Alex Schuster wrote:
Dale asks:
While I am at it, what is the syntax to mask a package higher than a
certain version in package.mask? I tired =>package.name.version and
tried>= package.name.version but the former doesn't work and seems to
ignore it and the later makes emerge print a boo bo
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Peter Humphrey
wrote:
> On Thursday 14 July 2011 16:39:03 Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> I think it would be helpful at this point to see emerge --info and the
>> sort of stuff I outlined earlier. What else can we do?
>>
>> There still exists the possibility of a bad piec
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 05:28, Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:31:00 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> * Searching for nvidia* ...
>>> [IP-] [ ] media-video/nvidia-settings-**260.19.29:0
>>> [IP-] [ ] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-**275.09.07:0
>>> root@fireball / #
On Thursday 14 July 2011 16:39:03 Mark Knecht wrote:
> I think it would be helpful at this point to see emerge --info and the
> sort of stuff I outlined earlier. What else can we do?
>
> There still exists the possibility of a bad piece of hardware. A
> defective GPU, thermal issues on a motherbo
On Thursday 14 Jul 2011 10:09:18 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:28:38 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > I'm going to beat this dead horse a little more. BRB
>
> You could try switching to Chromium ;-)
Is that much different (other than the GUI) from running Konqueror with the
WebKit browser
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Willie Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 06:52:12AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> A complete reboot like that might be software jumping to the wrong
>> address but, if so, it seems to me that it's more likely caused by how
>> you've built the machine and not the
Willie Wong wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 06:52:12AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
A complete reboot like that might be software jumping to the wrong
address but, if so, it seems to me that it's more likely caused by how
you've built the machine and not the software itself having a bug.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 06:52:12AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> A complete reboot like that might be software jumping to the wrong
> address but, if so, it seems to me that it's more likely caused by how
> you've built the machine and not the software itself having a bug.
If this is a continuation
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Dale wrote:
> I'm baakk. Anybody want to guess why? Come on, guess. First
> one doesn't count.
>
> OK. This thing ran for a while with no problems. I'm downloading a video
> while I am watching TV. I use Firefox for that because it has that downl
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:28:38 -0500, Dale wrote:
> I'm going to beat this dead horse a little more. BRB
You could try switching to Chromium ;-)
--
Neil Bothwick
"Self-explanatory": technospeak for "Incomprehensible & undocumented"
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:31:00 -0500, Dale wrote:
* Searching for nvidia* ...
[IP-] [ ] media-video/nvidia-settings-260.19.29:0
[IP-] [ ] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-275.09.07:0
root@fireball / #
I'm on the latest of everything that is in the tree.
N
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:31:00 -0500, Dale wrote:
> * Searching for nvidia* ...
> [IP-] [ ] media-video/nvidia-settings-260.19.29:0
> [IP-] [ ] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-275.09.07:0
> root@fireball / #
> I'm on the latest of everything that is in the tree.
No you're not. You are mixing ~amd64
I'm baakk. Anybody want to guess why? Come on, guess.
First one doesn't count.
OK. This thing ran for a while with no problems. I'm downloading a
video while I am watching TV. I use Firefox for that because it has
that download helper tool and I like it. I couldn't find it f
On 07/11/2011 02:30 PM, Dale wrote:
>> =x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-173.99.99 or something to that effect.
>> I just can't recall how to do it at the moment but each time I do a
>> emerge -uvDNa world, it wants to upgrade the nvidia drivers to the
>> 275 series or something.
I've had the same probl
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:30:40 -0500, Dale wrote:
> WOW !!! I'm not the only one that leaves out the word NOT. Funny how
> that three letter word can change the meaning of a sentence so much.
