Re: problems with SunBlade100 and Xfree 4.3
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 08:36:36AM +1000, Jim Watson wrote: > i see this too. i dont think it solves the problem, but what happens if you > can downgrade one package xserver-xfree86? I had the same problem as the original poster and the workaround is to run 'unstable' with the xserver-xfree86 v. 4.2.1 package. -- Roy Bixler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The University of Chicago Press
Re: Blade150 and sarge bugs...
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 04:43:28PM +0200, Marco Gaiarin wrote: > Mandi! Roy Bixler > In chel di` si favelave... > > > It's attached. > > Many thanks, i will try it. Did it work? If not, at Christian Guggenberger's suggestion, I found it harmless to just use the 'snapshot.debian.net' archive and downgrade to the old 4.2.1-12 X server package. Then, I can put the monitor's proper sync frequencies into the /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 file and use it with higher resolutions just like before. -- Roy Bixler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The University of Chicago Press
Re: Blade150 and sarge bugs...
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 05:38:22PM +0200, Marco Gaiarin wrote: > X seems to start, but the monitor display ``sync out of range'' > message. I've verified, the new xfree 4.3 packages have not touched the > xfree config file, i've tried also to lower the monitor capabilities to > force a sync at lower freq, but with no clue. I've noticed some X problems with a Sun Bade 100. When I upgraded to the xfree 4.3 packages, suddenly I can only get lower resolutions like 800x600. Before that, with xfree 4.2 packages, I used 1280x1024 and 1024x786 with no problem. It's especially egregious because I have a 21" Sony Trinitron monitor attached, so the lower resolution makes everything look very large. -- Roy Bixler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The University of Chicago Press
Re: sun blade 150
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 12:06:28PM -0500, Maitland Bottoms wrote: > >>>>> "Jakub" == Jakub Ambroz ewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Jakub> Thanks a lot. It was just a magic poof and it worked with Ben > Collins > Jakub> images :-) > > You mean to say that > http://auric.debian.org/~bcollins/disks-sparc/current/sparc-mini.iso > of 29-Sep-2003 11:56 can be made to do an install on a Sun blade 150? > > What am I missing? > > (My experience so far is the same as Olivier Bornet described in: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2003/debian-sparc-200309/msg00216.html > ) Yes, I saw this problem too. I thought maybe reburning the CD at a slower speed would help, but it didn't. -- Roy Bixler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The University of Chicago Press
Re: Unable to use smbfs even though compiled in.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 04:10:43PM -0400, Robert C. Mosher II wrote: > On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 15:07, Roy Bixler wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:40:20PM -0400, Robert C. Mosher II wrote: > > > I have been trying to compile a kernel to be used on several Ultra 5s in > > > my schools computer science lab. One of the main reasons I need to > > > recompile the kernel is so that smbfs will be supported. Although the > > > kernel compiles and is usable, smbfs is not supported: > > > > > > ERROR: smbfs filesystem not supported by the kernel > > > Please refer to the smbmnt(8) manual page > > > smbmnt failed: 255 > > > > When you do 'lsmod', do you see something like the following? > > > > Module Size Used byNot tainted > > smbfs 39376 1 (autoclean) > > > > Running 'lsmod' only gives me the headings. There are no modules listed. I guess that would be expected if you compiled a non-modular smbfs. Did you? I am using the Linux 2.4.21 kernel on a Sun Blade 100 with Debian unstable. Mounting a Samba share works as expected. i.e. with # mount -t smbfs -o username=user,uid=user //samba/share /mnt I am prompted for a password, the mount works and the share is mounted under /mnt. -- Roy Bixler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The University of Chicago Press
Re: Unable to use smbfs even though compiled in.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:40:20PM -0400, Robert C. Mosher II wrote: > I have been trying to compile a kernel to be used on several Ultra 5s in > my schools computer science lab. One of the main reasons I need to > recompile the kernel is so that smbfs will be supported. Although the > kernel compiles and is usable, smbfs is not supported: > > ERROR: smbfs filesystem not supported by the kernel > Please refer to the smbmnt(8) manual page > smbmnt failed: 255 When you do 'lsmod', do you see something like the following? Module Size Used byNot tainted smbfs 39376 1 (autoclean) Also, do you have the 'smbfs' package installed? $ dpkg --list smbfs Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold | Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) ||/ Name VersionDescription +++-==-==- ii smbfs 3.0.0beta1-1 mount and umount commands for the smbfs (for -- Roy Bixler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The University of Chicago Press
