This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Subject: Re: RH 6.2?
From: Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <bero@redhat.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:09:47 +0100 (CET)
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Jason Pratt wrote:
> If so, what improvements over
> 6.1 have been made?
Aside from the usual (bug fixes, updated packages)
[Not a complete list, just what I remember from the top of my head]:
- Support for Docbook-based SGML editing and processing has been
added.
- The various BSD-based network services (telnet, finger, talk,
rsh, ruers, rwall, tftp) have been split into client and
server packages.
- The ident/auth service, instead of being run from inetd
and controlled via /etc/inetd.conf, is run as a standalone
service 'identd', and controlled via the /etc/identd.conf file.
- The following services no longer run by default, as they have
in previous Red Hat Linux releases:
- automount daemon amd (package am-utils)
- bind name server
- dhcpd DHCP server
- inn news server
- knfsd NFS server
- samba CIFS server
- apache HTTP server
- New packages (a couple of new packages in the main distribution, tons
of new packages in powertools)
- man pages gziped
- better default settings (you can now do less file.gz; ls colorization
enabled; when invoked as vim (not vi), vim has colorization and auto-
indenting; ...)
> Anything new in the kernel?
Some of the more important kernel changes:
- Updated to 2.2.15pre
- Updated nfs patches
- Improved PIII support
- AGPGART support added on x86
- sigio patch included
- bigmem stuff
- some driver updates (Compaq Smart2, AMI MegaRAID, ...)
- some HA changes
===
Subject: Re: RH 6.2?
From: Rick Forrester <rickf@crow.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:25:52 -0800
adrian@na.dhs.org said:
> has anyone tried 6.2? if so how is it?
So far, great. The only minor gotcha is that the kernel is compiled
with frame buffering; your X installation may die. The fix for that
is to do the following steps:
1. "cd /usr/src/linux"
2. "make oldconfig"
3. edit .config, look for "CONFIG_FB=y", change the 'y' to 'n'.
4. "make oldconfig"
5. "make dep"
6. "make clean"
7. "make bzImage"
8. "make modules"
9. "make modules_install"
10. "cd arch/i368/boot"
11. "cp bzImage /boot/vmlinuz-2.2.15-2.5.0"
12. "lilo"
13. "shutdown -r now"
===
Subject: Re: RH 6.2?
From: Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <bero@redhat.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 01:18:06 +0100 (CET)
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Rick Forrester wrote:
> > has anyone tried 6.2? if so how is it?
>
> So far, great. The only minor gotcha is that the kernel is compiled
> with frame buffering;
It's already fixed in our internal tree. Won't be a problem in the final.
So is the other big bug in the beta, everything in KDE opening an
unnecessary console window.
===
Subject: Re: RH 6.2?
From: Rick Forrester <rickf@crow.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 16:21:14 -0800
philippe@kscable.com said:
> What do you mean, you X instal may die ???
> do they install a kernel incompatible whith their X distrib ????
> At what condition will the beast NOT die for sure ?
> Philippe
Philippe, the problem is apparantly some slightly broken video chipsets,
especially with ATI controllers. The _BETA_ has "CONFIG_FB" turned on
for frame buffer support, which barfs on those faulty chipsets. After
I did the upgrade to RH 6.2B3 (Piglet) from RH 6.1, when X ran all I
got was a line of dots at the bottom of the screen. Since I'd been
warned about the frame buffer issue I just recompiled the kernel with
the specified changes; didn't even have to make any mods to the X
configuration, just started X with the recompiled kernel & all was
well.
I've received an email from inside RH that stated that the "CONFIG_FB"
option will be off in the final kernel until the frame buffer questions
have been resolved.
This _really_isn't_a_problem_! X didn't work on my system with an
ATI chipset (Rage Pro 3D), worked fine on my Matrox G200 equipped
system.
best
rickf
> Rick Forrester <rickf@crow.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
> adrian@na.dhs.org said:
> > has anyone tried 6.2? if so how is it?
>
> So far, great. The only minor gotcha is that the kernel is compiled
> with frame buffering; your X installation may die. The fix for that
> is to do the following steps:
>
> 1. "cd /usr/src/linux"
> 2. "make oldconfig"
> 3. edit .config, look for "CONFIG_FB=y", change the 'y' to 'n'.
> 4. "make oldconfig"
> 5. "make dep"
> 6. "make clean"
> 7. "make bzImage"
> 8. "make modules"
> 9. "make modules_install"
> 10. "cd arch/i368/boot"
> 11. "cp bzImage /boot/vmlinuz-2.2.15-2.5.0"
> 12. "lilo"
> 13. "shutdown -r now"
>
===
Subject: 6.2 ls120
From: Steve Dixon <steve@dpn.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 16:29:16 -0800
did the ls120 support in the install make it in? i know you guys were
talking about it with 6.1 but it didnt make it. the only reason i ask
is because i have on in my laptop instead of a regular floppy. so i
have to create a boot disk and setup up my pcmcia network card after the
install. its not a pain just an annoyance. everything else looks
pretty good so far. i like the *-config tools too. whatever happend to
console based admin tools like for printers, especially? i know
linuxconf does console, but i dont trust it.
===
Subject: Re: RH 6.2?
