On Sun, 21 Jun 1998, Chris R. Martin wrote:
>
> I am having trouble installing libc6_2.0.7pre1-4. Here is the error
> message I'm getting from dpkg:
>
> libc6 conflicts with libc5 ( <<5.4.33-7 )
> version ( 5.4.33-3 ) installed
>
> I have been unable to find libc5_5.4.33-7 -- I can only find u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sun, 21 Jun 1998, Chris R. Martin wrote:
> I am having trouble installing libc6_2.0.7pre1-4. Here is the error
> message I'm getting from dpkg:
>
> libc6 conflicts with libc5 ( <<5.4.33-7 )
> version ( 5.4.33-3 ) installed
>
> I have been unable to find li
I am having trouble installing libc6_2.0.7pre1-4. Here is the error
message I'm getting from dpkg:
libc6 conflicts with libc5 ( <<5.4.33-7 )
version ( 5.4.33-3 ) installed
I have been unable to find libc5_5.4.33-7 -- I can only find up to revision
6 in stable.
Where can I get the version of l
Kendrick Myatt wrote:
>
> I have one box that is still Debian 1.2, can I upgrade to hamm
> directly, or should I go to bo first? Unfortunately this is not a
> test machine, so I can't afford to have it crashed. What's the best
> route for something like this?
My personal opinion is not
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Kendrick Myatt wrote:
> I have one box that is still Debian 1.2, can I upgrade to hamm
> directly, or should I go to bo first? Unfortunately this is not a
> test machine, so I can't afford to have it crashed. What's the best
> route for something like this?
I have simulate
I have one box that is still Debian 1.2, can I upgrade to hamm
directly, or should I go to bo first? Unfortunately this is not a
test machine, so I can't afford to have it crashed. What's the best
route for something like this?
Which brings me to another question... what do I use in dselect for
Rich Hartman wrote:
>
> Hello everyone:
>
> After many trials and tribulations, I have finally upgraded to
> hamm... First, I installed Debian 1.3 from CD, then immediately wrote
> my ppp script required to login to my server - worked great.
> Immediately upgraded to latest stable version, THEN i
Make sure that your /etc/ppp/peers/provider file contains:
noauth
This option tells pppd not to expect your ISP to authenticate itself
to you.
Bake
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello everyone:
After many trials and tribulations, I have finally upgraded to
hamm... First, I installed Debian 1.3 from CD, then immediately wrote
my ppp script required to login to my server - worked great.
Immediately upgraded to latest stable version, THEN immediately
upgraded to hamm usi
>> FWIW,
>>
>> I took the suggestion to try 2.0.32, and my system still acts up with
>> 128M in it. 64M is fine. I think it's the new SIMMs. They don't fail
>> memtest86, but gcc and dselect won't work...
>>
>> I haven't tried to test *just* the new SIMMs yet, but I'm suspicious of
>> them sim
FWIW,
I took the suggestion to try 2.0.32, and my system still acts up with
128M in it. 64M is fine. I think it's the new SIMMs. They don't fail
memtest86, but gcc and dselect won't work...
I haven't tried to test *just* the new SIMMs yet, but I'm suspicious of
them simply because they have a
On Wed, Apr 15, 1998 at 09:16:57PM +0300, Jaakko Niemi wrote:
> >> I have 2.0.33 running on an ABIT IT5H 2.0, K6-233 w/ 64 megs of RAM.
>
> I think that motherboard is based on the TX chipset, which does not cache
> any memory over 64mb. So adding more than that is most propably worse.
It's b
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 1998 at 12:29:39AM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
>> > There are some rather severe problems with memory corruption. Generally,
>> > you will only see them on busy systems. Other problems include memory
>> > leaks, filesystem problems and system hangs. There are also networking
>>
>>
>> And some 2.0.33 systems (mine at least) are quite stable with hamm.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>
>Quite possible if it only runs a few hours/day or is lightly loaded. I
>would consider it a ticking timebomb, though. One particular system of
>
we have quite a few systems running 2.0.33 up 24/7 with ple
Wow thanx
It turns out that MY CPU has a metal heat sink with a fan attached
but no heat sink grease (I will add some)
as fo r the memory
About a month back my memory went bad (2 days after a pwer
failure...I runa UPS now -- 1.5 KVA..its nice) and I grabbed 32
MB out of an old Pentium
Jeff Noxon wrote:
> to 2.0.32 or 34pre? My K6 is one of the ">32M bug free" ones.
>
You have me a bit worried
I posted last night (througha friend) and a littlwe while ago about a
major hardware problem
When I replaced my motherboard I also got some more RAM...
my new motherboard has 1
On Wed, Apr 15, 1998 at 10:39:40AM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Jeff Noxon wrote:
>
> > I have 2.0.33 running on an ABIT IT5H 2.0, K6-233 w/ 64 megs of RAM.
> > It's rock solid, but when I add another 64 megs, things start to segfault
> > all over the place. Is that a sympto
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, George Bonser wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Chris wrote:
>
> > I am, however, conserned about stablility...
> >
> > Does anyone know of any major problems with a hamm system?
> >
> > Chris
>
> Only on systems that have run 2.0.33. All systems running 2.0.32 are
> fi
On Wed, Apr 15, 1998 at 12:29:39AM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> There are some rather severe problems with memory corruption. Generally,
> you will only see them on busy systems. Other problems include memory
> leaks, filesystem problems and system hangs. There are also networking
> issues. 2.0.3
I was in the same position as you as of yesterday. I upgraded,
although, i had to use the upgrade script three times (well just to make sure, I
only needed to do it twice) for dependencies. However, I could not figure out
how to reexecute the script installation after the first time, so I
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Angel Vicente Perez wrote:
> > Only on systems that have run 2.0.33. All systems running 2.0.32 are
> > fine. There are none of the problems that Red Hat has been having with
> > its 5.0 release.