Re: 2.4.20 kernel link failure: undefined reference to `_mcount'
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 05:17:29PM +, Dave Love wrote: > Holt Sorenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'm attempting to compile kernel 2.4.20 on a sun ultra 2 using > > gcc-3.0 (3.0.4) from debian gnu/linux sparc woody 3.0r0. > > Don't. Use `egcs64' -- see archives of this list. Does the procedure > in the kernel section of the Debian FAQ not work? If it doesn't, > please make a bug report. I have successfully used the latest gcc-3.2.1 builds to compile kernel 2.4.20 on a Sunblade 100 (Ultra IIe processor). At least, the kernel has been up for more than 7 days without a problem. -- Roy Bixler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The University of Chicago Press
Re: Problems While Installing on SunBlade100
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 05:05:03PM -0300, Marco Rodriguez wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Ben Collins wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:33:41PM -0400, Maksim Zelenov wrote: > > > Ben, > > > > > > I got the .iso file and burned a cd. I'm still getting MMU Miss... > > > The only thing different from the factory config is the amount of memory. > > > I > > > have installed an additional 1024mb. > > > I removed extra memory and tried with the original DIMM installed - no > > > luck. > > > I don't think that it's a hardware problem since Solaris9 runs fine. > > > > Can you try tftp boot? > I have the same problem on the Sunblade 100, and the tftp was the only way > i could install debian on it, but it is very unstable, there are to many > segmentations faults. I changed to another sunblade 100 but the problems > continues. > > PD: sorry for my english =) Strange - I installed Debian Woody on a Sunblade 100 using a CD I burned from Ben Collins' .iso file. The only problem I had with installation was getting it to boot. Specifying correct boot options in the PROM and running 'silo -tf' fixed that. I am typing this message now from said Sunblade running Debian Sid and it works fine (no segmentation faults or other malaise.) -- Roy Bixler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The University of Chicago Press
Re: Solaris emulation in 2.4.19
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:02:51PM +0300, Baurjan Ismagulov wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 02:03:32PM +0100, Dave Love wrote: > > That shouldn't be necessary. Here's a minimal test on a clean Debian > > Woody + 2.4.19 system with Solaris 8 stuff in gnemul. > > This is very interesting. You clearly have something different from our > configuration. Roy, would you like to compare "find /usr/gnemul" outputs > and kernel .config's with Dave's (not sure about the latter)? I found out that Dave is right. Two things that were missing from my /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/lib directory were 'lddstub' and 'ld.so.1'. Once I copied those files, then I could execute the basic Solaris 'ls' and 'cat' commands direct from zsh in Linux. I ran Solaris 'ldd' on 'netscape' and '.netscape.bin' and made sure that I copied all libraries over. But, as expected, 'netscape' would not run and I got a bunch of 'unimplemented Solaris syscalls' messages. I guess, if I want to run Netscape 4, I should start looking for the native Ultralinux binaries the FAQ mentions. Regards, -- Roy Bixler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The University of Chicago Press
Re: Solaris emulation in 2.4.19
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 03:59:01PM +0300, Baurjan Ismagulov wrote: > Hello, Roy! > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 06:02:23PM -0500, Roy Bixler wrote: > > $ /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/bin/cat > > zsh: no such file or directory: /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/bin/cat > > I haven't tried this recently, however, I think running Solaris binaries > from a static Solaris shell (like /sbin/sh) might help you. Solaris ls > did work for me on ext2. That was it and perhaps this should be part of the FAQ on 'ultralinux.org'. Once I copied '/sbin/sh' from Solaris, I could execute it on Linux. And, once inside of the Solaris 'sh' I can execute Linux binaries and basic Solaris binaries like 'ls' and 'cat'. > See also > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-sparc&m=90322352425369&w=2 Perhaps you mean this one? http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-sparc&m=90326076500212&w=2 Anyway, that is useful if discouraging. It looks like Netscape won't run after all. I misread the FAQ there because, on re-reading it, only the SunOS version is mentioned. Thanks! -- Roy Bixler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Unviversity of Chicago Press
