On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 10:28, Eric Spakman wrote:
> > I think my evolution idea has died. My last few attempts to bring new
> > leaf branches in, or create new ones within our project have failed. The
> > bering-uclibc team seems to have gained enough support that other
> > derivations fail to succe
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 15:37, Martin Hejl wrote:
> > Most of our lists aren't moderated. Only leaf-announce,
> > leaf-cvs-commits, and leaf-auto are. I did setup our lists so very
> > little spam gets through. I even wrote a FAQ for mailman on the subject.
> > I clear our mailman held posts periodic
Hi Mike,
> Most of our lists aren't moderated. Only leaf-announce,
> leaf-cvs-commits, and leaf-auto are. I did setup our lists so very
> little spam gets through. I even wrote a FAQ for mailman on the subject.
> I clear our mailman held posts periodically (I used to do this daily,
> I'm lucky to
Ooops - didn't add the list... Sorry
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Mike,
>>I'm opening a new thread because first of all, this discussion isn't
>>about webconf packages anymore, and also, because I don't want to single
>>out the person whom I would be responding to.
>
> Since I'm talking to myself m
Missed the cc: earlier ...
--- Begin Message ---
2.4 is fine as-is: people using it for production systems are not likely
to move off it for a long time (if ever). You have it, it works, there's
little impetus in general to move to anything else, with all the
additional effort/risk/cost i
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 14:03, Martin Hejl wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Your mail to 'leaf-devel' with the subject
> >
> > [Fwd: Re: [leaf-devel] USB booting]
> >
> > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
> >
> > The reason it is being held:
> >
> > M
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Your mail to 'leaf-devel' with the subject
>
> [Fwd: Re: [leaf-devel] USB booting]
>
> Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
>
> The reason it is being held:
>
> Message has a suspicious header
>
> Either the message will get po
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 12:39, Martin Hejl wrote:
> I'm opening a new thread because first of all, this discussion isn't
> about webconf packages anymore, and also, because I don't want to single
> out the person whom I would be responding to.
Martin,
Since I'm talking to myself mostly, I guess that
Hi everybody,
I'm opening a new thread because first of all, this discussion isn't
about webconf packages anymore, and also, because I don't want to single
out the person whom I would be responding to.
Ok, lets get this straight - the way I read it, Eric asked twice if
somebody (emphasis, that's
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 10:51, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 09:14, David Douthitt wrote:
> > The makebootfat utility that was mentioned previously should be able to
> > do that. According to their docs:
> >
> > The USB-HDD (Hard Disk Drive) standard is the preferred
> > choice
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 09:14, David Douthitt wrote:
> The makebootfat utility that was mentioned previously should be able to
> do that. According to their docs:
>
> The BIOS USB boot support is generally differentiated
> in three categories: USB-HDD, USB-FDD and USB-ZIP.
>
> The USB
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 17:24, Mike Noyes wrote:
> Looking a bit further on the puppy linux site revealed they have a
> script for initializing a bootable usb drive.
>
> http://puppylinux.org/wikka/USB
> "Another alternative is that you can install Puppy
> tot
Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
It should be possible to make an image that has an HDD partition table
with a smallish (ie: maybe 8 Megs or so, still a *LOT* bigger than a
floppy) FAT partition containing the boot files as the first partition.
The remaining space could be unused, or formatted and us
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 08:50, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 00:59, Luis.F.Correia wrote:
> > But I'm willing to 'sacrifice' one of my USB sticks
Luis,
I think backing up your USB drive's MBR using dd should avoid any
sacrifice. It should probably be a recommended first step.
So
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 00:59, Luis.F.Correia wrote:
> > From: Charles Steinkuehler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > This should make it unnecessary to know the size of the USB
> > key (as long as the key is bigger than the boot partition
> > size). The geometry issue shouldn't generally be a
> > p
I am available too for testing.
having different epia, and a couple of assembled pcs.
Regards,
Andrea
--
Andrea Fino 8-) - "Sistemi su misura di qualita' industriale"
"Handcrafted systems with industrial quality"
[Web: http://www.faino.org ]+[Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
---
Hi
forgot an important issue...
The problem is normally related to CHS BIOS translation and I think
it all depends on the USB stick size.
Luis
> -Original Message-
> From: Luis.F.Correia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 9:00 AM
> To: leaf-devel@lists.sourcefor
Hey Guys,
>>But I'm willing to 'sacrifice' one of my USB sticks to make
>>tests in the 3 or 4 different machines I have access that
>>can do boot from USB, and yes, that includes some hp servers :)
I'll 'sacrifice' a few USB drives as well - if needed.
Jorn
-Original Message-
From: [EMA
Hi!
> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Steinkuehler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> IIRC, a USB keys can be formatted as a "floppy" type device
> (ie: one partition), or as a HDD (ie: 4 primary partitions).
>
> It should be possible to make an image that has an HDD
> partition table
19 matches
Mail list logo
