2.2rev3
hello, I purchased the 3 set debian CD's and the configuration is a mess. I go to the configuration section after the install and the menu locks up in the X window system Font section. I cannot make a choice nor proceed further without rebooting the system -GPS
Re: 2.2rev3 CDs (was Re: Stable Release plan)
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote: AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. All others are You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series? it looks like a typo to me 2.0.36, 2.2.17, 2.2.19, 2.4.2 Yeah, sure this was a typo :) Sorry folks, I was in a hurry and probably hit the keys faster than my brain was working - need a CPU upgrade probably ;-) i am not sure why one would want 2.0.36 or 2.2.17 on cd1.. i would have put them on cd3, but that's just my opinion. from what anne originally said though, 10 kernels is certainly getting out of hand (and disk space) in a release sense. Yes. Usually I can't think of any reason to have the kernel sources of any version other than the installation kernel on the first CD. My idea was that not too many kernel source trees should be on the distribution CDs at all since they are just taking space and there won't be many people using them. Bernd -- ixsoft Softwareentwicklung und -vertrieb Bernd Hentig Unter den Buchen 22E, D-16244 Altenhof, Germany Voice ++49 333 63 46 100 Fax ++49 333 63 46 109 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.2rev3 CDs (and status of cdimage.d.o)
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:15:03AM +1000, jason andrade wrote: have debian addressed the alleged file corruption (ext2) issue that i heard was present in 2.4.X uptil 2.4.3 ? Well, given that that seems to be what's been causing cdimage.debian.org grief recently (I stupidly upgraded to 2.4.3 to see if it would cure a DMA interrupt error I've been getting on the HPT366 controller) I'd say the answer to that question was probably "no". BTW open.hands.com (a.k.a. cdimage.d.o, www.uk.d.o etc.) died rather more effectively than expected, and is no longer getting past the LILO "Loading Linux" bit. I should be able to sort this out before the end of today (GMT), at which point I'll move /dev/hdc to /dev/hdg, which should apparently side-step the issues with the VIA/Athlon combo. Cheers, Phil. -- Say no to software patents! http://petition.eurolinux.org/ Alcove UK --- Liberating Software --- http://www.alcove.com/ Philip Hands. +44 (0)118 9545656 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hands.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.uk.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.2rev3 CDs (was Re: Stable Release plan)
Previously Nate Duehr wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote: AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series? Considering he said `in release order' I assume he means 2.0.36, 2.2.17, 2.2.19 and 2.4.2. Personally the only ones I would use are 2.0.39, 2.2.19 and 2.4.XacY with X and Y and high as possible. Wichert. -- / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.2rev3 CDs (was Re: Stable Release plan)
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:15:03AM +1000, jason andrade wrote: On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Nate Duehr wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote: AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. All others are You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series? it looks like a typo to me 2.0.36, 2.2.17, 2.2.19, 2.4.2 I noted that after I hit send... hmm. Heh. i am not sure why one would want 2.0.36 or 2.2.17 on cd1.. i would have put them on cd3, but that's just my opinion. from what anne originally said though, 10 kernels is certainly getting out of hand (and disk space) in a release sense. I haven't looked lately, but I don't think many distros keep around too many older kernels on the installation media -- they just let people grab them from their ftp sites. Newbies don't know how to replace kernels on boot media if they have a machine that is reluctant to use a newer kernel, and hopefully the newer kernels actually perform BETTER -- but we all know that doesn't always happen... :-) have debian addressed the alleged file corruption (ext2) issue that i heard was present in 2.4.X uptil 2.4.3 ? On that question, I would have no idea. I would assume the kernel maintainers would have more info -- the debian-cd crew tries to stick to their created packages for CD's, definitely. All the best, -- Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key fingerprint = DCAF 2B9D CC9B 96FA 7A6D AAF4 2D61 77C5 7ECE C1D2 Public Key available upon request, or at wwwkeys.pgp.net and others. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.2rev3 CDs (was Re: Stable Release plan)
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Nate Duehr wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote: AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. All others are You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series? it looks like a typo to me 2.0.36, 2.2.17, 2.2.19, 2.4.2 i am not sure why one would want 2.0.36 or 2.2.17 on cd1.. i would have put them on cd3, but that's just my opinion. from what anne originally said though, 10 kernels is certainly getting out of hand (and disk space) in a release sense. have debian addressed the alleged file corruption (ext2) issue that i heard was present in 2.4.X uptil 2.4.3 ? regards, -jason -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.2rev3 CDs (and status of cdimage.d.o)
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW open.hands.com (a.k.a. cdimage.d.o, www.uk.d.o etc.) died rather
more effectively than expected, and is no longer getting past the LILO
"Loading Linux" bit. I should be able to sort this out before the
end of today (GMT), at which point I'll move /dev/hdc to /dev/hdg,
which should apparently side-step the issues with the VIA/Athlon combo.
