On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
I may have had to use the statically linked /rescue to do some things,
I don't remember. It's not completely trivial, but someone who knows
their way around a FreeBSD system can do it.
We did it by using miniroot on swap partition of the system disk.
T
Hi,
i have another Way that might be good, also for remote
take over.
You know Colin's depenguinator?
I have made my own new depenguinator, that could install
a complete base-system by building it on another box.
Anyone interested? I have written an Howto, that is at the time
not online.
cheer
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:04:01PM +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 06:21:40PM -0400, Indigo 23 wrote:
> > Does anyone think that its worth the hassle? If you do manage to get
> > it up and running, will you see any noticeable advantages or is it
> > better to just stick with
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 06:21:40PM -0400, Indigo 23 wrote:
> Does anyone think that its worth the hassle? If you do manage to get
> it up and running, will you see any noticeable advantages or is it
> better to just stick with i386? The only caveat that I can see is a
> recompilation of all the
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 01:02:05AM +0200, Marcus Kaatari wrote:
> On 17/06/07, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 11:52:34PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:19:21PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 12:21:42PM +
On 17/06/07, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 11:52:34PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:19:21PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 12:21:42PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> > > Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jun 16
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 11:52:34PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:19:21PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 12:21:42PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> > > Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:38:29AM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> > > >> I
Does anyone think that its worth the hassle? If you do manage to get
it up and running, will you see any noticeable advantages or is it
better to just stick with i386? The only caveat that I can see is a
recompilation of all the ports. Any thoughts?
___
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:19:21PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 12:21:42PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> > Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:38:29AM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> > >> Indigo 23 wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> the ports? (I already know that it does requ
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 12:21:42PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:38:29AM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> >> Indigo 23 wrote:
> >>
> >>> the ports? (I already know that it does require a recompilation of
> >>> world and the kernel).
> >> AFAIK nobody has s
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:38:29AM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> Indigo 23 wrote:
>>
>>> the ports? (I already know that it does require a recompilation of
>>> world and the kernel).
>> AFAIK nobody has succeeded in this (i.e. upgrading i386 to amd64 via
>> buildkernel/world) o
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:38:29AM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Indigo 23 wrote:
>
> > the ports? (I already know that it does require a recompilation of
> > world and the kernel).
>
> AFAIK nobody has succeeded in this (i.e. upgrading i386 to amd64 via
> buildkernel/world) on-line far enough to te
Indigo 23 wrote:
> the ports? (I already know that it does require a recompilation of
> world and the kernel).
AFAIK nobody has succeeded in this (i.e. upgrading i386 to amd64 via
buildkernel/world) on-line far enough to tell the tale. You might be the
first :)
signature.asc
Description: Open
13 matches
Mail list logo