Re: Solaris emulation in 2.4.19
On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 05:15:45PM +0100, C.Newport wrote: > On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Roy Bixler wrote: > One thought - what filesystem are you using ?. ext3 > The Solaris ls is unlikely to understand ext2 so unless you are > using ufs you may be misleading yourself. I just tried copying the Solaris 'cat' command over and got the same result: $ /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/bin/cat zsh: no such file or directory: /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/bin/cat While these: $ ls -l /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/bin/cat -r-xr-xr-x1 root root10092 Jul 10 2000 /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/bin/cat* $ file /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/bin/cat /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/bin/cat: ELF 32-bit MSB executable, SPARC, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped says otherwise. On the Solaris side: $ ls -l /usr/bin/cat -r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin10092 Jul 10 2000 /usr/bin/cat* $ ldd /usr/bin/cat libc.so.1 => /usr/lib/libc.so.1 libdl.so.1 =>/usr/lib/libdl.so.1 /usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-60/lib/libc_psr.so.1 $ ls -l /usr/lib/libc.so.1 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 1136748 Dec 17 2001 /usr/lib/libc.so.1* $ ls -l /usr/lib/libdl.so.1 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 4628 Dec 17 2001 /usr/lib/libdl.so.1* $ ls -l /usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-60/lib/libc_psr.so.1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 Mar 12 2002 /usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-60/lib/libc_psr.so.1 -> ../../sun4u/lib/libc_psr.so.1* $ ls -lL /usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-60/lib/libc_psr.so.1 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin17096 Jan 5 2000 /usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-60/lib/libc_psr.so.1* Back on Sparc64 Linux: $ ls -l /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/lib/libc.so.1 -rwxr-xr-x1 root root 1136748 Dec 17 2001 /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/lib/libc.so.1* $ ls -l /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/lib/libdl.so.1 -rwxr-xr-x1 root root 4628 Dec 17 2001 /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/lib/libdl.so.1* $ ls -l /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-60/lib/libc_psr.so.1 -rwxr-xr-x1 root root17096 Jan 5 2000 /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-60/lib/libc_psr.so.1* Also, I tried out 2.4.20-pre9 with Solaris emulation compiled into the kernel. The results are the same with the exception that the message 'set personality to 411' doesn't appear in 'dmesg' output anymore. thx, -- Roy Bixler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The University of Chicago Press
Solaris emulation in 2.4.19
I followed the procedure in question 6.9 of the FAQ on www.ultralinux.org but still can't get Solaris emulation to work. I copied libraries from a Solaris 2.8 system to /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/lib directory. I noted there was no /etc/ld.so.cache file to copy but I searched some past postings on this topic and apparently that file doesn't matter to Solaris 2.x. solaris.o is loaded in as a module and SunOS emulation is compiled directly into the kernel (conflict?) For my test, I copied the 'ls' binary from the Solaris 2.8 system. I noted from running 'ldd' on the Solaris system that it also requires the '/usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-60/lib/libc_psr.so.1' library, so I also copied that to /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-60/lib. When I run the binary, I get $ /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/bin/ls zsh: no such file or directory: /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/bin/ls Each time I run it, I see a message like the following in 'dmesg': [zsh:15322]: set personality to 411 'file' command shows: $ file /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/bin/ls /usr/gnemul/solaris/usr/bin/ls: ELF 32-bit MSB executable, SPARC, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped Any ideas on what's missing here? Ultimately I'd like to get Netscape 4 running under Sparc64 Linux. thx, -- Roy Bixler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The University of Chicago Press
2.5.40 on Sunblade 100 (was Re: NCPFS, anyone?)