> It seems to turn things on its head so to speak. ;-)
That is more or less the idea of the word :P
-
On Monday 11 July 2011 23:30:40 Dale wrote:
> WOW !!! I'm not the only one that leaves out the word NOT. Funny how
> that three letter word can change the meaning of a sentence so much. It
> seems to turn things on its head so to speak. ;-)
Is that why I seem only to see the word 'not' in cap
walt wrote:
On 07/11/2011 09:42 AM, Alex Schuster wrote:
Although Neil may have a point when he says that an unclean shutdown could
have corrupted things. I was under the impression that with a journaling
file system this should be safe, but I do not know much bout this.
I agree with
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
No! It is not the latest. It's just what portage is offering you. The
link I sent you clearly (!?) stated that you need to be running the
latest 'Certified' driver revision 275.09.07 to get this fix. Just
becaus
On 07/11/2011 09:42 AM, Alex Schuster wrote:
> Although Neil may have a point when he says that an unclean shutdown could
> have corrupted things. I was under the impression that with a journaling
> file system this should be safe, but I do not know much bout this.
I agree with Neil so (if I'm
Alex Schuster wrote:
Dale asks:
While I am at it, what is the syntax to mask a package higher than a
certain version in package.mask? I tired =>package.name.version and
tried>= package.name.version but the former doesn't work and seems to
ignore it and the later makes emerge print a boo bo
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> > No! It is not the latest. It's just what portage is offering you. The
>> > link I sent you clearly (!?) stated that you need to be running the
>> > latest 'Certified' driver revision 275.09.07 to get this fix. Just
>> > because the Gent
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:27:32 -0500, Dale wrote:
WAG - have you tried the nv drivers?
I did but I couldn't get X to even start. I guess something is not set
right somewhere. I have nv in make.conf and been there since I built
this thing so sort of clueless
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Dale wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
DAle,
PLEASE look at bullet item #3 in this NVidia release:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux-display-amd64-275.09.07-driver.html
Fixed a bug that caused freezes and crashes when resizing win
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:17:28 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > Gentoo devs don't mark software as stable, they mark ebuilds as
> > stable. This has no direct link to the usability of the software
> > itself.
> >
> >
>
> Nuh uh. From http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html,
>
> arc
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:42:06 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:
> Although Neil may have a point when he says that an unclean shutdown
> could have corrupted things. I was under the impression that with a
> journaling file system this should be safe, but I do not know much bout
> this.
Journalling norma
Jesús J. Guerrero Botella wrote:
2011/7/11 Dale:
Dale wrote:
Bill Kenworthy wrote:
On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 00:03 -0500, Dale wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
DAle,
Hi Dale, not quite the same but something else to check - after my
6monthly update
Dale asks:
> While I am at it, what is the syntax to mask a package higher than a
> certain version in package.mask? I tired =>package.name.version and
> tried >= package.name.version but the former doesn't work and seems to
> ignore it and the later makes emerge print a boo boo message. On my o
walt writes:
[interrupted emerges]
> That's when I use ebuild instead of starting the emerge from scratch.
> Let's say I'm emerging libreoffice and the machine goes down (shudder).
>
> After fixing the problem I would try the following:
> #cd /usr/portage/app-office/libreoffice/
> #ebuild ./libr
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 07/11/11 09:45, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>
>> Gentoo devs don't mark software as stable, they mark ebuilds as stable.
>> This has no direct link to the usability of the software itself.
>>
>>
>
> Nuh uh. From http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ke
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:45 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:47:28 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> > That is the latest for my card that is in the tree.
>>
>> No! It is not the latest. It's just what portage is offering you. The
>> link I sent you clearly (!?) stated that you need
On 07/11/11 09:45, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
> Gentoo devs don't mark software as stable, they mark ebuilds as stable.
> This has no direct link to the usability of the software itself.
>
>
Nuh uh. From http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html,
arch (x86, ppc-macos)
Both the package
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:47:28 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > That is the latest for my card that is in the tree.
