On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:24:53AM -0700, Trent Shea wrote:
> It really depends on how you build your kernel; hd* is still valid,
> as far as I'm aware.
That's not my experience. My /dev/hd* devices disappeared when I
upgraded 2.6.27 to 2.6.28 and I have no /dev/sr* or new /dev/sd*
d
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Jeremy Henty wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:24:53AM -0700, Trent Shea wrote:
>
>> It really depends on how you build your kernel; hd* is still valid,
>> as far as I'm aware.
>
> That's not my experience. My /dev/hd* devices disappeared when I
> upgraded
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 04:56 -0600, Paul W. Lane wrote:
> This is the same problem I ran into. The cause is the kernel module
> for harddisks. It appears that the module does not name devices
> starting with "hd" anymore. All devices are named as "sd" now. I
> believe this has to due with only using
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 06:22 -0500, stosss wrote:
> All Right! I did what you suggested and now I have a command prompt!
Out of curiosity, is the disk an IDE device, or SATA? As far as I'm
aware, the issue of device names changing mostly affects IDE hardware,
since SATA drivers have always used the
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Simon Geard wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 06:22 -0500, stosss wrote:
>> All Right! I did what you suggested and now I have a command prompt!
>
> Out of curiosity, is the disk an IDE device, or SATA? As far as I'm
> aware, the issue of device names changing mostly
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 08:17 +, Jeremy Henty wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:24:53AM -0700, Trent Shea wrote:
>
> > It really depends on how you build your kernel; hd* is still valid,
> > as far as I'm aware.
>
> That's not my experience. My /dev/hd* devices disappeared when I
> upg
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:03 -0500, su.sinnes wrote:
> > Just for clarity: the drivers are compiled in the kernel statically?
> how do you mean statically?
In the kernel config, did you select the drivers as modules, or
built-in? You can't build the disk driver as a module, since you
couldn't load
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 18:29 -0600, al...@verizon.net wrote:
> The last thing is to start a flame here; I still see a
> need for floppies on Linux due to the relatively small
> sizes of files in need to be quickly sneakered among
> machines.
Is this a machine predating USB? I can't imagine any oth
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
> (hd0) /dev/sda
> to
> (sd0) /dev/sda
If your Hard Drive is an HD and not an SD make your entry in fstab
look something like:
# Begin /etc/fstab
# file system mount-point type options dump fsck
#order
/dev/sda1 /
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
What is the brand and model of the motherboard you are trying to use to
boot this LFS system?
It's rare but occasionally you need to compile some less than obvious
drivers into the kernel to make the system boot properly.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://w
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
su.sinnes wrote:
> to
>
> I am using vmware
>
>
>
>
Which file system are you using?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Ken Moffat wrote:
> OK, I had another look at the gnash list archives. Looks as if
> this came up earlier -
> .http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnash-dev/2009-10/msg00093.html
>
> Summary:
>
> add the flashblock extension (this means you have to start
> each flash video, which is probably a good
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 11/24/09, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> linux fan wrote:
>> On 11/24/09, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Have you tried booting into memtest86+
>>> and checking your memory?
Thanks for that!
Eliminated one memory bank at a time until it didn't fail before test #5.
Rolled back to textinfo-ch5.
make ... it got t
On 11/24/09, Jeremy Henty wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:24:53AM -0700, Trent Shea wrote:
>
>> It really depends on how you build your kernel; hd* is still valid,
>> as far as I'm aware.
>
> That's not my experience. My /dev/hd* devices disappeared when I
> upgraded 2.6.27 to 2.6.28
su.sinnes wrote:
> I put an * on everything with, SATA, and all filesystems, and a lot of
> other things for this recompilation.
> and i changed file under /boot/grub/device.map
> (hd0) /dev/sda
> to
> (sd0) /dev/sda
>
> then ran grub-mkconfig -o /boot/boot/grub/grub.cfg
> again.
>
> do you th
linux fan wrote:
> On 11/24/09, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> linux fan wrote:
>>> On 11/24/09, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Have you tried booting into memtest86+
and checking your memory?
>
> Thanks for that!
>
> Eliminated one memory bank at a time until it didn't fail before test #5.
>
> Rolled back
On 11/24/09, Simon Geard wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 18:29 -0600, al...@verizon.net wrote:
>> The last thing is to start a flame here; I still see a
>> need for floppies on Linux
Agree there is a need for floppies.