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 04:48:41PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: >From: Roy Bixler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:44:46 -0500 > >Any suggestions for getting 2.5.x kernels running are appreicated. >Otherwise, I'll have to try your patches on a 2.4 kernel. > > Don't use gcc-3.2 to build the kernel. It has known problems. > > Take the egcs64 package from the stable debian release and > use that. Taking advice from others, I compiled 2.5.40 with egcs64 and without framebuffer support and was finally to see why it locks up on boot. That is it doesn't detect any disks. Here is the startup message from 2.4.19: Uniform Multi-Platform E-IDE driver Revision: 6.31 ide: Assuming 66MHz system bus speed for PIO modes ALI15X3: IDE controller on PCI bus 00 dev 68 ALI15X3: chipset revision 195 ALI15X3: 100% native mode on irq 4,7cc ide0: BM-DMA at 0x1fe02000a20-0x1fe02000a27, BIOS settings: hda:pio, hdb:pioide1: BM-DMA at 0x1fe02000a28-0x1fe02000a2f, BIOS settings: hdc:pio, hdd:piohda: ST320011A, ATA DISK drive hdb: LTN486S, ATAPI CD/DVD-ROM drive ide0 at 0x1fe02000a00-0x1fe02000a07,0x1fe02000a1a on irq 4,7cc hda: 39102336 sectors (20020 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=38792/16/63, UDMA(66) hdb: ATAPI 48X CD-ROM drive, 120kB Cache, UDMA(33) Uniform CD-ROM driver Revision: 3.12 Partition check: hda: hda1 hda2 hda3 hda4 hda5 hda7 hda8 I compiled the ALI15X3 driver into 2.5.40 as well, but the lines about 'hda' and 'hdb' don't show up. I thought GCC 3.1 and above are OK for compiling kernels on Ultrasparc. I also thought the IDE drivers were from the 2.4 series and should be stable. Will I have to eat my words there too? R.
Re: NCPFS, anyone?
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 01:07:25PM -0500, Holzrichter, Bruce wrote: > > In my latest attempt, I changed the 2.5.40 Makefile to use the > > sparc64-linux-gcc compiler which I used to successfully compile > > 2.4.19. This time, the boot got past the 'Booting Linux' but perhaps > > my options are not set right because, after getting the black screen, > > the characters were unreadable. > > The FB layer has been undergoing a lot of changes. Not sure what Vid card > the blade100 has, but my ati mach64 based one in the Ultra5 exhibited the > same behavior. At one point, I was actually looking at this, and James > Simmons had some modifications to his bk tree at > http://fbdev.bkbits.net/fbdev-2.5 alas, my job has mostly shifted here, and > I have been unable to get back to looking into this for some time to see if > his updates worked. YMMV. Yes, it's got an ATI-based video card. Here is what the 'dmesg' output from the 2.4.19 kernel says: atyfb: 3D RAGE (XL) [0x4752 rev 0x27] 8M SDRAM, 29.498928 MHz XTAL, 230 MHz PLL, 100 Mhz MCLK Console: switching to colour frame buffer device 160x64 fb0: ATY Mach64 frame buffer device on PCI Here's the snippet from my current .config file: # # Frame-buffer support # CONFIG_FB=y CONFIG_DUMMY_CONSOLE=y # CONFIG_FB_CLGEN is not set # CONFIG_FB_PM2 is not set # CONFIG_FB_CYBER2000 is not set # CONFIG_FB_RIVA is not set # CONFIG_FB_MATROX is not set CONFIG_FB_ATY=y # CONFIG_FB_ATY_GX is not set CONFIG_FB_ATY_CT=y # CONFIG_FB_RADEON is not set # CONFIG_FB_ATY128 is not set # CONFIG_FB_SIS is not set # CONFIG_FB_NEOMAGIC is not set # CONFIG_FB_3DFX is not set # CONFIG_FB_VOODOO1 is not set # CONFIG_FB_TRIDENT is not set # CONFIG_FB_PM3 is not set # CONFIG_FB_SBUS is not set CONFIG_FB_PCI=y CONFIG_FB_ATY=y CONFIG_FB_ATY_CT=y # CONFIG_FB_VIRTUAL is not set # CONFIG_FBCON_ADVANCED is not set CONFIG_FBCON_CFB24=y CONFIG_FBCON_ACCEL=y # CONFIG_FBCON_FONTWIDTH8_ONLY is not set # CONFIG_FONT_SUN8x16 is not set CONFIG_FONT_SUN12x22=y # CONFIG_FBCON_FONTS is not set Note here that I tried the 'CONFIG_FONT_SUN12x22=y' option, but I only found that gave me larger unreadable characters. :-/ > > Linux eventually hung but, because of > > the unreadable font, I couldn't say where. > > Also, is it IDE based? I was definitely having problems with IDE in 2.5 > after 2.5.13. Not sure of the status of that yet either. Yes, it is IDE-based. Last I heard, Marcin Daleki stopped maintaining the 2.5 IDE code and the 2.5 series now uses the IDE logic from the 2.4 series. Accordingly, IDE in 2.5 is reputed to be stable as it is in the 2.4 kernels. > Maybe you can > turn off framebuffer support, and see how far it goes? I didn't realise I could do that. I thought the frame buffer is mandatory. Or is it only mandatory if I want to use X on it? thx, R.
