Hello David ! D.Emerson: > Well maybe next message I'll change the subject to "network config"... :-)
> Card Recognized! problems with debian packaging... isn't that why I decided > on debian rather than Mandrake? It was because I was expecting the > packaging to work better... hmph. I did experience such things also. However, I'm quite sure that it wasn't because of a weak package management but instead becuase of my own ignorance, wrong reactions at critical points or very unfortunate circumstances. It's not possible to foresee anything wickened happening in a system or human, and for half of what one can imageine it's not possibe to write a software - often, simply for limited resources. DPKG is working on a igh level of safety, but still gives the user most possibilities to customize and decide about things. Where other distro's ( imho ) tend to make it easy and transparent, but more 'closed behind the doors' and rather influencable. Debian requests you, and urges you to learn, and get your brain active ;-) Usually nobody says it's the best distro for beginners but i would say, if you first learn it this way, you've learned something for life, with computers. > The big problem I had here is that pcmcia-cs was not properly installed, > but it THOUGHT it was properly installed. apt-get said it was properly > installed I guess there were some failure messages at the first install. One has to get used to look carefully, and _read_, with debian.... ( that apllies for me as well ) > So since it thought it was properly installed, I had to uninstall pcmcia-cs > (and pcmcia-module-xx) and reinstall them both, and TADA! two high beeps, > card properly identified and configured. You see ? That's how it should be :-) > Feb 11 02:22:09 lakshmi cardmgr[246]: + Ignoring unknown interface > eth0=eth0. nono...first do your reading ! ( which means, I've got no idea ;) > >Why testing ? I thought you're running stable woody ? > >Please check your /etc/apt/sources.list. Maybe it's out of date. > >My woody apt tells me 'pcmcia-modules-2.2.20' are compiled for > > 'kernel-image 2.2.20-5'. > > Well, the kernel image 2.2.20-5 is stable, but the pcmcia-modules-2.2.20-5 > is testing, and there is another version of it that is marked unstable. But > I had to upgrade the kernel from 2.2.20-1 which is what came on the CD, > because I couldn't find a pcmcia-modules-2.2.20-1. Now, look. Package versioning sometimes is confusing, i know .... There's a kernel package version 2.2.20-5 for kernel image 2.2.20, here in my 'stable' database; and also a package pcmcia-modules 2.2.20 which in the description is said to be compiled for kernel-package 2.2.20-5. So it seems it's all here in woody. However, I've got a set of cd's here, 4 weeks old. Maybe it has changed. > yup, that sure was it! yepp, and on to next stuff ! -- micha.
