Re: liveCD booting into AMD A8-3870 processor
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Akemi Yagi amy...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:08 PM, zxq9 z...@zxq9.com wrote: On 05/25/2012 11:56 AM, Phong X Nguyen wrote: Can you use DKMS to automate driver building on kernel update? I haven't messed with it myself, but it certainly should work fine if you just want to keep the same version of Catalyst around. Since the AMD driver release updates nearly as often as the Kernel itself, I've been building new fglrx rpms with the latest driver against each new kernel as they come out and keeping them in our repo. Some of the driver updates bring significant performance imrovements that actually matter to us, so we try not to miss any. Very true. Both the ATI driver and the kernel get updated fairly frequently (about once a month). I haven't found a way to completely automate away keeping track of the new AMD releases yet, though, so keeping fglrx rpms up to date is a lot like packaging a high-frequency project for a distro (as in, treating AMD Catalyst essentially the same way you would an upstream project). Anyway, DKMS is simple enough to set up that feeding it new Catalyst releases as they come out shouldn't be too difficult. (Well, from my understanding anyway. Again, I haven't done this myself yet, though I might give it a shot if I can get some time to play with it -- though even if any part of it is difficult the situation should be routine enough that wrapping any needed re-configuration process in a script should be trivial.) The kernel module HowTo article has a section for DKMS : http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/BuildingKernelModules I have not tried it myself since I originally wrote it (because kmods became my primary method of module building) but I believe it still works. Akemi Thanks to all. Kindly check the following - there AMD admits there shortcomings with linux support of APU. http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2180336/amd-admits-improving-linux-opencl-support
liveCD booting into AMD A8-3870 processor
Hello firends, I have facing a problem with another distribution - still one fact actually makes me amazed. Few days back my cousin bought a pc with configuration- [ AMD APU A8-3870k processor, Corsair Vengeance 4 GB RAM, ASUS Board]. 1) I have tried booting an old linux distro - Ubuntu 9.04 - it boots into intramfs prompt. 2) Then tried booting SL6.1 LiveCD - it boots normally to the gnome desktop without a problem. 3) Tried booting Kubuntu 12.04 liveCD - its just turn into a BLACK Screen of Death. My question if the problem is related with GPU driver - then why its not happening with SL6.1? Thanks in advance for any help.
Re: sl6.1 and sl6x
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:08 AM, jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote:
Seriously, I'd suggest you do one thing or the other. But I am not going
to make your decision for you. On one machine (a virtual box machine)
the transition from 6.0 to 6.1 was painless. (Or let's say no more pain
than already existed with SELinux.) On the other machine I had an nVidia
related problem that went away with a kernel update that happened
automatically. The virtual machine is on 6.x so I catch the upgrades
when they come. If no serious issues crop up I plan to move the main
Linux machine up to the next release after it's had a little time
to settle. But there's just my partner and I and about 20 machines and
assorted gadgets relying on the Linux machine. The needs for a larger
production environment will be different. The needs for a single desktop
user will also be different.
Assess your needs, determine what activities must be supported, determine
which OSs best support those activities. Then jump in and be prepared to
bleed a little. In the best possible world, there will be no blood. So
you'll feel good about that. If you bleed a little, you were emotionally
prepared already and have plans to cope, one hopes. So you feel good that
you coped. If you sit around dithering you feel bad all the way around.
Thank you very much for all the suggestions and for now I will opt for
SL6.1 repo until I get more use to with the new system.
Thanks again.
{o.o}
On 2011/09/18 22:16, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote:
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Tanmoy Chatterjeebum@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:48 PM, jdowj...@earthlink.net wrote:
On 2011/09/17 01:06, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote:
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcianka...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Tanmoy Chatterjeebum@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Connie Siehcs...@fnal.gov
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote:
Is there any difference between Sl6.1 and SL6x repositories? Do I
need
to enable only of these two or both?
sl6x is a symbolic link to the current release. So at the moment
sl6x
points to sl6.1 since sl6.1 is the current release. When we release
sl6.2
then sl6x will point to sl6.2 .
So you need to pick 1 . If you pick sl6x you will updated via the
yum
cron
job to the next release when it is released.