It seems that that was a mis-diagnosis, and what what actually happening
was 2.4.3 not doing the right thing with serial consoles, combined with
me being a bit dim, and not realising that that was why there was no output
after the "Loading Linux". Doh!
Anyway, the good news is that open is now up and running, using a 2.2.19
kernel, it's not generating the { DriveStatusError BadCRC } messages
on hdc (that seem to be related to the problems it was having), and it's
now running ext3, so should not end up failing to fsck if it does crash
again.
I've run debsums and rsync -c mirrors, without finding any corruption, so
it looks like I'm ready to do a CD run.
The only things I'm doing to the archive prior to making CDs, is deleting
the bulkmail binaries, and adding a link for the mysql source. If there's
something I'm missing, please tell me about it.
Cheers, Phil.
--
Say no to software patents! http://petition.eurolinux.org/
Alcove UK --- Liberating Software --- http://www.alcove.com/
Philip Hands. +44 (0)118 9545656 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hands.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.uk.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.2rev3 CDs (was Re: Stable Release plan)
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote: AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. All others are either junk and pretty unstable or useless (at least IMHO). So, I've never really seen any use in having ancient sources in the *distribution* cds and I fear things will become worse with woody (5 CDs binary installation ?). You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series? What have you found to be the problems with them? I run them on a number of production machines at work and at home (mostly 2.2.19 now, but some older). -- Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key fingerprint = DCAF 2B9D CC9B 96FA 7A6D AAF4 2D61 77C5 7ECE C1D2 Public Key available upon request, or at wwwkeys.pgp.net and others. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2.2rev3 CDs (was Re: Stable Release plan)
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Le Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:16:11AM +0200, Martin Schulze écrivait: Also - is there any chance that .iso images or pseudo image configurations could be ready _before_ the release is announced - eg tonight cdimage.debian.org still has no idea about 2.2r3 - shouldnt .isos be part of the release and the release be conditional upon them being done ?? Please get in touch with the debian-cd list, they should know about cdimage.d.o No, no, the problem is with you. You install packages in the archive and 4 hours later you make the announcement. You need to let one day so that files propagate to mirrors, send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] asking us to generate the new ISO with the newly installed files and let another day so that ISO images have a chance to propagate too. And only then you should do the announcement. That said, people who usually create the debian-cd images ? What are you doing with 2.2r3 ? Please take care to NOT use the CVS version of debian-cd to generate the images (since I've introduced the new stuff for signed Release file and so on and it's not yet ready for prime time) but rather the last package (or even older ... but not too much). Or you may use the latest debian-cd if you take care to remove manually the rules *-secured in the Makefile. Sorry for having been this silent. In the past few days I've spent many hours on getting debian-cd ready for 2.2 rev3 (issues you mentioned, updated/ redesigned README (matching www.d.o but actually better code) and the long-promised "make-a-useful-CD1" project which involved lots of test runs and a new unexclude feature). I'm mostly finished now, a few things still need some tweaking, then I'll leave it to Phil to generate the new .iso's. The unexclude will be used to move any number of kernel sources to CDx, x=2; the source of only 2.2.19 will be on CD1. However because we currently have 10 (!!) kernel sources in potato, it looks like we're going to have a 4th CD with only 15MB on it. So, unless anyone objects, I think we'd better NOT have the sources of 2.2.10 and possibly 2.2.12 on any CD (which still leaves us 2.2.13, 2.2.15, 2.2.17, 2.2.18pre21, 2.2.18, 2.2.19pre17 and 2.2.19 -- and 2.0.36, 2.0.38 of course). Regards, Anne Bezemer (who still needs to process lots of mails to these and other lists :( ) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.2rev3 CDs (was Re: Stable Release plan)
