Allan Lyons wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 08:21:44PM +1000, Tim Bates wrote:
>
>
>> I have all ours set to create a full drive partition. The failures don't
>> seem to have any pattern beyond being mostly the newer PCs.
>>
>
> What type of computer are they?
Random Lenovo desktops rang
>
> Well, I cant give you any first hand reasons as I have not used dosemu since
> I
> posted the very first stumbling nt5x-install patches here.
>
> To me it seems like the trouble people have with nt5x-install
> is the old bios geometry and limitations in FAT.
> When we throw shaky microsoft a
On Tuesday 07 July 2009 19:39:08 Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Pierre Bourgin escribió:
> > IMHO, it should be sufficient to define and describe precisely what is
> > the "official" or reference platform for building Unattended: linux
> > distribution flavor, exact versions of gcc and glibc of the host
Onsdag 8. juli 2009, skrev Allan Lyons:
> In looking over some stuff, I couldn't come up with a reason why we still
> have dosemu. What does the dosemu code-path give us that the newer
> nt5x-install method does not? I know it was there historically, but what
> features does it have that are miss
Tirsdag 7. juli 2009, skrev Allan Lyons:
> Our basic
> problem is that our tool chain is getting contaminated by the host build
> system.
This is a major pain.
Even if we all use debian stable it will be differences in the compiled
product.
>
> There are roughly two parts to Unattended. One par
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 08:21:44PM +1000, Tim Bates wrote:
> I have all ours set to create a full drive partition. The failures don't
> seem to have any pattern beyond being mostly the newer PCs.
What type of computer are they?
Allan.
--
same here
I've tried ntinstall once but it did not work on all my machines. did not try
to figure it out as dosemu worked fine.
Compiling the bootdisk can be a pain in the ass but I still succeeded.
kind regards
werner maes
Van: Juan Jose Pablos [jua..
Allan Lyons escribió:
> In looking over some stuff, I couldn't come up with a reason why we still
> have dosemu. What does the dosemu code-path give us that
> the newer nt5x-install method does not? I know it was there historically,
> but what features does it have that are missing in the
> n
On 8/07/2009 7:51 PM, Pierre Bourgin wrote:
> Tim Bates a écrit :
>> On 8/07/2009 5:00 PM, insrc wrote:
>>> Yep, i'm glad that dosemu is still there as i can't do unattended
>>> installation with nt5x-install method
>> Same... In our case, the dosemu works on all our computers, but the
>> nt5x met
Tim Bates a écrit :
> On 8/07/2009 5:00 PM, insrc wrote:
>> Yep, i'm glad that dosemu is still there as i can't do unattended
>> installation with nt5x-install method
> Same... In our case, the dosemu works on all our computers, but the nt5x
> method seems to fail on a few of the newer ones. It do
On 8/07/2009 5:00 PM, insrc wrote:
> Yep, i'm glad that dosemu is still there as i can't do unattended
> installation with nt5x-install method
Same... In our case, the dosemu works on all our computers, but the nt5x
method seems to fail on a few of the newer ones. It does it's thing, but
once it
insrc a écrit :
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Pierre Bourgin
> wrote:
>
>> Allan Lyons a écrit :
>>> In looking over some stuff, I couldn't come up with a reason why we still
>> have dosemu.
>>> What does the dosemu code-path give us that the newer nt5x-install
>>> method does not? I know it
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Pierre Bourgin
wrote:
> Allan Lyons a écrit :
> > In looking over some stuff, I couldn't come up with a reason why we still
> have dosemu.
> > What does the dosemu code-path give us that the newer nt5x-install
> > method does not? I know it was there historically,
13 matches
Mail list logo
