On %M 0, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote
> On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:30:51 +, Lazarus Long wrote:
>
> [...]
> >If I add 2.2.x to lilo at some point, choosing between 2.0.36 and 2.2.x
> >at boot will not be adequate? (This is what I've suspected, but been
> >told otherwise.)
>
> I *think* 2.0.36 is a ker
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:30:51 +, Lazarus Long wrote:
[...]
>If I add 2.2.x to lilo at some point, choosing between 2.0.36 and 2.2.x
>at boot will not be adequate? (This is what I've suspected, but been
>told otherwise.)
I *think* 2.0.36 is a kernel version that also/already understands the ne
On Sunday, April 25, 1999 at 21:58:00 +0200, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Ralf G. R. Bergs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows NT (4.0.1381;4)
> X-UIDL: 1a221bff160923f5da1cdacc63d97269
>
> Shouldn't there be a
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 20:42:49 +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> >I discovered that on ALL my systems that originally were Debian 2.0
and have
> >
> >been upgraded to Debian 2.1 /dev/console is wrong. It's a link to
/dev/tty0
> >instead of a device special file (mknod -m 622 /dev/console c
"Ralf G. R. Bergs" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I discovered that on ALL my systems that originally were Debian 2.0 and have
>
>been upgraded to Debian 2.1 /dev/console is wrong. It's a link to /dev/tty0
>instead of a device special file (mknod -m 622 /dev/console c 5 1).
>
>Can anyone pls.
Hi,
I discovered that on ALL my systems that originally were Debian 2.0 and have
been upgraded to Debian 2.1 /dev/console is wrong. It's a link to /dev/tty0
instead of a device special file (mknod -m 622 /dev/console c 5 1).
Can anyone pls. check whether this is the case with "native" 2.1 syste
6 matches
Mail list logo
