I want to thank everyone that tried to help solving this problem, I
still don't have it solved, but I'm getting a new Mobo + CPU + RAM, so
everything will be fine!
Tijnema
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: Se
I also don't have experience with this stuff.Tijnema may know more because he
has actual experience with it.They dont really teach how to tinker with
motherboards in courses :)
But if you have access to a voltmeter ,you could measure the voltage across
the terminals of the capacitor.Its getting hot
On 6/17/07, Wit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ANIRUDH VIJ wrote:
> >
> > Unless you know the circuit type (LC, RC, ...), its expected input and
> > output, you are risking havoc by changing the value of *any* of the
> > components in the circuit. IIRC, by changing the the capacitor to a
> >
ANIRUDH VIJ wrote:
>
> Unless you know the circuit type (LC, RC, ...), its expected input and
> output, you are risking havoc by changing the value of *any* of the
> components in the circuit. IIRC, by changing the the capacitor to a
> higher voltage rating, you have altered (possibly)
Unless you know the circuit type (LC, RC, ...), its expected input and
output, you are risking havoc by changing the value of *any* of the
components in the circuit. IIRC, by changing the the capacitor to a
higher voltage rating, you have altered (possibly) at least two things
(assumin
Tijnema wrote:
> On 6/12/07, Wit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Tijnema wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>> I also become increasingly concerned with the mention of the capacitors
>> and repair you did (IIRC?). Both would seem a "most likely" culprit,
>> based on all the other things discussed.
On 6/12/07, Wit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tijnema wrote:
> >
>
> >>
> >> Also, the 5.0 has an inserted module, asus_acpi. I don't think every
> >> system needs a special driver though, whether module or compiled in. But
> >> you may need to check extended explanations in kernel config and see
Tijnema wrote:
>
>>> The directory's /proc/acpi/thermal_zone exist, but that one is empty.
>>> Please look at this:
>>> cat config-2.6.17.11 | grep ACPI
>>> # Power management options (ACPI, APM)
>>> # ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Support
>>> CONFIG_ACPI=y
>>> CONFIG_ACPI_AC=
Tijnema wrote on 10-06-07 02:09:
> Either reply friendly, or don't reply. I know i can buy a new PC and
> everything works fine. But that's not the point of this discussion. If
> you don't like it, don't join the discussion.
Yes I was getting irritated because I got the impression
you were more r
On 6/10/07, Bauke Jan Douma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tijnema wrote on 09-06-07 23:01:
> >> I just realized what you said here. What you can touch at this point is
> >> *not* the CPU at all. It is essentially the carrier. The CPU is the
> >> little raised portion in the center of the "carrier".
On 6/10/07, Wit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tijnema wrote:
> > On 6/9/07, Wit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Tijnema wrote:
> >> > On 6/9/07, Wit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> Tijnema wrote:
> >> >> >
>
> >> >> I suggest doing your kernel with CONFIG_ACPI=y and
> >> CONFIG_ACPI_THERMAL=y
> >
Tijnema wrote on 09-06-07 23:01:
>> I just realized what you said here. What you can touch at this point is
>> *not* the CPU at all. It is essentially the carrier. The CPU is the
>> little raised portion in the center of the "carrier". It is the only
>> part that will normally get very hot. The out
On 6/9/07, Wit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tijnema wrote:
> > On 6/9/07, Wit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tijnema wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 6/8/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:46:11AM +0200, Tijnema wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thermal paste
Tijnema wrote:
> On 6/9/07, Wit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Tijnema wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/8/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:46:11AM +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> Thermal paste must be dryed out, but that doesn't mean i
On 6/9/07, Wit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tijnema wrote:
> > On 6/8/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:46:11AM +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> >>
>
>
> >>> ... I'm only at a good old single core AMD
> >>> Athlon XP system, which is clocked down to 1.15Ghz
On 6/8/07, Tijnema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/9/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:23:19PM +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> > >
> > > It can build GCC fine, I've builded a complete GCC package (Including
> > > ada, fortran,...) lately, I just didn't run GCC tests
Tijnema wrote:
> On 6/8/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:46:11AM +0200, Tijnema wrote:
>>
>>> ... I'm only at a good old single core AMD
>>> Athlon XP system, which is clocked down to 1.15Ghz with 512MB SD
>>>
Having followed the compl
On 6/9/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:23:19PM +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> >
> > It can build GCC fine, I've builded a complete GCC package (Including
> > ada, fortran,...) lately, I just didn't run GCC testsuite completely,
> > but compiling and installing works
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:23:19PM +0200, Tijnema wrote:
>
> It can build GCC fine, I've builded a complete GCC package (Including
> ada, fortran,...) lately, I just didn't run GCC testsuite completely,
> but compiling and installing works fine, and gcc works fine now :)
>
Oh, I misunderstood.
