Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-29 Thread Frans Pop
On Saturday 29 April 2006 22:07, Digby Tarvin wrote: > Can you give me a clue on how to do that? I assume I need to > add entries for unstable to my /etc/apt/sources.list, but > somehow avoid inadvertently mixing testing and unstable packages > in the rest of my system.. No. For single packages it

Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-29 Thread Digby Tarvin
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:30:50PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Saturday 29 April 2006 01:05, Digby Tarvin wrote: > > 1. Mysterious '/etc/modules' content > > These are all wrong and should be either deleted or at least the ".load" > should be removed. The best thing is probably to delete them co

Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-29 Thread Digby Tarvin
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:21:17PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Saturday 29 April 2006 19:34, Digby Tarvin wrote: > > Both this: > > hda: hda1 hda4 < hda5<4>ata1: PIO error > > ata1: dev 1 cfg 49: 82: 83: 84: 85: 86: 87: > > 88: > > and this: > > ata1: no dma >

Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-29 Thread Frans Pop
On Saturday 29 April 2006 01:05, Digby Tarvin wrote: > 1. Mysterious '/etc/modules' content > > The installation left the following content in the /etc/modules file: > # /etc/modules: kernel modules to load at boot time. > # > # This file contains the names of kernel modules that

Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-29 Thread Frans Pop
On Saturday 29 April 2006 19:34, Digby Tarvin wrote: Both this: > hda: hda1 hda4 < hda5<4>ata1: PIO error > ata1: dev 1 cfg 49: 82: 83: 84: 85: 86: 87: > 88: and this: > ata1: no dma does not look good. You may be better of trying the 2.6.16 kernel from unstabl

Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-29 Thread Digby Tarvin
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:26:49PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > Right, made a bit of a mess with that. > Better do: ># echo options libata atapi_enabled=1 >> /etc/modprobe.d/libata > and delete whatever file that was created because of my earlier completely > broken suggestion. I have finally

Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-28 Thread Digby Tarvin
Further to my original report, I believe I have identified some other configuration errors which were left by the installer which were ralatively benign so did not notice them initially. I'm not sure if this should be a new report or an addendum, but as it refers to the same install it would seem

Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-20 Thread Digby Tarvin
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 06:23:42PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > and the X server was not working - failing with > > Fatal server error: > > could not optn default font 'fixed'; > > X in unstable is going through a major migration ATM and there are some > known issues. Any issues are outsid

Bug#363331: Fwd: Re: Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-18 Thread Frans Pop
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 02:20, Frans Pop wrote: > Hmm. Actually, I think I've read that modprobe.conf overrules anything > that is in /etc/modprobe.d... > Could you check if that is the case if you use the second method? Is > there a file (maybe empty) /etc/modprobe.conf that could overrule what

Bug#363331: Fwd: Re: Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-18 Thread Digby Tarvin
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 02:20:06AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Wednesday 19 April 2006 01:42, Digby Tarvin wrote: > > But the modprobe.d method doesn't work on my system for installation or > > post installation, and I think there is a good chance the two issues > > are be related. > [snip] > In o

Bug#363331: Fwd: Re: Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-18 Thread Frans Pop
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 01:42, Digby Tarvin wrote: > But the modprobe.d method doesn't work on my system for installation or > post installation, and I think there is a good chance the two issues > are be related. This is the code that parses the option you pass as a kernel option: if [ -n "$PA

Bug#363331: Fwd: Re: Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-18 Thread Digby Tarvin
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 12:47:36AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Wednesday 19 April 2006 00:12, Digby Tarvin wrote: > > Actually I should have mentioned that I had tried correcting > > the syntax in modprobe.d. I had changed /etc/modprobe.d/libata to > > "options libata atapi_enabled=1" > > which no

Bug#363331: Fwd: Re: Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-18 Thread Digby Tarvin
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 10:17:36PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Tuesday 18 April 2006 21:49, Digby Tarvin wrote: > > I suppose 'change your hardware to something better supported' is > > always going to be a possible solution to an installation problem, > > but won't be much help to the next person

Bug#363331: Fwd: Re: Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-18 Thread Frans Pop
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 00:12, Digby Tarvin wrote: > Actually I should have mentioned that I had tried correcting > the syntax in modprobe.d. I had changed /etc/modprobe.d/libata to > "options libata atapi_enabled=1" > which no longer produces a syntax warning, but I still get > "ata1(0): WARNI

Bug#363331: Fwd: Re: Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-18 Thread Digby Tarvin
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:26:49PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Tuesday 18 April 2006 20:04, Frans Pop wrote: > > > # echo "libata.atapi_enabled=1" >/etc/modutils.d/local > > > > > > This file was supposed to be created by the installer, but there was > > > an error in the code. > > > > Still no lu

Bug#363331: Fwd: Re: Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-18 Thread Frans Pop
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 20:04, Frans Pop wrote: > > # echo "libata.atapi_enabled=1" >/etc/modutils.d/local > > > > This file was supposed to be created by the installer, but there was > > an error in the code. > > Still no luck - are you sure about the directory? I had no > /etc/modutils.d exitin

Bug#363331: Fwd: Re: Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-18 Thread Digby Tarvin
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 03:04:43PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote: > > Many of the old 10Mbit hubs didn't handle speed and/or duplex > negotiation as well as modern specs require. > > Is it possible that the installer's driver software (or the associated > configuration files) are less sophisticated

Bug#363331: Fwd: Re: Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-18 Thread Frans Pop
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 21:49, Digby Tarvin wrote: > I suppose 'change your hardware to something better supported' is > always going to be a possible solution to an installation problem, > but won't be much help to the next person who tries the same > combination. Well, if you can find out why d

Bug#363331: Fwd: Re: Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-18 Thread Rick Thomas
On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Frans Pop wrote: The Realtek device is a 10/100 UTP interface, which was connected to a 10Mb hub, which failed to work also. It was not till I connected to a 10/100Mb hub that the network started to work for the Debian install, so I suspect it was not supporting

Bug#363331: Fwd: Re: Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-18 Thread Frans Pop
-- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Re: Bug#363331: installation-reports Date: Tuesday 18 April 2006 19:38 From: Digby Tarvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi Frans, Thanks for acknowledging my report... On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 06:23:42PM +020

Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-18 Thread Frans Pop
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 16:12, Digby Tarvin wrote: > Comments/Problems: > Initial attempt to install using Etch Beta 2 Install image failed to > detect the SATA DVD-RAM drive, even following the workaround > instructions at http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/SataAtapiHowto Strange. > Switchi

Bug#363331: installation-reports

2006-04-18 Thread Digby Tarvin
Package: installation-reports Boot method: Boot from netinst install CD Image version: Debian etch installation CD-ROM, built 20060409 Date: Mon Apr 17 08:55:00 GMT/BST 2006 Machine: Fujitsu LifeBook P7120 Notebook Processor: Intel Pentium M Processor ULV 753 (1.2 GHz, 2M L2 Cache) Memory: 1 GB P