ps reports Error: /proc must be mounted and also Segmentation fault?

I am just playing around with bf-common, not really knowing what I am doing. However, the following does not look right: rakefet:/# ps Error: /proc must be mounted To mount /proc at boot you need an /etc/fstab line like: /proc /proc procdefaults In the meantime, mount /proc /pro

pkgsel

Keep playing around with bf-common: After issuing rakefet:/# /root/pkgsel I got /root/pkgsel: [: too many arguments And then I got the ncurses screen of Debian Installation. 1) The marked line is able to be in the 3rd and 5th empty lines, although only the 1st, 2nd and 4th are m

Re: ps reports Error: /proc must be mounted and also Segmentation fault?

On Fri Nov 26, 1999 at 04:27:15AM +0200, Shaul Karl wrote: > I am just playing around with bf-common, not really knowing what I am doing. > However, the following does not look right: > > rakefet:/# ps > Error: /proc must be mounted > To mount /proc at boot you need an /etc/fstab line like: >

Re: ps reports Error: /proc must be mounted and also Segmentation fault?

> On Fri Nov 26, 1999 at 04:27:15AM +0200, Shaul Karl wrote: > > I am just playing around with bf-common, not really knowing what I am > > doing. > > However, the following does not look right: > > > > rakefet:/# ps > > Error: /proc must be mounted > > To mount /proc at boot you need an /etc/f

Re: ps reports Error: /proc must be mounted and also Segmentation fault?

On Fri Nov 26, 1999 at 07:07:27AM +0200, Shaul Karl wrote: > > I am using http://www.debian.org/~aph/boot-floppies/19991118/bf-common.tar.gz. > untarred them into the common dir. [snip-] > > Also note there are differences between your output and mine: > 1) Your ps output gives a

Re: ps reports Error: /proc must be mounted and also Segmentation fault?

> On Fri Nov 26, 1999 at 07:07:27AM +0200, Shaul Karl wrote: > > > > I am using > > http://www.debian.org/~aph/boot-floppies/19991118/bf-common.tar.gz. > > untarred them into the common dir. > [snip-] > > > > Also note there are differences between your output and mine: > > 1) Yo

Bug#51305: Including some good patches

Package: cucipop Severity: wishlist Version: 1.31-12 Please read the URL http://www.us.vergenet.net/linux/cucipop/ and think about including the segfault patch (I do not think it is included already) and the PAM patch. I could assist in testing. Regards, Alexander -- SGH Internet Division, Ale

Bug#51305: Including some good patches

On Fri, Nov 26, 1999 at 09:38:46AM +, Alexander Koch wrote: > Please read the URL http://www.us.vergenet.net/linux/cucipop/ > and think about including the segfault patch (I do not think > it is included already) and the PAM patch. I am working on it. cu Torsten

Bug#51305: Including some good patches

On Fri, Nov 26, 1999 at 12:53:32PM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > On Fri, Nov 26, 1999 at 09:38:46AM +, Alexander Koch wrote: > > > Please read the URL http://www.us.vergenet.net/linux/cucipop/ > > and think about including the segfault patch (I do not think > > it is included already) and

Bug#51305: Including some good patches

Hi Hamish. (btw, what is [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > Please read the URL http://www.us.vergenet.net/linux/cucipop/ > > > and think about including the segfault patch (I do not think > > > it is included already) and the PAM patch. > > > > I am working on it. > > cucipop already has PAM support usi

Bug#51305: Including some good patches

On Fri, Nov 26, 1999 at 01:24:01PM +, Alexander Koch wrote: > Hi Hamish. > > (btw, what is [EMAIL PROTECTED]) I don't know. I think it sends a message to a bug report without sending back the acknowledgement. > Oh, I missed that, sorry. Is that patch in your mailbox > somewhere (i.e. a seper

Processed: Fixed in NMU cucipop 1.31-13

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 51305 fixed Bug#51305: Including some good patches Severity set to `fixed'. > quit Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Darren Benham (administrator, Debian Bugs database)