On 6/8/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:34:29PM +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> > On 6/8/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I'm currently at glibc-2.3.6, and I would love to upgrade it to
> > > > glibc-2.6,
> > >
> > > Why ? I've only built glibc-2.6 o
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:34:29PM +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> On 6/8/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm currently at glibc-2.3.6, and I would love to upgrade it to
> > > glibc-2.6,
> >
> > Why ? I've only built glibc-2.6 on ppc64, to see if it helped with
> > the showstopper gcc-4.2
On 6/8/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:46:11AM +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> > >
> > > Dan thinks minor glibc version upgrades (2.3.5 to 2.3.6, maybe 2.6
> > > to 2.6.1) are ok.
> >
> > Minor upgrades are more or less bug fixes right? So I think Dan is right.
> >
>
On 6/8/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:46:11AM +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> > >
> > > Dan thinks minor glibc version upgrades (2.3.5 to 2.3.6, maybe 2.6
> > > to 2.6.1) are ok.
> >
> > Minor upgrades are more or less bug fixes right? So I think Dan is right.
> >
>
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tijnema
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 4:46 AM
To: LFS Support List
Subject: Re: Headers problems
On 6/7/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:23:33PM +0200, Tijn
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:46:11AM +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> >
> > Dan thinks minor glibc version upgrades (2.3.5 to 2.3.6, maybe 2.6
> > to 2.6.1) are ok.
>
> Minor upgrades are more or less bug fixes right? So I think Dan is right.
>
In theory, yes they are bug fixes. In practice, I wouldn't w
On 6/7/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:23:33PM +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> >
> > Ok, thanks you both for your replies, i would expect the headers to be
> > upgraded together with the kernel.
>
> No! Please, repeat after me:
> **Only upgrade the headers if you up
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:23:33PM +0200, Tijnema wrote:
>
> Ok, thanks you both for your replies, i would expect the headers to be
> upgraded together with the kernel.
No! Please, repeat after me:
**Only upgrade the headers if you upgrade glibc**
Sometimes, nasty things get sneaked into the
On 6/7/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 07:12:37AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > On 6/7/07, Tijnema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > So, if you want to upgrade the core components
> > > (Kernel+headers+glibc(+gcc?)), in which order would you install them?
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 07:12:37AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 6/7/07, Tijnema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > So, if you want to upgrade the core components
> > (Kernel+headers+glibc(+gcc?)), in which order would you install them?
>
> Gcc and binutils can be updated whenever you want, AFA
On 6/7/07, Tijnema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, if you want to upgrade the core components
> (Kernel+headers+glibc(+gcc?)), in which order would you install them?
Gcc and binutils can be updated whenever you want, AFAIK. The kernel,
definitely whenever you want. But the headers and glibc sho
On 6/6/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:31:01AM -0300, Camponez wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > My LFS is already build. I finnished like 2 years ago. Ive decide to
> > update linux headers for kernel 2.6.21.1
> > So I did this
> > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/v
Ups!! :)
Good to know!
Thanks a lot!
Regards,
Eduardo Elias Camponez
On 6/6/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:31:01AM -0300, Camponez wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > My LFS is already build. I finnished like 2 years ago. Ive decide to
> > update linux headers for ke
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:31:01AM -0300, Camponez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My LFS is already build. I finnished like 2 years ago. Ive decide to
> update linux headers for kernel 2.6.21.1
> So I did this
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter06/linux-headers.html
>
> Well.. then
33 matches
Mail list logo
