marked highly experimental, but it is working (as far as I can see). So I hope, that it will be stable as soon as possible. Regards, Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clock issues
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:45:38AM -0700, Tannon Weber wrote:
> I know that this is an old problem, but I was wondering if anyone has
> a solution for the clock speed problems (clock running 2+ times too
> fast) on Athlon 64/ATI hardware. I'm actually running 32 bit at the
> moment, but it appears that only 64 bit capable hardware is having
> this problem.
What time source are you using ("Using ... for high-res timesource" in
dmesg)? What happens if you select an other one ("clock=" kernel
parameter, values to try are tsc, pmtmr and pit in this order of
preference)? (Note: "clock=" does not work for 64-bit kernels, but you
said you're running 32-bit)
Gabor
--
-
MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get update error libswt-mozilla-gtk-3.1-jni
The problem is this: > trying to overwrite `/usr/lib/jni/libswt-mozilla-gtk-3139.so', which is > also in package libswt3.1-gtk-jni you can force the installation giving as root: # dpkg -i --force-overwrite /var/cache/apt/archives/libswt-mozilla-gtk-3.1-jni_3.1.2-1_amd64.deb bye! -- -gaspa- --- Powered by Debian GNU/Linux and Debian GNU/Hurd -- HomePage: iogaspa.altervista.org --- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
apt-get update error libswt-mozilla-gtk-3.1-jni
apt-get update tells me to try apt-get -f install with the following result: >apt-get -f install Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Correcting dependencies...Done The following extra packages will be installed: libswt-mozilla-gtk-3.1-jni The following NEW packages will be installed libswt-mozilla-gtk-3.1-jni 0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 65 not upgraded. 26 not fully installed or removed. Need to get 0B/26.7kB of archives. After unpacking 139kB of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? (Reading database ... 286327 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking libswt-mozilla-gtk-3.1-jni (from .../libswt-mozilla-gtk-3.1-jni_3.1.2-1_amd64.deb) ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libswt-mozilla-gtk-3.1-jni_3.1.2-1_amd64.deb (--unpack): trying to overwrite `/usr/lib/jni/libswt-mozilla-gtk-3139.so', which is also in package libswt3.1-gtk-jni Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/libswt-mozilla-gtk-3.1-jni_3.1.2-1_amd64.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) How should I proceed? /N -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec 2230SLP RAID (aacraid): how to install Sarge/AMD64
Dave Ewart wrote: >I have a fresh install to a quad-Opteron server to perform: RAID >controller is an Adaptec 2230SLP. The installer I got from >http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/sarge-amd64/iso-cd/debian-31r0a-amd64-binary-1.iso >does not seem to have aacraid support (at least, the disk subsystem is >not detected). > >Any recent kernel should support this setup, so once installed I'll be >fine: I just need an *installer* which has enough support to get me >started. > >Any ideas, people? > > Hmm, aacraid.ko is in scsi-extra-modules-2.6.8-11-amd64-generic-di_0.22_amd64.udeb on the sarge netinst CD. Maybe you nede to run it as expert mode and tell the installer to load that manually? I've only been through on expert module once, but I saw a prompt for something like that... Of course if your problem is more than just getting the module loaded, ignore me, sorry :} SRH -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adaptec 2230SLP RAID (aacraid): how to install Sarge/AMD64
On Thursday, 09.02.2006 at 11:07 +, Jo Shields wrote: > Dave Ewart wrote: > > >I have a fresh install to a quad-Opteron server to perform: RAID > >controller is an Adaptec 2230SLP. The installer I got from > >http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/sarge-amd64/iso-cd/debian-31r0a-amd64-binary-1.iso > >does not seem to have aacraid support (at least, the disk subsystem > >is not detected). > > > >Any recent kernel should support this setup, so once installed I'll > >be fine: I just need an *installer* which has enough support to get > >me started. > > > >Any ideas, people? > > > >Thanks, > > > >Dave. > > > > > > > tinyplanet.ca/~lsorense Ah, interesting. Thanks for the reply, Jo. "sarge-amd64-2.6.12-netinst.iso 08-Sep-2005 14:39" I think I might have tried that one: have you used that one to install to an aacraid subsystem? It didn't seem to detect it automatically certainly... Dave. -- Dave Ewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computing Manager, Cancer Epidemiology Unit Cancer Research UK / Oxford University PGP: CC70 1883 BD92 E665 B840 118B 6E94 2CFD 694D E370 Get key from http://www.ceu.ox.ac.uk/~davee/davee-ceu-ox-ac-uk.asc N 51.7518, W 1.2016 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Adaptec 2230SLP RAID (aacraid): how to install Sarge/AMD64
