RE: Request for info/help
Well, I did some further testing and checking and here is what I come to find out. Debian 2.2 shipped with perl5.004 while Debian 3.0 shipped with perl 5.6.1. From what I can find out, perl5.004 is in no way compatible with 5.6.1, and because of the path differences, module differences, etc, the upgrade broke. But who would of thunk that a system showing you it was at Debian 3.0 would have had the old old perl stuff on it???No wonder the company was having problems Mark begin:vcard fn:Mark Huff n:Huff;Mark adr:;;;Bellambi;NSW;2518;Australia email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;work:0422 904 650 tel;cell:0422 904 650 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
Request for info/help
I am having a problem with a user and would like some clarification if I did correct or incorrectly. Honest answers appreciated. I performed some work for a company on a Debian Linux system with the prompt on the system (no graphic frontends, etc) indicated it was a Debian 3.0 (Woody) built. The initial issue was a user outside of the company could not get an email sent to a user on the company's server. The company I was performing the work for is using Exim for the mail server, SMTP transactions are not logged. Because of the above fact, I desired to move them to Postfix email. As the system was showing me Woody build, I started dselect using the repository for debian sarge stable build (as I have in the past installed Sarge release candidates from 8/04). Dselect indicated numberous upgrades available for the system (which the system needed regardless). I started the update process, and Perl immediately crashed. User data, email access from pop/smtp, passwords, etc, were not effected, but web mail access via neomail was, needless to say, broken. In doing a little research, I found a Debian 2.2 cd (labeled disk1), a Debian 3.0 cd (labeled disk1), and a Debian 3.1 cd (labeled disk1) laying near this system. What I am thinking is that while they may have upgraded enough of the Debian 2.2 for the prompt to indicate is was a Woody 3.0 system, there was still quite a bit of 2.2 (the perl is what I think was not upgraded), so that when the Perl 5.8.6 from the new stable build tried to install, the stuff on the system was so old that the install broke, and broke the perl that was on the system. Question is - Are my assumptions correct? If anyone else has walked up to the box seeing the prompt I did would they have had any issue in trying the upgrade? Just wondering, Thanks... Mark begin:vcard fn:Mark Huff n:Huff;Mark adr:;;;Bellambi;NSW;2518;Australia email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;work:0422 904 650 tel;cell:0422 904 650 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
Request for info/help
Sorry if this repostsnot sure it got through the first time I am having a problem with a user and would like some clarification if I did correct or incorrectly. Honest answers appreciated. I performed some work for a company on a Debian Linux system with the prompt on the system (no graphic frontends, etc) indicated it was a Debian 3.0 (Woody) built. The initial issue was a user outside of the company could not get an email sent to a user on the company's server. The company I was performing the work for is using Exim for the mail server, SMTP transactions are not logged. Because of the above fact, I desired to move them to Postfix email. As the system was showing me Woody build, I started dselect using the repository for debian sarge stable build (as I have in the past installed Sarge release candidates from 8/04). Dselect indicated numberous upgrades available for the system (which the system needed regardless). I started the update process, and Perl immediately crashed. User data, email access from pop/smtp, passwords, etc, were not effected, but web mail access via neomail was, needless to say, broken. In doing a little research, I found a Debian 2.2 cd (labeled disk1), a Debian 3.0 cd (labeled disk1), and a Debian 3.1 cd (labeled disk1) laying near this system. What I am thinking is that while they may have upgraded enough of the Debian 2.2 for the prompt to indicate is was a Woody 3.0 system, there was still quite a bit of 2.2 (the perl is what I think was not upgraded), so that when the Perl 5.8.6 from the new stable build tried to install, the stuff on the system was so old that the install broke, and broke the perl that was on the system. Question is - Are my assumptions correct? If anyone else has walked up to the box seeing the prompt I did would they have had any issue in trying the upgrade? Just wondering, Thanks... Mark begin:vcard fn:Mark Huff n:Huff;Mark adr:;;;Bellambi;NSW;2518;Australia email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;work:0422 904 650 tel;cell:0422 904 650 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [OT] X-friendly KVM switch?
I use a "ServerLink SOHO KVM 4 port switch that is made here in Australia, and have never had a problem switching between my linux boxes and windows systems i am working on. The only problem I have found in using my KVM is during the install phase of Debian - it does not detect the mouse properly, requiring me to us xf86config and editting the XF86Config file to get things set right. After that it works great... Mark Monique Y. Mudama wrote: I'm looking for an X-friendly PS/2-style KVM switch. Currently, I have a Belkin 4-port Omniview E series, and whenever I switch back to X from another system, the mouse goes all crazy and I have to ctrl+alt+backspace. Anyone have a well-behaved KVM switch? 4-port would be great, but I can live with 2. As long as I'm asking, it would be great if you could tell me if a) you can switch systems with keystrokes instead of having to touch the switch b) if the switch beeps when you switch systems Thanks in advance! begin:vcard fn:Mark Huff n:Huff;Mark adr:;;;Bellambi;NSW;2518;Australia email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;work:0422 904 650 tel;cell:0422 904 650 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
