Re: install on 505

1999-12-11 Thread Drew Parsons
On Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 02:49:11AM -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > Sorry- even more vague than I thought I was. Frankly, it was a couple of > weeks ago, and only now has it become apparent that it was important, so > my memory of the message is not perfect and I have not had time to > replicate it. IIR

Re: install on 505

1999-12-11 Thread Drew Parsons
On Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 02:49:11AM -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > Sorry- even more vague than I thought I was. Frankly, it was a couple of > weeks ago, and only now has it become apparent that it was important, so > my memory of the message is not perfect and I have not had time to > replicate it. IIR

Re: install on 505

1999-12-11 Thread Luis Villa
Sorry- even more vague than I thought I was. Frankly, it was a couple of weeks ago, and only now has it become apparent that it was important, so my memory of the message is not perfect and I have not had time to replicate it. IIRC, it was a "cannot access device" error. Considering how screwy th

Re: install on 505

1999-12-11 Thread Luis Villa
Sorry- even more vague than I thought I was. Frankly, it was a couple of weeks ago, and only now has it become apparent that it was important, so my memory of the message is not perfect and I have not had time to replicate it. IIRC, it was a "cannot access device" error. Considering how screwy th

Re: 2.2 kernel "flavors" needed for i386 -- any list?

1999-12-11 Thread Drew Parsons
On Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 12:00:53AM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > If you guys on debian-laptop agree, perhaps you could upload a special > 2.2.13-laptop kernel to unstable, and work with debian-boot to work > out issues? > That could be useful. It's a little inconvenient having to fiddle with ke

Re: 2.2 kernel "flavors" needed for i386 -- any list?

1999-12-11 Thread Drew Parsons
On Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 12:00:53AM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > If you guys on debian-laptop agree, perhaps you could upload a special > 2.2.13-laptop kernel to unstable, and work with debian-boot to work > out issues? > That could be useful. It's a little inconvenient having to fiddle with ke

Re: install on 505

1999-12-11 Thread Drew Parsons
On Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 12:46:27AM -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > 3) Got to the Install kernel, modules, etc. portion of the install, and > am prompted for install media. Tried literally every single possible > choice for the CDROM, including PCMCIA, and get an error every time. You could start by

Re: install on 505

1999-12-11 Thread Drew Parsons
On Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 12:46:27AM -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > 3) Got to the Install kernel, modules, etc. portion of the install, and > am prompted for install media. Tried literally every single possible > choice for the CDROM, including PCMCIA, and get an error every time. You could start by

install on 505

1999-12-11 Thread Luis Villa
Hey, y'all- I've been running RH on my sony vaio 505G for more than a year (since a day after I bought it, in fact.) Recently I attempted to switch it over to Debian, just like my desktop(s). However, I ran into problems. What I did: 1) Booted from the CD, passing ide2=0x180,0x386 to the kernel

install on 505

1999-12-11 Thread Luis Villa
Hey, y'all- I've been running RH on my sony vaio 505G for more than a year (since a day after I bought it, in fact.) Recently I attempted to switch it over to Debian, just like my desktop(s). However, I ran into problems. What I did: 1) Booted from the CD, passing ide2=0x180,0x386 to the kernel

Re: 2.2 kernel "flavors" needed for i386 -- any list?

1999-12-11 Thread Adam Di Carlo
Arrigo Triulzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What I find puzzling is that, unless I've missed the plot of course, > we never install a particular kernel-image on the HD which to me means > that we are effectively booting from HD using the same kernel as the > one on the bootdisks. So why should i

Re: 2.2 kernel "flavors" needed for i386 -- any list?

1999-12-11 Thread Adam Di Carlo
Arrigo Triulzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What I find puzzling is that, unless I've missed the plot of course, > we never install a particular kernel-image on the HD which to me means > that we are effectively booting from HD using the same kernel as the > one on the bootdisks. So why should i