Thanks for the elaboration - so it is a good idea to enable the SL6x
repositories instead of SL6.1.
It's a choice, and it's actually a reasonable one to select 6.1. If
you follow the model of The Upstream Vendor, the 5.0, 5.1, 5.2
releases are all supposed to upgrade in place, automatically, to get
all current packages. 6.0 and 6.1 are timestamps for media
releases, and do not represent a different software repository
maintained by them. This avoids the amazing pain some of us had to
deal with for years, back with the original releases back when their
old 7.0 and 7.2 releases were likely to be incompatible.
This way works better, by not trying to split support among so many
sub releases.
Our friendly maintainers at Scientific Linux, understandably, don't
quite follow that, but with their common 5x repository, and
rolling releases, it's pretty close. I really appreciate using that
one or two repositories, instead of having to mix and match from point
releases.
Have really got confused after going through your entire post - so I
am asking again - is it better to enable SL6X than SL6.1?
At some point you have to accept responsibility for the choice based on
your specific needs. If you need a stable system with minimal changes
use 6.1. If you can accept a little additional risk and want product
updates as they are folded in then select 6.x.
Actually using Ubuntu 10.04 - I have found automatic upgradation takes
place via update process and without any problem ( i.e from 10.04.1 -
10.04.2 - 10.04.3).
This method here is different! Now if I enable SL6.1
repositories only - then when the SL6.2 repo gets available - will it
be available through the gui SL addons yum.. or the method is
different ?
THANKS FOR ALL THE RESPONSES.
But as a novice I would again request to shed some light on this part
of my queries.
On my machine here I have two very demanding customers, me and my
partner.
I kept it on 6.0 until the VM version I have looked stable with 6.1 and
there were no complaints. So I moved to 6.1 on the firewall machine. It
promptly tossed its X11 cookies with either nouveau (which I had setup
and working on 6.0) and nVidia drivers which I tried in frustration. The
next kernel update fixed the problem. (I was able to work around it
since
I mostly administer from command-line anyway. And startx worked if I
told it to use a display other than the first one.)
So moving from 6.1 to 6.2 MIGHT cause problems that sticking with 6.1
and security updates only might avoid. But, then, it might
yum plugin PRESTO
Does the yum-plugin PRESTO works with SL repos? Thanks in advance for your kind suggestions.
Re: Does SL6 support yum-plugin-security ?
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Akemi Yagi amy...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:42 AM, jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote: Er, ah, um, but, sir, it's already there. [jdow ~]$ yum list yum-presto Loaded plugins: aliases, changelog, downloadonly, fastestmirror, refresh- : packagekit, security, tmprepo, verify, versionlock Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile * elrepo: elrepo.org * epel: mirror.steadfast.net * rpmforge: apt.sw.be * sl: ftp2.scientificlinux.org * sl-security: ftp2.scientificlinux.org Available Packages yum-presto.noarch 0.6.2-1.el6 sl The plugin is there but it won't work. You have to have a yum repository that is presto-enabled. Creating and maintaining such repositories is where more resources and some infra work are required. I have been late to watch this thread so I have just posted the same query again. Extremely sorry for that - Ignore my post. Thanks for the answers. Akemi
Re: sl6.1 and sl6x
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Tanmoy Chatterjee bum@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:48 PM, jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote:
On 2011/09/17 01:06, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote:
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcianka...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Tanmoy Chatterjeebum@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Connie Siehcs...@fnal.gov wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote:
Is there any difference between Sl6.1 and SL6x repositories? Do I need
to enable only of these two or both?
sl6x is a symbolic link to the current release. So at the moment
sl6x
points to sl6.1 since sl6.1 is the current release. When we release
sl6.2
then sl6x will point to sl6.2 .
So you need to pick 1 . If you pick sl6x you will updated via the yum
cron
job to the next release when it is released.
Thanks for the elaboration - so it is a good idea to enable the SL6x
repositories instead of SL6.1.