>
> No! It is not the latest. It's just what portage is offering you. The
> link I sent you clearly (!?) stated that you need to be running the
> latest 'Certified' driver revision 275
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Dale wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>> DAle,
>> PLEASE look at bullet item #3 in this NVidia release:
>>
>> http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux-display-amd64-275.09.07-driver.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Fixed a bug that caused freezes and crashes when resizing windows in
On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 02:21 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Dale wrote:
> > Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 00:03 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >>> Mark Knecht wrote:
> DAle,
> >> Hi Dale, not quite the same but something else to check - after my
> >> 6monthly update round, I had two systems wher
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:27:32 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > WAG - have you tried the nv drivers?
> I did but I couldn't get X to even start. I guess something is not set
> right somewhere. I have nv in make.conf and been there since I built
> this thing so sort of clueless on why it don't work.
Did
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:10:15 -0700, walt wrote:
> > My deal was the lost compile time. If I had started it about 3 hours
> > earlier or the lights would have blinked a few hours later then not
> > so much would have been lost.
>
> That's when I use ebuild instead of starting the emerge from sc
2011/7/11 Dale :
> Dale wrote:
>>
>> Bill Kenworthy wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 00:03 -0500, Dale wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> DAle,
>>>
>>> Hi Dale, not quite the same but something else to check - after my
>>> 6monthly update round, I had two systems where FF refused t
Dale wrote:
Bill Kenworthy wrote:
On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 00:03 -0500, Dale wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
DAle,
Hi Dale, not quite the same but something else to check - after my
6monthly update round, I had two systems where FF refused to run - just
flashed up died. Erase .mozilla allowed one res
Bill Kenworthy wrote:
On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 00:03 -0500, Dale wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
DAle,
Hi Dale, not quite the same but something else to check - after my
6monthly update round, I had two systems where FF refused to run - just
flashed up died. Erase .mozilla allowed on
Dale wrote:
Yea, that does sound familiar. Trying to recall who could have had
that problem. H. Oh, it was me !! lol This is my card info:
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation GT200 [GeForce
GT 220] (rev a2)
Drivers:
x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-270.41.19
That is
On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 00:03 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
> > DAle,
Hi Dale, not quite the same but something else to check - after my
6monthly update round, I had two systems where FF refused to run - just
flashed up died. Erase .mozilla allowed one restart where I got a
window, any at
walt wrote:
On 07/10/2011 12:40 PM, Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:55:01 -0500, Dale wrote:
My old rig was in the middle of a update and we just had a nasty
little thunderstorm here. It was OOo of course. It was 7 hours
into a 9 hour compile when
Mark Knecht wrote:
DAle,
PLEASE look at bullet item #3 in this NVidia release:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux-display-amd64-275.09.07-driver.html
Fixed a bug that caused freezes and crashes when resizing windows in
KDE 4 with desktop effects enabled using X.Org X server version 1.10
o
DAle,
PLEASE look at bullet item #3 in this NVidia release:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux-display-amd64-275.09.07-driver.html
Fixed a bug that caused freezes and crashes when resizing windows in
KDE 4 with desktop effects enabled using X.Org X server version 1.10
or later.
Sure sounds
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 14:42:50 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Yea, done tried that. I tried different kernels, different nvidia
>>> drivers and all with no change.
>>>
>>
>> WAG - have you tried the nv drivers?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Sunday 10 July 2011 20:42:50 Dale wrote:
Yea, done tried that. I tried different kernels, different nvidia
drivers and all with no change.
Yes, but what about xorg-server? I think that's what Peter was suggesting.
I did back up a version of xorg. Fir
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 14:42:50 -0500, Dale wrote:
Yea, done tried that. I tried different kernels, different nvidia
drivers and all with no change.
WAG - have you tried the nv drivers?
I did but I couldn't get X to even start. I guess something is not set
On 07/10/2011 12:40 PM, Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:55:01 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>
>>
>>> My old rig was in the middle of a update and we just had a nasty
>>> little thunderstorm here. It was OOo of course. It was 7 hours
>>> into a 9 hour compile when the lights b
On Sunday 10 July 2011 20:42:50 Dale wrote:
> Yea, done tried that. I tried different kernels, different nvidia
> drivers and all with no change.