Dave Ewart wrote: I have a fresh install to a quad-Opteron server to perform: RAID controller is an Adaptec 2230SLP. The installer I got from http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/sarge-amd64/iso-cd/debian-31r0a-amd64-binary-1.iso does not seem to have aacraid support (at least, the disk subsystem is not detected). Any recent kernel should support this setup, so once installed I'll be fine: I just need an *installer* which has enough support to get me started. Any ideas, people? Thanks, Dave. tinyplanet.ca/~lsorense -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Adaptec 2230SLP RAID (aacraid): how to install Sarge/AMD64
I have a fresh install to a quad-Opteron server to perform: RAID controller is an Adaptec 2230SLP. The installer I got from http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/sarge-amd64/iso-cd/debian-31r0a-amd64-binary-1.iso does not seem to have aacraid support (at least, the disk subsystem is not detected). Any recent kernel should support this setup, so once installed I'll be fine: I just need an *installer* which has enough support to get me started. Any ideas, people? Thanks, Dave. -- Dave Ewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computing Manager, Cancer Epidemiology Unit Cancer Research UK / Oxford University PGP: CC70 1883 BD92 E665 B840 118B 6E94 2CFD 694D E370 Get key from http://www.ceu.ox.ac.uk/~davee/davee-ceu-ox-ac-uk.asc N 51.7518, W 1.2016 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sarge NR_CPUS limit of 1 reached. Processor ignored.
Siju George wrote: but I faced a problem removing mysql-server. Details below. How can you remove all installed packages with their configs ( Purge) and get back the original base system??? I cannot do a re-install cause the server is not near by :-( Thankyou so much :-) kind regards Siju Sorry, Forgot to give the details in previous mail :-( -- # dpkg -P mysql-server-5.0 (Reading database ... 30784 files and directories currently installed.) Removing mysql-server-5.0 ... Stopping MySQL database server: mysqld. Purging configuration files for mysql-server-5.0 ... rm: cannot remove directory `/var/lib/mysql': Device or resource busy Is /var/lib/mysql the working directory (of your shell, or some other process) when you try? Make sure that is not the case. "cd" away from it. Is this a mountpoint? (Unlikely but possible) Is mysql running? A broken "remove" script may fail to stop it properly first - if so stop/kill mysql yourself before attempting removal. Is there something else in the directory? Have a look. If you don't find anything worth having, what happens if you do a "rm -r var/lib/mysql/*" as root? If weird things happen, go single-user, umount /var, and use fsck. If /var is part of the root fs, run that fsck from a cd-boot or boot into single-user, mount read-only, run fsck, then boot. Try removing the package again after emptying the directory manually. You may also want to try dpkg --force-all -P mysql-server-5.0 But take the warnings seriously if you do so. dpkg: error processing mysql-server-5.0 (--purge): subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 1 Errors were encountered while processing: mysql-server-5.0 oss40:/var/cache/apt/archives# man dpkg Reformatting dpkg(8), please wait... oss40:/var/cache/apt/archives# apt-get install mysql-server-5.0 Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done mysql-server-5.0 is already the newest version. If you want to simply reinstall the package (someone deleted an important file?) then do: apt-get install --reinstall mysql-server-5.0 This should overwrite all existing files. Another option is to use: dpkg -i package-file.deb After an apt-get run, you'll find the .deb file in /var/cache/apt/archives 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. oss40:/var/cache/apt/archives# apt-get remove --purge mysql-server-5.0 Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following packages will be REMOVED: mysql-server-5.0* 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 40.9MB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] y (Reading database ... 30626 files and directories currently installed.) Removing mysql-server-5.0 ... Purging configuration files for mysql-server-5.0 ... rm: cannot remove directory `/var/lib/mysql': Device or resource busy dpkg: error processing mysql-server-5.0 (--purge): subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 1 Errors were encountered while processing: mysql-server-5.0 E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) As a last resort, consider using dpkg -L mysql-server-5.0 to see what files this package consist of, then remove them manually. Or pipe the output of the above command into some form of "| xargs rm" Consider using "reportbug" to report the problems with this package. Helge Hafting -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
