On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:52:06PM +0100, Wouter Rademaker wrote:
When you have an other Alpha, you can try to
compose a harddisk (or a set of harddisks) that
can be booted on the Samsung 164UX/BX Alpha.
A set of harddisks is maybe the easiest:
You will need a harddisk with a fat-partition
Hello!
I have Samsung 164UX/BX Alpha (ruffian) with old RedHat 6.2 on it.
On all other computers i I have Debian.
I want to install Debian on this alpha computer.
There is one big problem:
I found in the net that this alpha has only ARCBIOS (no SRM console :( ).
And somthing like that on
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 01:14:38PM +0100, Roman Hirsch wrote:
I have Samsung 164UX/BX Alpha (ruffian) with old RedHat 6.2 on it.
On all other computers i I have Debian.
I want to install Debian on this alpha computer.
There is one big problem:
I found in the net that this alpha has only
Which is the URL to your web page ?
I have a Ruffian too, but installed with SuSE 7.1 -- I would update to
Debian too ;)
-Andreas.
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
I will put up a web page with instructions if I ever get mine to work.
--
Len Sorensen
--
Andreas Czerniak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AMCS -
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 05:04:10PM +0100, Andreas Czerniak wrote:
Which is the URL to your web page ?
I have a Ruffian too, but installed with SuSE 7.1 -- I would update to
Debian too ;)
I haven't made it yet since I haven't solved my install problem yet. :(
So far only my PWS433a has debian
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:52:06PM +0100, Wouter Rademaker wrote:
When you have an other Alpha, you can try to
compose a harddisk (or a set of harddisks) that
can be booted on the Samsung 164UX/BX Alpha.
A set of harddisks is maybe the easiest:
You will need a harddisk with a fat-partition
# Lennart Sorensen sprak:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 05:04:10PM +0100,
Andreas Czerniak wrote:
Which is the URL to your web page ?
I have a Ruffian too, but installed with SuSE
7.1 -- I would update to
Debian too ;)
I haven't made it yet since I haven't solved my
install problem yet. :(
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:59:17PM -0700, Mike Campbell wrote:
Um, I have 2.5-0exp3 from experimental installed:
When I went to the experimental pool (via the packages.debian.org
website) looking for a working libc6.1, I found glibc-2.3.999.2-11
(glibc-2.4 for all intents
]
-Original Message-
From: Bob Tracy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 5:27 PM
To: Steve Langasek
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian Etch
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:59:17PM -0700, Mike Campbell wrote:
Um, I have 2.5-0exp3
Uwe Schindler wrote:
There is a newer version of glibc in unstable now! With locales!
I try it now. The experimental version works great (you can use the locales
version from experimental even if it is newer).
I'll look for the newer glibc version and give it a try: it wasn't
showing up on
Got the 2.3.999.2-11 locales package built and installed. After doing
a bit of battle with localedef and friends (to actually install a few
locales), everything seems to be working fine.
Unrelated to the above, I note with some sadness the passing of the
stylish busy cursor I used to have with
Bob Tracy wrote:
Unrelated to the above, I note with some sadness the passing of the
stylish busy cursor I used to have with Sarge (the animated Mac-like
dots in a circle)...
Never mind. The upgrade broke the /etc/alternatives/x-cursor-theme
symbolic link, which needed to point to
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:59:17PM -0700, Mike Campbell wrote:
Um, I have 2.5-0exp3 from experimental installed:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg -l | grep libc6.1
ii libc6.1 2.5-0exp3 GNU
C Library: Shared libraries
ii libc6.1-dbg
Yeah, I don't see those packages in the glibc pool - have they been
deleted (or am I just missing them?).
I submitted the original bug in in August of 2005 - since Debian 4.0
still includes a 2.3.X series libc, why wasn't a patch to 2.3.6 included?
...tom
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Apr
@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian Etch
Yeah, I don't see those packages in the glibc pool - have they been
deleted (or am I just missing them?).
I submitted the original bug in in August of 2005 - since Debian 4.0
still includes a 2.3.X series libc, why wasn't a patch to 2.3.6 included
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 09:53:25AM -0400, Tom Evans wrote:
Yeah, I don't see those packages in the glibc pool - have they been
deleted (or am I just missing them?).
I submitted the original bug in in August of 2005 - since Debian 4.0
still includes a 2.3.X series libc, why wasn't a patch to
I imagine that no one followed up on the bug because the it was marked
as closed with the RESPONSE
that 2.5-exp3 *is* the fix for #325600.
That gave many of us the expectation that a 2.5 series glibc would make
its way into testing and then to
stable with the Etch release, I mean why else
Regarding my comments about the not-cancel.h file, the separate
architecture versions are in the NPTL area, so probably not an option.
...tom
Tom Evans wrote:
I imagine that no one followed up on the bug because the it was marked
as closed with the RESPONSE
that 2.5-exp3 *is* the fix
I noticed that I got Debian Etch today when I did a dist-upgrade. That
is always nice - a few weird failures, etc - working on them.
I noticed that there are some defunct mysql processes (or threads!?)
hanging out - where is the experimental libc that fixes this?
...tom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Just add experimental to your sources.list .
So Etch is now stable, yet it stil has a broken libc (what is it, over a year
now?) - that makes me sad.
Mike
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 11:15:09PM -0400, Tom Evans wrote:
I noticed that I got Debian Etch today when I did a dist-upgrade
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 11:15:09PM -0400, Tom Evans wrote:
where is the experimental libc that fixes this?
There isn't one, because so far glibc 2.5 doesn't build on alpha.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
Um, I have 2.5-0exp3 from experimental installed:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg -l | grep libc6.1
ii libc6.1 2.5-0exp3 GNU C
Library: Shared libraries
ii libc6.1-dbg 2.5-0exp3 GNU C
Library:
22 matches
Mail list logo
