On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] stipulated:
> I'm starting to get sick of udev - on Ubuntu currently I'm unable to compile
> a
> vanilla kernel that works (I must still do more complete tests but I'm
> already beyond the "I've misconfigured something" moment).
All udev needs is CONFIG_HO
On Saturday 26 August 2006 14:35, Peter Hovorka wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> my sincere apologies to all of you for bothering about the Ubuntu eth
> problem.
Thanks for your apologies but thanks anyway for your competent cooperation.
> After talking to the ubuntu team we found out that the ubuntu
> in
Hi there,
my sincere apologies to all of you for bothering about the Ubuntu eth
problem. After talking to the ubuntu team we found out that the ubuntu
installer makes some entries in /etc/iftab to help udev whilst booting
the system. There were the two entries from the host system with eth0
an
On 8/20/06, Peter Hovorka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > Yes, Sir.
> >
> > I didn't want to be rude, sorry.
>
> Oh no - I guess I should have attached some kind of smiley there, I
> didn't think of you as rude. It's quite contrary: I'm very glad that
> you do all this work! So don't mind!
Hi,
> > Yes, Sir.
>
> I didn't want to be rude, sorry.
Oh no - I guess I should have attached some kind of smiley there, I
didn't think of you as rude. It's quite contrary: I'm very glad that
you do all this work! So don't mind!
> I was just surprised, and one of my thoughts was "it is barfing
On Saturday 19 August 2006 18:38, Peter Hovorka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > ./um2.6.16.27-bb1 ubd0=root_fs ubd1=swap_fs eth0=tuntap,tap112
> >
> > Do you really mean "tap112"?
>
> Yes, Sir.
I didn't want to be rude, sorry.
> > Nobody I think tried this. > I've checked
> > for bugs in parsing, but there i
On Sunday 20 August 2006 02:42, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 04:53:43PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > Do you really mean "tap112"? Nobody I think tried this.
>
> I have :-)
I forgot!
> Read The Book (and BTW, I need to figure out a way to get you
> a copy).
I reviewed it at the tim
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 04:53:43PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Do you really mean "tap112"? Nobody I think tried this.
I have :-) Read The Book (and BTW, I need to figure out a way to get you
a copy).
> If this were, say, a buffer overflow, or a bug because tap112 does not exist,
> the source
Hi,
> > ./um2.6.16.27-bb1 ubd0=root_fs ubd1=swap_fs eth0=tuntap,tap112
>
> Do you really mean "tap112"?
Yes, Sir.
> Nobody I think tried this. > I've checked
> for bugs in parsing, but there is none. Please give more details and
> try a saner setting, or elaborate on the reason of this strang
On Thursday 17 August 2006 12:56, Peter Hovorka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jeff told me to drop a note here about the following occurence:
>
> Having compiled a 2.6.16.27 guest kernel with a bb1 patchset, I was
> unable to bring up an eth0 via tun/tap. The kernel runs well, but a
> command line of
>
> ./um2.
Hi,
Jeff told me to drop a note here about the following occurence:
Having compiled a 2.6.16.27 guest kernel with a bb1 patchset, I was
unable to bring up an eth0 via tun/tap. The kernel runs well, but a
command line of
./um2.6.16.27-bb1 ubd0=root_fs ubd1=swap_fs eth0=tuntap,tap112 mem=100M
s
11 matches
Mail list logo