Re: NCPFS, anyone?
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 03:48:22PM +0200, Petr Vandrovec wrote: > Hi Roy, > ncpfs related sparc fixes are now in Linus kernels (2.5.x), and > DaveM also told me that he applied patches to his 2.4.x tree, so > they should arrive to Marcelo soon too. > > If you'll download ncpfs-2.2.0.19.8.tar.gz from > ftp://platan.vc.cvut.cz/private/ncpfs (or > http://platan.vc.cvut.cz/ftp/private/ncpfs), > everything should work - except ipx_* tools - I did not managed to > create wrappers around IPX ioctls yet. But you should be able to get > it to work over IP. > > It passed all test I tried, but it is easy possible that I forgot > something - I did not tried symlinks, device nodes, pipes and other > suspicious things. If you'll find any problem, tell me. I have now > ultra sparc under the table, so it should be easy for me to recreate > and fix problem. > Best regards, > Petr Vandrovec > [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've been trying to get the 2.5 kernels to run on the Sunblade 100, but I haven't had any luck. Around 2.5.37, I was at least able to compile them (with perhaps some trivial patch or other) but it would never boot. That is, I get a SILO prompt, select the 2.5.latest kernel, it says (roughly) "Remapping kernel ... done", then it hangs at "Booting Linux ..." I am using the Debian sid version of GCC 3.2 to compile the kernel. In my latest attempt, I changed the 2.5.40 Makefile to use the sparc64-linux-gcc compiler which I used to successfully compile 2.4.19. This time, the boot got past the 'Booting Linux' but perhaps my options are not set right because, after getting the black screen, the characters were unreadable. Linux eventually hung but, because of the unreadable font, I couldn't say where. Any suggestions for getting 2.5.x kernels running are appreicated. Otherwise, I'll have to try your patches on a 2.4 kernel. Thanks for all you work and I look forward to testing. -- Roy Bixler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Gcc 3.2 64-bit mode on Sparc?
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 10:41:18PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > 64bit itself is not broken on Debian. The part that we have trouble with > is very fine grained. Dpkg selects architecture based on gcc's target. > For us, even on sparc64, that is "sparc-linux". > > However, if we want to enable 64bit support, we have to use (by default) > "sparc64-linux". We can't have that. So I have a patch (from 2.95.x) > that enabled this. > > Matthias, I'll get this tonight. I now have an extra ultrasparc to do > glibc/gcc testing on. Thanks for piping up. After Mathias' message, I downloaded the gcc-3.2 source code from ftp.debian.org, unpacked it and applied the Debian patch. After building it, I could verify that it only builds the 32-bit version. I then cleaned out the build and did my own './configure sparc64-linux' in the GCC source directory and built again. This time, it builds a version that accepts both -m64 and -m32. Perhaps your patch makes sure that -m32 is default? Anyway, just wanted to verify your observations. -- Roy Bixler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Gcc 3.2 64-bit mode on Sparc?