I just used a floppy to boot memtest86+ which found a bad memory bank
was bugg
On 11/24/09, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I'd start over. Having a suspect base is not a good idea. Try jhalfs
> to automate the build.
Yes jhalfs has been working for me.
Starting over from mke2fs.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/f
linux fan wrote:
> On 11/24/09, Simon Geard wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 18:29 -0600, al...@verizon.net wrote:
>>> The last thing is to start a flame here; I still see a
>>> need for floppies on Linux
>
> Agree there is a need for floppies.
> I just used a floppy to boot memtest86+ which foun
2009/11/24 linux fan :
> On 11/24/09, Jeremy Henty wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:24:53AM -0700, Trent Shea wrote:
>>
>>> It really depends on how you build your kernel; hd* is still valid,
>>> as far as I'm aware.
>>
>> That's not my experience. My /dev/hd* devices disappeared when I
Am Dienstag 24 November 2009 17:36:32 schrieb linux fan:
> As far as I am aware, greub always did, always will, call them hd.
I also think so.
> To be exact, it calls them hd when it means in grub-speak (hd0,
> and they can be called sd when it means in real-speak /dev/sda (if it is
> sata) So yo
I wouldn't take it is a "no", as much as I would take it that nobody
> volunteered any information. Me personally, I had not even heard of
> it. But I have been out of the loop for a spell.
>
> I really need to get in and build a partition of LFS-6.5 and start
> contributing to BLFS. Time pressure
On 11/24/09, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> That works for you, but for most people, it's far easier to use a usb
> thumb drive with capacities in GB to do the same thing.
>
I know that it is impossible to believe, but I have yet to purchase my
first usb thumb drive.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/
On 11/24/09, Ken Moffat wrote:
> The names of the devices in grub and within linux are two separate
> things. For an explanation of why /dev/hdX becomes /dev/sdX
> see Simon's response to another thread.
>
> /dev/hdX (from the old IDE drivers) is now regarded as legacy, except
> for old ppc maci
On 11/24/09, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> If you are getting a kernel panic, it's not grub. Grub did it's job and
> loaded the kernel, then the kernel had a problem.
Agree.
But, there are 2 places that cause kernel panic:
1) grub's kernel/linux line, the root=/dev/[is_incorrect] parameter
2) fstab's: [
linux fan wrote:
> On 11/24/09, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> That works for you, but for most people, it's far easier to use a usb
>> thumb drive with capacities in GB to do the same thing.
>>
>
> I know that it is impossible to believe, but I have yet to purchase my
> first usb thumb drive.
I don't kno
Le Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:23:03 -0500,
stosss a écrit :
> Why does LFS stay so far ahead of BLFS? What is the point of building
> the newest LFS if the BLFS files are older and probably won't work or
> would be replacing newer versions of apps with older versions?
>
> There is a note on the BLFS th
On 11/24/09, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I don't know where you live, but I've seen them given away as
> promotions. Otherwise they are very common at $10 or less.
Some day, I might get one.
I don't care what udev does as long as it doesn't cause problems.
I've got the 16 fd things in dev and was never
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:10 PM, linux fan wrote:
> On 11/24/09, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> The names of the devices in grub and within linux are two separate
>> things. For an explanation of why /dev/hdX becomes /dev/sdX
>> see Simon's response to another thread.
If the kernel is newer than 2.6.19 (
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:10 PM, linux fan wrote:
> On 11/24/09, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> The names of the devices in grub and within linux are two separate
>> things. For an explanation of why /dev/hdX becomes /dev/sdX
>> see Simon's response to another thread.
If the kernel is newer than 2.6.19 (
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:10 PM, linux fan wrote:
> On 11/24/09, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> The names of the devices in grub and within linux are two separate
>> things. For an explanation of why /dev/hdX becomes /dev/sdX
>> see Simon's response to another thread.
If the kernel is newer than 2.6.19 (
Hello Simon & Linux Fan,
The thread started as a complaint about UDEV
eliminating the only workaround, "last_rule",
I could use to avoid the pollution of the
/dev with a relatively large number of
nonsensical floppy nodes (from my standpoint),
which was followed by a pleading for help.
It's taken
On 11/24/09, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> linux fan wrote:
>> Intending to umount and roll back, I get:
>>
>> df -ha
>> FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>> /dev/sda11 11G 7.6G 2.7G 74% /
>> /proc0 0 0 - /proc
>> sysfs0
37 matches
Mail list logo