"J.A. Bezemer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry for having been this silent. In the past few days I've spent many hours on getting debian-cd ready for 2.2 rev3 (issues you mentioned, updated/ redesigned README (matching www.d.o but actually better code) and the long-promised "make-a-useful-CD1" project which involved lots of test runs and a new unexclude feature). I'm mostly finished now, a few things still need some tweaking, then I'll leave it to Phil to generate the new .iso's. Fair enough --- I'll get on to it later this evening, when I get home. The unexclude will be used to move any number of kernel sources to CDx, x=2; the source of only 2.2.19 will be on CD1. However because we currently have 10 (!!) kernel sources in potato, it looks like we're going to have a 4th CD with only 15MB on it. So, unless anyone objects, I think we'd better NOT have the sources of 2.2.10 and possibly 2.2.12 on any CD (which still leaves us 2.2.13, 2.2.15, 2.2.17, 2.2.18pre21, 2.2.18, 2.2.19pre17 and 2.2.19 -- and 2.0.36, 2.0.38 of course). Sounds like a good plan. Although I expect that means that it will take several attempts to get them to fit, since this always seems to be the case if you try to fill CDs to the limit :-/ Cheers, Phil. -- Say no to software patents! http://petition.eurolinux.org/ Philip Hands. +44 (0)20 7744 6244 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alcove -- Liberating Software http://www.alcove.com/ http://www.hands.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.uk.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debian-cd-for-2.2r3 ready (Re: 2.2rev3 CDs)
On 19 Apr 2001, Philip Hands wrote: "J.A. Bezemer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry for having been this silent. In the past few days I've spent many hours on getting debian-cd ready for 2.2 rev3 (issues you mentioned, updated/ redesigned README (matching www.d.o but actually better code) and the long-promised "make-a-useful-CD1" project which involved lots of test runs and a new unexclude feature). I'm mostly finished now, a few things still need some tweaking, then I'll leave it to Phil to generate the new .iso's. Fair enough --- I'll get on to it later this evening, when I get home. Finished. My copy of debian-cd for 2.2 rev3 is available at http://panic.et.tudelft.nl/~costar/debian-cd-22r3/ I hope I can find time tomorrow to check the stuff into CVS, when I've read enough docs to safely try branching off the Makefile. That's why I'm posting it on the web for the moment. On the same location is the typescript and the interesting parts of the working directory of my final test run. You can use it to check if your images make any sense (esp. md5sums.txt). My resulting images: -rw-r--r--1 costar costar 666783744 Apr 19 23:56 potato-i386-1.raw -rw-r--r--1 costar costar 678498304 Apr 19 23:57 potato-i386-1_NONUS.raw -rw-r--r--1 costar costar 665352192 Apr 19 23:59 potato-i386-2.raw -rw-r--r--1 costar costar 605020160 Apr 20 00:00 potato-i386-3.raw -rw-r--r--1 costar costar 641851392 Apr 20 00:08 potato-src-1.raw -rw-r--r--1 costar costar 665235456 Apr 20 00:09 potato-src-1_NONUS.raw -rw-r--r--1 costar costar 671942656 Apr 20 00:11 potato-src-2.raw -rw-r--r--1 costar costar 664254464 Apr 20 00:13 potato-src-3.raw AFAIK these images are correct in every aspect, except the non-US Contents.gz files. The unexclude will be used to move any number of kernel sources to CDx, x=2; the source of only 2.2.19 will be on CD1. However because we currently have 10 (!!) kernel sources in potato, it looks like we're going to have a 4th CD with only 15MB on it. So, unless anyone objects, I think we'd better NOT have the sources of 2.2.10 and possibly 2.2.12 on any CD (which still leaves us 2.2.13, 2.2.15, 2.2.17, 2.2.18pre21, 2.2.18, 2.2.19pre17 and 2.2.19 -- and 2.0.36, 2.0.38 of course). Sounds like a good plan. Although I expect that means that it will take several attempts to get them to fit, since this always seems to be the case if you try to fill CDs to the limit :-/ I actually had to exclude four kernels, 2.2.10, 2.2.12, 2.2.13 and 2.2.15, to get rid of the 4th Source CD. For that, I've also added a source-exclude feature. (BTW, this is already set up in the CONF.sh of my package, you should only have to change the various source/destination directories.) Before running, cd dists/potato/main/source/misc/ in the FTP archive and ln -s ../../../../../pool/main/m/mysql/mysql_3.22.32.orig.tar.gz . And maybe it's better to wait for a good version of the non-US Contents.gz; I already sent a report to debian-devel but it might help if more people do ;-) Regards, Anne Bezemer (who's off to bed right now, for he hasn't had very much sleep the past few days...) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
