On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 06:51:27AM +, nestea wrote:
> hi folks,
>
> my debian box was newly installed, upgraded to unstable a week ago. i
> compiled 2.4.9 kernel yesterday and it works just fine. this morning i login
> as root and fire the 'w' command, i got weird result ;
>
> 14:37:30 u
hi folks,
my debian box was newly installed, upgraded to unstable a week ago. i compiled
2.4.9 kernel yesterday and it works just fine. this morning i login as root
and fire the 'w' command, i got weird result ;
14:37:30 up 1 day, 20:30, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
USER TTY
> I take it your logging into this box via a serial port?
> I believe that's the cause of it - Consoles and telnet
> logins appear fine for me.
>
> --
> Karl Ferguson
Here's how it hits my machine (kernel: 2.0.30)
I login to vt1 (alt F1), do a 'finger': I'm logged on.
I login to vt2 (alt
At 12:56 AM 27/04/97 -0400, Eloy A. Paris wrote:
>Probably it's nothing but I know for sure my utmp file got corrupted
>when my /var partition got full after the guys here at the
>office sent lots of e-mails with large attachments.
>
>I just started over with a zero length utmp and everything went
Probably it's nothing but I know for sure my utmp file got corrupted
when my /var partition got full after the guys here at the
office sent lots of e-mails with large attachments.
I just started over with a zero length utmp and everything went fine.
E.-
> OK, which log file gets corrupted - the
At 10:26 PM 26/04/97 +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>Oh great, you can reproduce it. Can you tell me
>
>1. which logfile gets corrupted
Both the wtmp and utmp.
>2. When (before login, during session, after logout)
Upon login it seems fine, but upon logout it seems to write two enteries
int
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Karl Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 09:12 PM 26/04/97 +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>>I don't think so. I've seen this behaviour before. The wtmp code
>>didn't change between 2.69 and 2.70 - the utmp code did (but very
>>slightly, and I still can't fi
At 09:12 PM 26/04/97 +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>I don't think so. I've seen this behaviour before. The wtmp code
>didn't change between 2.69 and 2.70 - the utmp code did (but very
>slightly, and I still can't find anything wrong with it). Anyway for
>2.71 the new code will be used for ut
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Karl Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 10:30 AM 25/04/97 +0300, Daniel MOSMONDOR - Mosh wrote:
>>Hi!
>>
>>I am kind of new to this mailing list, so please excuse me if this subject
>>is running around for some time.
At 10:30 AM 25/04/97 +0300, Daniel MOSMONDOR - Mosh wrote:
>Hi!
>
>I am kind of new to this mailing list, so please excuse me if this subject
>is running around for some time.
>
>I have a strange wtmp problem, and something suggests that is has something
>to do with different
Hi!
I am kind of new to this mailing list, so please excuse me if this subject
is running around for some time.
I have a strange wtmp problem, and something suggests that is has something
to do with different versions of important system files. I don't consider
myself as a linux guru (ye
11 matches
Mail list logo