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 09:46:56PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Roy Bixler writes: > > I am running Sid and have recently been compiling many kernels in an > > effort to get the 'ncpfs' filesystem to work on the Ultrasparc. Using > > the egcs64 package works for kernel 2.4.19 but it chokes on > > 2.4.20-pre5 with an internal compilation error. I then tried to > > compile the kernel with gcc-3.2, but was very surprised to find that > > it doesn't support 64-bit compilations. I found even gcc-3.1 doesn't > > support 64 bit mode. I did succeed in compiling 2.4.20-pre5 with > > gcc-3.0 but I shortly got a panic with the resulting kernel and am not > > confident that gcc-3.0 is good for compiling kernels. Does anyone > > know when I'll be able to compile kernels with a non-ancient > > (i.e. newer than egcs-2.92) GCC? > > There is a patch in debian/patches/sparc64-build.dpatch to build the > 64bit binaries, which is broken since 3.1. The Debian packages are > built with the alias sparc-linux, but somewhere > unknown-sparc-linux-gnu gets in the way... To apply the currently > disabled patch, edit debian/rules.patch. > > It would be nice, if someone interested in sparc64 could reenable the > sparc64 build. Maybe building for sparc64-linux with code defaulting > to sparc-linux could be done. So I need to build my own GCC then? I remember doing that in the old days on SunOS machines, so I could do it again. The reason I'm surprised about the disabled 64-bit mode is that I heard that David 'sparc' Miller says that GCC v. 3.1/3.2 appear to (once again) be suitable for kernel builds on the Ultrasparc. Can anyone confirm this? Thanks, -- Roy Bixler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GCC status on Woody?
I've heard that only gcc version == egcs-2.92.11 or gcc versions >= 3.1 are suitable for compiling the kernel. I have been trying to use a more recent gcc version, but, to my surprise, I found that the versions >= 3.1 included with sid do not support 64-bit compilation. The gcc-3.0 supports 64-bit compilation but I don't have much confidence in that version. Does anyone know when 64-bit mode will be supported in the recent gcc versions that are "blessed" for kernel compilation? Thanks, -- Roy Bixler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NCPFS, anyone?
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:22:48PM +0200, Petr Vandrovec wrote: > Patch below is for latest kernel I have unpacked here. I hope that > it applies to the released 2.4.19 too... It compiles, but it is > everything I can tell about it. > > It is entirely possible that after you'll get Netware volume mounted, > ioctl mapping layer will need some tweaking too. You'll see, if > nwdir will not work, there is something wrong... I tried the patch on kernel 2.4.19, but now I get: $ ncpmount -S server -U rcb -A server /mnt ncpmount: Invalid argument attempt to open mount point and 'dmesg' reports: Sep 6 12:39:51 mymach kernel: sys32_ioctl(ncpmount:805): Unknown cmd fd(4) cmd(c0246e04) arg(0004b1f4) Sep 6 12:39:51 mymach kernel: sys32_ioctl(ncpmount:805): Unknown cmd fd(4) cmd(c0286e04) arg(e398) Thanks, Roy Bixler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NCPFS, anyone?
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 11:59:55AM +0200, Petr Vandrovec wrote: > On 5 Sep 02 at 19:45, Roy Bixler wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 05:53:26PM -0500, Roy Bixler wrote: > > > Has anyone gotten NCPFS mounts to work in Woody? Actually, I have but > > > only on my old '386 box. However, on the Sparc, I get this: > > > > > > # ncpmount -S server -U rcb -A server /mnt > > > Logging into SERVER as RCB > > > Password: > > > ncpmount: Invalid argument in mount(2) > > > > > > A 'dmesg' command shows the following: > > > ncp_read_super: kernel requires mount version 3 > > It should work, but only if you are using sparc binary on sparc kernel, > or sparc64 binary on sparc64 kernel, otherwise sizeof(int), sizeof(long), > sizeof(__kernel_uid_t) and other may differ between kernel and user. That's probably it - the machine has an Ultrasparc IIe processor but, as far as I understand about the Debian Woody distribution, the binaries are all built in 32-bit mode. > I have > patch to ncpfs & kernel (2.5.x) to pass mount options through ASCII string, > if you are interested. > > But before you'll try that, try first > "ncpmount -S server -U rcb -A server -3 /mnt" and > "ncpmount -S server -U rcb -A server -4 /mnt". > > 2.4.x kernels should use mount version 4 (which allows for 32bit uid/gid), > but if you'll look at arch/sparc64/kernel/sys_sparc32.c, > do_ncp_super_data_conv, you'll find that this function (1) does not check > version at all, (2) works only with -3 version, and (3) I do not see where > this function actually copies unchanged members: version, ncp_fd, time_out, > retry_count and flags... The only thing that changes if I execute those two commands is, with the former, I no longer get the warning about "ncp_read_super: kernel requires mount version 3". Otherwise, they both complain about "ncpmount: Invalid argument in mount(2)". > But if you'll rebuild ncpmount as a 64bit binary, > problems should disappear without need to fix kernel. I used gcc-3.0 to build a 64-bit 'ncpmount' binary and I get a 'Segmentation fault' when I try to execute it. I would be willing to try kernel patches, especially in a 2.4.x kernel. I'll even experiment with 2.5 kernel patches if I can get one of those to build and it is stable enough. Thanks, Roy Bixler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NCPFS, anyone?