>
> I'd like more info about kernel 2.0.33. We have a linux box running 2.0.
> Only on systems that have run 2.0.33. All systems running 2.0.32 are
> fine. There are none of the problems that Red Hat has been having with
> its 5.0 release.
I'd like more info about kernel 2.0.33. We have a linux box running 2.0.33 and
nearly all packets from hamm, and I afraid...
--
To
Hi,
I am currently running a debian bo system, and I am considering upgrading
(or more to the point - re-installing) to a hamm system.
I am, however, conserned about stablility...
Does anyone know of any major problems with a hamm system?
Chris
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
I took my up to date bo distribution (always bleeding edge from ftp
updates) and used the latest hamm distribution autoup.sh script and
appropriate packages to update libc5-libc6. I then used dselect to suck
down all the important packages and had them updated.
When completed, I had a system with
Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, if you installed the specially compiled for bo bash 2.01 package
> be CERTAIN that you look back through the recent archives (this month)
> for note about the upgrade process -- the upgrade WILL fail.
Specifically, check
http://www.debian.org/Lists-A
Currently the best way to do what you want to do _IS_ to upgrade as
opposed to do a reinstall.
You want to use the 'autoup.sh' script file to start the process. Note
that the 'mountable' access method might still have some problems
intitially when you use dselect (after the autoup.sh has complete
Hello;
I am running Debian 1.3.1 currently. I am considering upgrading to
hamm (yes I know its still "unstable"). Can anyone recommend, if
I should start from scratch (reinstall the whole system) or
should I upgrade my current system. If your advice is to do the latter,
is there a
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Daniel Martin at cush wrote:
> Well, I went and used the autoup script for upgrading bo -> hamm.
> I ran into some problems, which, I suspect, were caused by my
> custom-compiled bash 2.01 package. As I know that some people on this
> list used that package, since I made it
Well, I went and used the autoup script for upgrading bo -> hamm.
I ran into some problems, which, I suspect, were caused by my
custom-compiled bash 2.01 package. As I know that some people on this
list used that package, since I made it publicly available, I'm
putting this warning out to people:
I downloaded hamm at University and our computer dude kindly wrote it onto
a CD for me. The directory system was a bit of a mess, and the CD was
vanilla iso9660 (no Rockridge extensions or anything, eight dot three
filenames), but after installing the first package (I think it was
dpgk-perl) dsele
the short answer is "maybe yes, maybe no". read on if you want the long
answer :-)
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Kirstin S. Reese wrote:
> Is it worthwhile to upgrade to hamm now, or should I wait till it is
> released?
that depends entirely on how well you deal with dselect/dpkg problems.
on the whol
Is it worthwhile to upgrade to hamm now, or should I wait till it is
released?
It would be very useful to have the latest netscape package, and the latest
xemacs package, but I don't need a broken system. Should I just continue to
bid my time? When is debian 2.0 due?
thanks,
kirstin
--
Take w
I started with an up to date bo distribution, and used the 'upgrade'
script (version 0.11) that was posted to the list a few days ago.
It mostly worked, but there were three problems.
After running the upgrade script, any new bashes that i start dont
work with vi keybindings, even if i ru
On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Christopher Jason Morrone wrote:
:
: Ok, I'd like to upgrade to hamm, because there are some things there that
: I need. I'm following the libc5 to libc6 howto, but I've got a couple
: questions/comments.
:
: The first conflict arose when I tried to install the second packag
Christopher Jason Morrone writes:
>
> Ok, I'd like to upgrade to hamm, because there are some things there that
> I need. I'm following the libc5 to libc6 howto, but I've got a couple
> questions/comments.
>
> The first conflict arose when I tried to install the second package,
> libc6_2.
So of those not so easily confused as the rest of us may well correct
this. I also have done the force on libc6 but think that it has something
to do with just exactly which 'old' libc5 is on your system. _If_ I
remember correctly, you can not install the libc5 from hamm first because
it _definat
On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Christopher Jason Morrone wrote:
>
> Ok, I'd like to upgrade to hamm, because there are some things there that
> I need. I'm following the libc5 to libc6 howto, but I've got a couple
> questions/comments.
>
> The first conflict arose when I tried to install the second pack
Ok, I'd like to upgrade to hamm, because there are some things there that
I need. I'm following the libc5 to libc6 howto, but I've got a couple
questions/comments.
The first conflict arose when I tried to install the second package,
libc6_2.0.5c-0.1 . It conflicted with the pthreads package. N
most of the important programs/libs are having segmentfaults when I try
to install them in the post-inst script. libc6, libreadlineg2,
bash2.01, etc.. what can I do?
-Paul
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL
Paul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How can I install hamm from scratch (I just installed 1.3.1
> yesterday)? I downloaded ncurses3.4-*.deb, is there anything else I
> need which isn't where is should be (unstable dirs)?
I apologize for bringing up what I expect is an old thread but I have
this is crazy! everything depends on everything else which depends on
libc5!
How can I install hamm from scratch (I just installed 1.3.1 a
yesterday)? I downloaded ncurses3.4-*.deb, is there anything else I
need which isn't where is should be (unstable dirs)?
-Paul
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS
41 matches
Mail list logo