It's a choice, and it's actually a reasonable one to select 6.1. If
you follow the model of The Upstream Vendor, the 5.0, 5.1, 5.2
releases are all supposed to upgrade in place, automatically, to get
all current packages. 6.0 and 6.1 are timestamps for media
releases, and do not represent a different software repository
maintained by them. This avoids the amazing pain some of us had to
deal with for years, back with the original releases back when their
old 7.0 and 7.2 releases were likely to be incompatible.
This way works better, by not trying to split support among so many
sub releases.
Our friendly maintainers at Scientific Linux, understandably, don't
quite follow that, but with their common 5x repository, and
rolling releases, it's pretty close. I really appreciate using that
one or two repositories, instead of having to mix and match from point
releases.
Have really got confused after going through your entire post - so I
am asking again - is it better to enable SL6X than SL6.1?
At some point you have to accept responsibility for the choice based on
your specific needs. If you need a stable system with minimal changes
use 6.1. If you can accept a little additional risk and want product
updates as they are folded in then select 6.x.
Actually using Ubuntu 10.04 - I have found automatic upgradation takes
place via update process and without any problem ( i.e from 10.04.1 -
10.04.2 - 10.04.3).
This method here is different! Now if I enable SL6.1
repositories only - then when the SL6.2 repo gets available - will it
be available through the gui SL addons yum.. or the method is
different ?
THANKS FOR ALL THE RESPONSES.
But as a novice I would again request to shed some light on this part
of my queries.
On my machine here I have two very demanding customers, me and my partner.
I kept it on 6.0 until the VM version I have looked stable with 6.1 and
there were no complaints. So I moved to 6.1 on the firewall machine. It
promptly tossed its X11 cookies with either nouveau (which I had setup
and working on 6.0) and nVidia drivers which I tried in frustration. The
next kernel update fixed the problem. (I was able to work around it since
I mostly administer from command-line anyway. And startx worked if I
told it to use a display other than the first one.)
So moving from 6.1 to 6.2 MIGHT cause problems that sticking with 6.1
and security updates only might avoid. But, then, it might not. What
level of risk are you willing to take, very low or very very low? That
I can go up until that point when it becomes essential to reinstall
the entire system.
Then the very reason of installing SL ( instead of Fedora or similar
distributions with 6 month release cycle) gets diluted.
is your call to make. You're you and I'm me. We face different demands.
Thanks.
{^_^} Joanne
Re: sl6.1 and sl6x
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia nka...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Tanmoy Chatterjee bum@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Connie Sieh cs...@fnal.gov wrote: On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote: Is there any difference between Sl6.1 and SL6x repositories? Do I need to enable only of these two or both? sl6x is a symbolic link to the current release. So at the moment sl6x points to sl6.1 since sl6.1 is the current release. When we release sl6.2 then sl6x will point to sl6.2 . So you need to pick 1 . If you pick sl6x you will updated via the yum cron job to the next release when it is released. Thanks for the elaboration - so it is a good idea to enable the SL6x repositories instead of SL6.1. It's a choice, and it's actually a reasonable one to select 6.1. If you follow the model of The Upstream Vendor, the 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 releases are all supposed to upgrade in place, automatically, to get all current packages. 6.0 and 6.1 are timestamps for media releases, and do not represent a different software repository maintained by them. This avoids the amazing pain some of us had to deal with for years, back with the original releases back when their old 7.0 and 7.2 releases were likely to be incompatible. This way works better, by not trying to split support among so many sub releases. Our friendly maintainers at Scientific Linux, understandably, don't quite follow that, but with their common 5x repository, and rolling releases, it's pretty close. I really appreciate using that one or two repositories, instead of having to mix and match from point releases. Have really got confused after going through your entire post - so I am asking again - is it better to enable SL6X than SL6.1?
Re: Does SL6 support yum-plugin-security ?