Yes, but what about xorg-server? I think that's what Peter was suggesting.
--
Rgds
Peter
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 14:42:50 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Yea, done tried that. I tried different kernels, different nvidia
> drivers and all with no change.
WAG - have you tried the nv drivers?
--
Neil Bothwick
The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten per cent of its
capacity ... the rest is
pk wrote:
On 2011-07-10 00:26, Dale wrote:
Basically, this is plain confusing. I can't see how Firefox, or
something it has to access, can cause a kernel panic. Thing is, I can't
think of anything else that could be the problem but trying different
versions of a kernel makes me think it i
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:55:01 -0500, Dale wrote:
My old rig was in the middle of a update and we just had a nasty little
thunderstorm here. It was OOo of course. It was 7 hours into a 9 hour
compile when the lights blinked.
It won't have reached the install stag
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:55:01 -0500, Dale wrote:
> My old rig was in the middle of a update and we just had a nasty little
> thunderstorm here. It was OOo of course. It was 7 hours into a 9 hour
> compile when the lights blinked.
It won't have reached the install stage, so the only filesystem
On 2011-07-10 00:26, Dale wrote:
> Basically, this is plain confusing. I can't see how Firefox, or
> something it has to access, can cause a kernel panic. Thing is, I can't
> think of anything else that could be the problem but trying different
> versions of a kernel makes me think it is not the
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 01:46:08AM -0500, Dale wrote:
> Joshua Murphy wrote:
> >gdb is the GNU Debugger. As for the usability of strace in your case,
> >if you can see the last few calls before the lock-up occurs, it could
> >help narrow things down a bit. Also, if you SSH into the machine and
> >
Joshua Murphy wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Dale wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Dalewrote:
It works as long as I don't open Firefox. If I open Firefox, poof!! No
more trapped smoke. lol
Dale
So I had suggested runnin
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Dale wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Dale wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It works as long as I don't open Firefox. If I open Firefox, poof!! No
>>> more trapped smoke. lol
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>
>> So I had suggested running it in gdb and
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Dale wrote:
It works as long as I don't open Firefox. If I open Firefox, poof!! No
more trapped smoke. lol
Dale
So I had suggested running it in gdb and someone else suggested
running it in strace. Did you have a chance to try e
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Dale wrote:
>
> It works as long as I don't open Firefox. If I open Firefox, poof!! No
> more trapped smoke. lol
>
> Dale
So I had suggested running it in gdb and someone else suggested
running it in strace. Did you have a chance to try either of those?
Not su
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Dale wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
And this is exactly why you should consider posting any information
your can find on LKML to let the heavy weight guys figure it out. As I
said earlier, I believe they will take you quite seriously. In
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Dale wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>> And this is exactly why you should consider posting any information
>> your can find on LKML to let the heavy weight guys figure it out. As I
>> said earlier, I believe they will take you quite seriously. In general
>> I would
Mark Knecht wrote:
And this is exactly why you should consider posting any information
your can find on LKML to let the heavy weight guys figure it out. As I
said earlier, I believe they will take you quite seriously. In general
I would also say that Firefox should be able to cause a kernel pani
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Dale wrote:
> Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>
>> On 07/09/11 16:56, Dale wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No worries. Sometimes when you back up a bit, you may realize you
>>> missed something. I did run memtest and it bad about 45 passes I think
>>> with no errors. That takes a whi
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 07/09/11 16:56, Dale wrote:
No worries. Sometimes when you back up a bit, you may realize you
missed something. I did run memtest and it bad about 45 passes I think
with no errors. That takes a while when you have 16Gbs. o_O
Ah, ok. I'd also try a hard d
On 07/09/11 16:56, Dale wrote:
>
> No worries. Sometimes when you back up a bit, you may realize you
> missed something. I did run memtest and it bad about 45 passes I think
> with no errors. That takes a while when you have 16Gbs. o_O
Ah, ok. I'd also try a hard drive scan to make sure firef
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 07/09/11 12:18, Dale wrote:
András Csányi wrote:
I had a similar problem but regarding Chromium. You can read about in
this list "Chromium and everything" subject. May I ask which kernel do
you use?
