Re: Followup on unimplemented system calls 103 and 119

1998-11-10 Thread Derrick J Brashear
On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Matthew Haas wrote: > There is a kernel 2.0.35 binary which I could have installed as opposed to > the default 2.0.33... if I were to install this one, would it be > sufficient enough to fix my problems (get rid of the syscall warnings)? The (minor) patch may have been incorpo

Re: Followup on unimplemented system calls 103 and 119

1998-11-09 Thread Remco van de Meent
On Mon, Nov 09, 1998 at 04:11:42PM +, Jules Bean wrote: : > Compiling a kernel, I read something about the kernel couldn't be : > compiled with the debian source, and to get a vger source tree... what : > about a regular stock source tree? I am considering ATTEMPTING to : > compile 2.1.125

Re: Followup on unimplemented system calls 103 and 119

1998-11-09 Thread Jules Bean
--On Mon, Nov 9, 1998 10:42 am -0500 "Matthew Haas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just browsed through Debian-sparc archives, and got a few answers, but I > still have a few questions: > Oops. I apologise for my last mail, then :-) > There is a kernel 2.0.35 binary which I could have install

Followup on unimplemented system calls 103 and 119

1998-11-09 Thread Matthew Haas
I just browsed through Debian-sparc archives, and got a few answers, but I still have a few questions: There is a kernel 2.0.35 binary which I could have installed as opposed to the default 2.0.33... if I were to install this one, would it be sufficient enough to fix my problems (get rid of the sy