>
> After recompiling new boot floppies could you put them up somewhere.
> Recompiling boot floppies on our small sparc 10/20 and Ultra I is a pain.
>
Done. Please try these:
http://auric.debian.org/~bcollins/disks-sparc/2.2.16-2000-08-03/
You should only need to get the root.bin to make sur
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 09:47:45AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > So what's the moral of the story: a (normal) bug report against gcc 2.95
> > because it seems to misoptimise jobs.c for sparc (although it works on
> > sparc64), an (important) bug report against ash to get it recompiled for
>
> So what's the moral of the story: a (normal) bug report against gcc 2.95
> because it seems to misoptimise jobs.c for sparc (although it works on
> sparc64), an (important) bug report against ash to get it recompiled for
> sparc potato (either disable -O2 for jobs.c or use gcc2.7.2.3) whic
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:16:39PM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Tue Aug 01, 2000 at 07:40:38PM +0200, Christian Meder wrote:
> > >
> > > The umount the rescue image, and try again. Changing things
> > > the way will avoid all the pain of recompiling everything.
> >
> > I guess we won't be a
On Tue Aug 01, 2000 at 07:40:38PM +0200, Christian Meder wrote:
> >
> > The umount the rescue image, and try again. Changing things
> > the way will avoid all the pain of recompiling everything.
>
> I guess we won't be able to avoid recompiling stuff, see below:
>
> + mount proc /proc -t proc
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 10:54:21AM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Tue Aug 01, 2000 at 06:25:30PM +0200, Christian Meder wrote:
> > > wierd reason. Is this repeatable? If so, are you in a position to run some
> > > tests?
> >
> > Yep and yes. It is repeatable. I get the error when booting via
On Tue Aug 01, 2000 at 06:25:30PM +0200, Christian Meder wrote:
> > wierd reason. Is this repeatable? If so, are you in a position to run some
> > tests?
>
> Yep and yes. It is repeatable. I get the error when booting via tftp (tried it
> several times) _and_ when booting via floppies.
>
> I
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 09:10:59PM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Mon Jul 31, 2000 at 03:20:10PM +0200, Christian Meder wrote:
> > Package: boot-floppies
> > Version: 2.2.16-2000-07-14;
> > Severity: important
> >
> > The kernel boots ok but when init starts busybox things fall apart:
> >
> >
On Mon Jul 31, 2000 at 03:20:10PM +0200, Christian Meder wrote:
> Package: boot-floppies
> Version: 2.2.16-2000-07-14;
> Severity: important
>
> The kernel boots ok but when init starts busybox things fall apart:
>
> init started: BusyBox 0.43 (2000.07.06-13.xxx) multi-call binary
> E: /proc doe
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:20:10PM +0200, Christian Meder wrote:
> Package: boot-floppies
> Version: 2.2.16-2000-07-14;
> Severity: important
>
> The kernel boots ok but when init starts busybox things fall apart:
>
> init started: BusyBox 0.43 (2000.07.06-13.xxx) multi-call binary
> E: /proc do
Package: boot-floppies
Version: 2.2.16-2000-07-14;
Severity: important
The kernel boots ok but when init starts busybox things fall apart:
init started: BusyBox 0.43 (2000.07.06-13.xxx) multi-call binary
E: /proc does not appear to be mounted (No such file or directory)
E: /proc does not appear
11 matches
Mail list logo