I remember the thread, even replied a couple tim
On 07/09/11 12:18, Dale wrote:
> András Csányi wrote:
>>
>> I had a similar problem but regarding Chromium. You can read about in
>> this list "Chromium and everything" subject. May I ask which kernel do
>> you use?
>>
>>
>
> I remember the thread, even replied a couple times, but this is even
On 07/09/2011 08:16 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 07/09/2011 04:49 AM, Dale wrote:
OK. Back to the original thread.
Here we go again. Everything seems to work EXCEPT Firefox. When I log
into KDE, I can run Seamonkey, Kpat, Konqueror, Konsole, gkrellm and
such but as soon as I start Firefox, i
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Dale wrote:
> András Csányi wrote:
>>
>> I had a similar problem but regarding Chromium. You can read about in
>> this list "Chromium and everything" subject. May I ask which kernel do
>> you use?
>>
>>
>
> I remember the thread, even replied a couple times, but thi
On 07/09/2011 04:49 AM, Dale wrote:
OK. Back to the original thread.
Here we go again. Everything seems to work EXCEPT Firefox. When I log
into KDE, I can run Seamonkey, Kpat, Konqueror, Konsole, gkrellm and
such but as soon as I start Firefox, it locks up tight.
Try to temporarily remove your
András Csányi wrote:
I had a similar problem but regarding Chromium. You can read about in
this list "Chromium and everything" subject. May I ask which kernel do
you use?
I remember the thread, even replied a couple times, but this is even
worse and happens when flash is not even install
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 04:03:47 -0500, Dale wrote:
This is weird as heck. A program leading a kernel panic. It's a head
scratcher.
Do you have CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_HUNG_TASK_PANIC set in your kernel?
I had to search for this one.
│ Symbol: BOOTPARAM_HUNG_TASK
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 04:03:47 -0500, Dale wrote:
> This is weird as heck. A program leading a kernel panic. It's a head
> scratcher.
Do you have CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_HUNG_TASK_PANIC set in your kernel?
--
Neil Bothwick
An atheist is someone who feels he has no invisible means of support.
sign
On 9 July 2011 03:49, Dale wrote:
> OK. Back to the original thread.
>
> Here we go again. Everything seems to work EXCEPT Firefox. When I log into
> KDE, I can run Seamonkey, Kpat, Konqueror, Konsole, gkrellm and such but as
> soon as I start Firefox, it locks up tight. Tight enough that the
Mick wrote:
On Saturday 09 Jul 2011 02:49:55 Dale wrote:
OK. Back to the original thread.
Here we go again. Everything seems to work EXCEPT Firefox. When I log
into KDE, I can run Seamonkey, Kpat, Konqueror, Konsole, gkrellm and
such but as soon as I start Firefox, it locks up tight. Ti
On Saturday 09 Jul 2011 02:49:55 Dale wrote:
> OK. Back to the original thread.
>
> Here we go again. Everything seems to work EXCEPT Firefox. When I log
> into KDE, I can run Seamonkey, Kpat, Konqueror, Konsole, gkrellm and
> such but as soon as I start Firefox, it locks up tight. Tight enoug
OK. Back to the original thread.
Here we go again. Everything seems to work EXCEPT Firefox. When I log
into KDE, I can run Seamonkey, Kpat, Konqueror, Konsole, gkrellm and
such but as soon as I start Firefox, it locks up tight. Tight enough
that the kernel panics and it resets since Neil i
77 matches
Mail list logo