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Stefan Lasiewski slasiew...@lbl.gov wrote: Greetings, Does SL6 support the yum-plugin-security [1] plugin? This would be very useful in addressing security advisories. In this respect I want to add - does the yum PRESTO plug-in works with SL6.1? The SL6 Deployment Guide mentions this plugin, but I'm not clear if SL6 supports this since the plugin requires a significant amount of work in the yum repositories. I installed this plugin on a brand new SL6.1 installation, but I'm not getting any information out of it: SL61 # yum list-sec cves Loaded plugins: security updateinfo list done SL61 # I've searched around for an answer to this, but I haven't found much information. Thank you! -= Stefan [1] http://magazine.redhat.com/2008/01/16/tips-and-tricks-yum-security/ [2] ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/documents/tuv/6/Deployment.Guide.html#sec-Plugin_Descriptions -- Stefan Lasiewski Email: stef...@nersc.gov Computer System Engineer III Email: slasiew...@lbl.gov Networking, Security, and Servers Group National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Re: sl6.1 and sl6x
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:48 PM, jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote:
On 2011/09/17 01:06, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote:
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcianka...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Tanmoy Chatterjeebum@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Connie Siehcs...@fnal.gov wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote:
Is there any difference between Sl6.1 and SL6x repositories? Do I need
to enable only of these two or both?
sl6x is a symbolic link to the current release. So at the moment
sl6x
points to sl6.1 since sl6.1 is the current release. When we release
sl6.2
then sl6x will point to sl6.2 .
So you need to pick 1 . If you pick sl6x you will updated via the yum
cron
job to the next release when it is released.
Thanks for the elaboration - so it is a good idea to enable the SL6x
repositories instead of SL6.1.
It's a choice, and it's actually a reasonable one to select 6.1. If
you follow the model of The Upstream Vendor, the 5.0, 5.1, 5.2
releases are all supposed to upgrade in place, automatically, to get
all current packages. 6.0 and 6.1 are timestamps for media
releases, and do not represent a different software repository
maintained by them. This avoids the amazing pain some of us had to
deal with for years, back with the original releases back when their
old 7.0 and 7.2 releases were likely to be incompatible.
This way works better, by not trying to split support among so many
sub releases.
Our friendly maintainers at Scientific Linux, understandably, don't
quite follow that, but with their common 5x repository, and
rolling releases, it's pretty close. I really appreciate using that
one or two repositories, instead of having to mix and match from point
releases.
Have really got confused after going through your entire post - so I
am asking again - is it better to enable SL6X than SL6.1?
At some point you have to accept responsibility for the choice based on
your specific needs. If you need a stable system with minimal changes
use 6.1. If you can accept a little additional risk and want product
updates as they are folded in then select 6.x.
Actually using Ubuntu 10.04 - I have found automatic upgradation takes
place via update process and without any problem ( i.e from 10.04.1 -
10.04.2 - 10.04.3).
This method here is different! Now if I enable SL6.1
repositories only - then when the SL6.2 repo gets available - will it
be available through the gui SL addons yum.. or the method is
different ?
On my machine here I have two very demanding customers, me and my partner.
I kept it on 6.0 until the VM version I have looked stable with 6.1 and
there were no complaints. So I moved to 6.1 on the firewall machine. It
promptly tossed its X11 cookies with either nouveau (which I had setup
and working on 6.0) and nVidia drivers which I tried in frustration. The
next kernel update fixed the problem. (I was able to work around it since
I mostly administer from command-line anyway. And startx worked if I
told it to use a display other than the first one.)
So moving from 6.1 to 6.2 MIGHT cause problems that sticking with 6.1
and security updates only might avoid. But, then, it might not. What
level of risk are you willing to take, very low or very very low? That
I can go up until that point when it becomes essential to reinstall
the entire system.
Then the very reason of installing SL ( instead of Fedora or similar
distributions with 6 month release cycle) gets diluted.
is your call to make. You're you and I'm me. We face different demands.
Thanks.
{^_^} Joanne
sl6.1 and sl6x
Is there any difference between Sl6.1 and SL6x repositories? Do I need to enable only of these two or both? Thanks for any suggetion.
Re: sl6.1 and sl6x
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Connie Sieh cs...@fnal.gov wrote: On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote: Is there any difference between Sl6.1 and SL6x repositories? Do I need to enable only of these two or both? sl6x is a symbolic link to the current release. So at the moment sl6x points to sl6.1 since sl6.1 is the current release. When we release sl6.2 then sl6x will point to sl6.2 . So you need to pick 1 . If you pick sl6x you will updated via the yum cron job to the next release when it is released. Thanks for the elaboration - so it is a good idea to enable the SL6x repositories instead of SL6.1. One more thing I want to know is fastbugs updates are safe to install? -Connie Sieh Thanks for any suggetion.