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 05:53:26PM -0500, Roy Bixler wrote: > Has anyone gotten NCPFS mounts to work in Woody? Actually, I have but > only on my old '386 box. However, on the Sparc, I get this: > > # ncpmount -S server -U rcb -A server /mnt > Logging into SERVER as RCB > Password: > ncpmount: Invalid argument in mount(2) > > A 'dmesg' command shows the following: > ncp_read_super: kernel requires mount version 3 > > I do have 'ncpfs' compiled into the kernel as a module. The really > bizarre thing about this is that the 'mount' version appears to be the > same (2.11) on both the old '386 box and the new Sparc. Ideas? I should have also noted that I am using a stock 2.4.19 kernel. TIA, R.
NCPFS, anyone?
Has anyone gotten NCPFS mounts to work in Woody? Actually, I have but only on my old '386 box. However, on the Sparc, I get this: # ncpmount -S server -U rcb -A server /mnt Logging into SERVER as RCB Password: ncpmount: Invalid argument in mount(2) A 'dmesg' command shows the following: ncp_read_super: kernel requires mount version 3 I do have 'ncpfs' compiled into the kernel as a module. The really bizarre thing about this is that the 'mount' version appears to be the same (2.11) on both the old '386 box and the new Sparc. Ideas? Thanks, -- Roy Bixler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Woody installation boot trouble with Sun Blade 100
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 01:09:21PM -0500, Roy Bixler wrote: > Does anyone have suggestions to make this thing boot from the disk? I finally got the system to boot, but almost by luck. I looked at the list of device aliases at the PROM prompt and decided to try booting disk0. Bingo - I got the SILO prompt! I was misled into thinking that disk1 was the correct specification for the boot device since that's what Solaris 8 was using as installed. After cleaning up my SILO configuration a bit, it worked. Hopefully this may help someone. Regards, Roy Bixler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Woody installation boot trouble with Sun Blade 100
I have a new Sun Blade 100 and am trying to replace the pre-installed Solaris 8 OS with Debian Woody. I am installing from the CD-ROM. At first, I started with the standard Woody CD image. But then I read the list archives and decided to try Ben Collins' netinstall image. I burned a CD with that and installed the packages from the network per directions at: "http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2002/debian-sparc-200208/msg00151.html"; With either image, the installation seems to go fine up until I select "Make system bootable" option and reboot. If I say something like 'boot disk1:a' (where I installed my root partition) at the prompt, I do not see a 'SILO' as expected; instead it just hangs at that point. I initially had trouble following the instruction to install the newer SILO package because 'wget' isn't initially installed. I got around it by making an /etc/apt/sources.list file and doing 'apt-get update' and 'apt-get install wget'. Installing the newer SILO version didn't help things. My /etc/silo.conf reads: partition=1 root=/dev/hda1 timeout=100 image=/vmlinuz label=linux read-only Does anyone have suggestions to make this thing boot from the disk? Thanks, Roy Bixler [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. I also tried to pass a 'root=/dev/hda1' parameter in with the CD-ROM boot, but still got the installation program. Is it possible to bypass the installation program or do I have to make my own bootable CD?