ESS-emacs package
Hello friends After recently installing SL6.1, I have tried to find out the Emacs speaks statistics (ESS) package in the repositories but have been unable to do so. Can anybody tell me which repository comes with this package? Thanks.
Fwd: ADSL/pppoe configuration
-- Forwarded message -- From: Tanmoy Chatterjee bum@gmail.com Date: Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:02 AM Subject: Re: ADSL/pppoe configuration To: Urs Beyerle urs.beye...@env.ethz.ch On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Urs Beyerle urs.beye...@env.ethz.ch wrote: Hi, On 08/28/2011 11:21 PM, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote: Hello friends I am a novice linux user and I have just installed SL6.1 from liveCD. Now I want to connect to internet and my ISP use ADSL/pppoe type of connection. I use rp-pppoe to connect to the internet when in Fedora 13. But the problem is that I have to download that package here first which I can't do without a net connection. In RHEL 6 Deployment guide I have found some work around with pppd but have not been able to figure it out. Googling about it also comes with the solution of RP-pppoe. 1) Can anybody direct me to a HOW-TO about the method ( pppd or something for which I don't have to download a package) ? 2) Why I can't use the NM applet and the DSL tab there to configure pppoe connection ? Thanks in advance. Since you could write this email I assume that you are somehow connected to the internet. If you know how to do it with rp-pppoe, I would simply Yes I am connected to internet via System Preferences Network Connections DSL tab. But connecting through this way have some problems. download the rp-pppoe rpm and put it on an USB stick. 3) I can do that. But after checking the RHEL Deployment guide - they have not mentioned this method for pppoe connection - as not being a computer student I want to know what the standard practice in this case for distribution such as RHEL. 4) Also why the Sys Pref Net Con DSL tab can not give a pppoe connection like rp-pppoe does. for 32bit: http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6.1/i386/os/Packages/rp-pppoe-3.10-8.el6.i686.rpm for 64 bit: http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6.1/x86_64/os/Packages/rp-pppoe-3.10-8.el6.x86_64.rpm Insert the USB stick into the SL61 system and install rp-pppoeas root: su - cd to_your_usb_stick yum localinstall rp-pppoe-3.10-8.el6.i686.rpm Cheers, Thanks for your reply. Urs
Re: ADSL/pppoe configuration
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Andreas Petzold andreas.petz...@kit.edu wrote: On Sunday, August 28, 2011 23:21:45 Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote: 2) Why I can't use the NM applet and the DSL tab there to configure pppoe connection ? I don't think there is a reason not to use NM to configure your DSL connection. It works me since Fedora 10 or so. I have tried that since I started using linux with Ubuntu 9.04 but few problems arise - check the following link and last page http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1359972 In NM configuration of pppoe I have entered the information of User id and password as in the case with rp-pppoe configuration and nothing else since I don't have other infos ( DNS, netmask etc) - with these rp-pppoe works without any problem but NM configuration face problem as in the link above. If you done things differently kindly mention those things. Thanks. Cheers, Andreas
Re: Fwd: ADSL/pppoe configuration
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Steven J. Yellin yel...@slac.stanford.edu wrote: You may already understand what I'm about to write, but it's possible that you're enough of a newbie that you've misunderstood the role of rpms, so I'll explain anyway: Downloading a rpm, like rp-pppoe, is not a method of connection; it's part of a proceedure for getting the rp-pppoe software into your computer if it isn't already there. If the command rpm -q rp-pppoe shows that the package is already there (compare with what you get for a non-existent rpm as in 'rpm -q Tanmoy') then there's no point in again putting it into your computer via a USB stick. The rpm should be installed once, and then never needs to be installed again. In the case of a distribution such as RHEL, standard practice is to have necessary rpms installed initially as part of the original system. It would be somewhat surprising if that didn't happen with rp-pppoe. I think I have failed to clearly point out my problem. I know how to set-up pppoe connection via Roaring Penguin software rp-pppoe as I have already done so with my Fedora 13 and Ubuntu partitions. As I am currently installing SL from Livecd which does not come with that rp-pppoe package. So that I have to download it somehow and then install it to set up a pppoe connection. That's why I am asking whether there are any other software/method to set up pppoe connection in SL? My confusion increases with googling and after going through RHEL documents - I have found some suggestions there as how to configure it with pppd. Just want to know how is it different than the software we are dicussing rp-pppoe and is there some easy steps to do so. Steven Yellin On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote: ... On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Urs Beyerle urs.beye...@env.ethz.ch wrote: ... download the rp-pppoe rpm and put it on an USB stick. 3) I can do that. But after checking the RHEL Deployment guide - they have not mentioned this method for pppoe connection - as not being a computer student I want to know what the standard practice in this case for distribution such as RHEL. ...
Re: Fwd: ADSL/pppoe configuration
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Mark Stodola stod...@pelletron.com wrote: Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote: On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Steven J. Yellin yel...@slac.stanford.edu wrote: You may already understand what I'm about to write, but it's possible that you're enough of a newbie that you've misunderstood the role of rpms, so I'll explain anyway: Downloading a rpm, like rp-pppoe, is not a method of connection; it's part of a proceedure for getting the rp-pppoe software into your computer if it isn't already there. If the command rpm -q rp-pppoe shows that the package is already there (compare with what you get for a non-existent rpm as in 'rpm -q Tanmoy') then there's no point in again putting it into your computer via a USB stick. The rpm should be installed once, and then never needs to be installed again. In the case of a distribution such as RHEL, standard practice is to have necessary rpms installed initially as part of the original system. It would be somewhat surprising if that didn't happen with rp-pppoe. I think I have failed to clearly point out my problem. I know how to set-up pppoe connection via Roaring Penguin software rp-pppoe as I have already done so with my Fedora 13 and Ubuntu partitions. As I am currently installing SL from Livecd which does not come with that rp-pppoe package. So that I have to download it somehow and then install it to set up a pppoe connection. That's why I am asking whether there are any other software/method to set up pppoe connection in SL? My confusion increases with googling and after going through RHEL documents - I have found some suggestions there as how to configure it with pppd. Just want to know how is it different than the software we are dicussing rp-pppoe and is there some easy steps to do so. Steven Yellin On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote: ... On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Urs Beyerle urs.beye...@env.ethz.ch wrote: ... download the rp-pppoe rpm and put it on an USB stick. 3) I can do that. But after checking the RHEL Deployment guide - they have not mentioned this method for pppoe connection - as not being a computer student I want to know what the standard practice in this case for distribution such as RHEL. ... I'm still not sure what you are trying to accomplish. If you have other linux distributions on other partitions, can't you simply wget the RPM from there, reboot to SL, mount the other OS's partition and copy/install it from there? http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6.1/i386/os/Packages/rp-pppoe-3.10-8.el6.i686.rpm Change release/arch as needed... Why go through all of the trouble of cobbling your connection via other means? Sounds like you are trying to make it harder than it actually is. ACTUALLY I WANT TO KNOW IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY - but it seems to me there is only one way - check the following link - http://www.lampdocs.com/home-personal/pppoe-connection/ Thanks -Mark -- Mr. Mark V. Stodola Digital Systems Engineer National Electrostatics Corp. P.O. Box 620310 Middleton, WI 53562-0310 USA Phone: (608) 831-7600 Fax: (608) 831-9591
ADSL/pppoe configuration
Hello friends I am a novice linux user and I have just installed SL6.1 from liveCD. Now I want to connect to internet and my ISP use ADSL/pppoe type of connection. I use rp-pppoe to connect to the internet when in Fedora 13. But the problem is that I have to download that package here first which I can't do without a net connection. In RHEL 6 Deployment guide I have found some work around with pppd but have not been able to figure it out. Googling about it also comes with the solution of RP-pppoe. 1) Can anybody direct me to a HOW-TO about the method ( pppd or something for which I don't have to download a package) ? 2) Why I can't use the NM applet and the DSL tab there to configure pppoe connection ? Thanks in advance.