From: Charles Galpin <cgalpin@lighthouse-software.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:53:29 -0500 (EST)
I'm pretty sure this is not my problem, but would just like to confirm..
I have a laptop with a Trident Cyber 9397 DVD video card (4 MB).
Neither 6.1 or 6.2beta graphical install works.
I *can* get X to work later with a few XF86Config tweaks, (the details
escape me right now), and my 6.2 text upgrade hasn't finished yet.
I get a blank screen when X tries to start, and the last line on virtual
console 1 says it's using a Linear Frame Buffer on 0x0fe400000, size 4mb
===
Subject: Re: RH 6.2?
From: Charles Galpin <cgalpin@lighthouse-software.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:32:48 -0500 (EST)
Upgrading 6.1 to 6.2beta broke my pcmcia setup. I honestly don't remember
if it was the default setup or not, since I did rebuild the kernel (and
installed david hinds' version of card services at some point), but I'm
pretty sure it did work out of the box before.
I fixed it by backing out of some of the config changes rpm made.
Is anyone at Red Hat interested in the details so this can be resolved?
===
Subject: Re: RH 6.2?
From: Rick Forrester <rickf@crow.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:56:59 -0800
cgalpin@lighthouse-software.com said:
> I'm pretty sure this is not my problem, but would just like to
> confirm..
> I have a laptop with a Trident Cyber 9397 DVD video card (4 MB).
> Neither 6.1 or 6.2beta graphical install works.
> I *can* get X to work later with a few XF86Config tweaks, (the details
> escape me right now), and my 6.2 text upgrade hasn't finished yet.
> I get a blank screen when X tries to start, and the last line on
> virtual console 1 says it's using a Linear Frame Buffer on
> 0x0fe400000, size 4mb
If you can get it to run afterwards by tweaking your config file, it's
probably not the frame buffer problem. Probably wouldn't hurt to try,
it might contribute to the disorder in any case. The kernel rebuild
instructions as I gave them work cleanly and give a kernel identical to
the install version _except_ for frame buffering. The problem with
laptops, as you know, charles, is that the manufacturers tweak the
chipset support to meet their needs & they're not quite the same as
their regular chipsets - so the frame buffering is one more complication
that I can live without.
It didn't break X support on my home system with an Millenium G200 AGP
card, but things were a wee bit flakey. So last night, when I compiled
a custom kernel, I left the frame buffering out & it seems a bit more
stabile.
===
Subject: Re: RH 6.2?
From: Rick Forrester <rickf@crow.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:00:24 -0800
marczak@usa.net said:
>> on 10/2/2000 6:25 PM, Rick Forrester shot down the bitstream:
>> So far, great. The only minor gotcha is that the kernel is compiled
>> with frame buffering
>
> Like Caldera?
Interesting point. And might explain why I had complete fits trying to
get 2.2 to install on my laptop. Lizard never did work for me, and the
installed kernel blew chunks, too. Difference was that I didn't get the
same information/suggestions from the Caldera people in fixing the
problem, I guess.
Maybe if Ric Moore had moved to Utah instead of staying in NC &
working for Red Hat??? 8^)
===
Subject: Re: Red Hat 6.2
From: Rick Forrester <rickf@crow.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 14:43:18 -0800
mike@universe.ne.mediaone.net said:
> Downloaded the beta ISO for 6.2, burned it and installed it on a
> machine I have hanging around here. I told it to install everything,
> and after it was all installed, I tried to determine what version of
> gcc got installed. To my suprise, none.
> Is this not going to be part of the 6.2 release?
Something got tubed along the way. egcs/gcc is a part of the release,
should be egcs-1.1.2.
===
Subject: Re: Red Hat 6.2
From: "Michael J. McGillick" <mike@universe.ne.mediaone.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 20:36:53 -0500 (EST)
Rick:
Does this mean that gcc is now called egcs? I thought there was a
discussion going on about gcc-2.95 was needed when rebuilding RPMs to take
advantage of the i586 and i686 optimizations. Is this new egcs a
combination of both of those, or is gcc-2.95 bring left out because it
would cause other packages like kernel-headers to be changed to allow it
to work?
===
Subject: Re: Red Hat 6.2
From: Philippe Moutarlier <philippe@kscable.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 19:54:08 -0700
Form what I understand, it would be rather the other way around :
egcs is named gcc.
Try to do
> gcc -v
===
Subject: Re: Red Hat 6.2
From: Dominic Mitchell <dominic@cedep.net>
Date: 11 Feb 2000 22:08:38 -0500
As of gcc-2.95.1 gcc and egcs teams are working together which
means that egcs is part of gcc-2.95. I think the latest version
is gcc-2.95.2. Hey I still have the announcement of the release
of gcc-2.95. Here it is:
July 31, 1999
The GNU project and the GCC/EGCS developers are pleased to announce
the release of GCC version 2.95. GCC used to stand for the GNU C
Compiler, but since the compiler supports several other languages
aside from C, it now stands for the GNU Compiler Collection.
This is the first release of GCC since the April 1999 GCC/EGCS
reunification and includes nearly a year's worth of new development
and bugfixes.
The whole suite has been extensively [1]regression tested and
[2]package tested. It should be reliable and suitable for widespread
use.
The compiler has several new optimizations, new targets, new languages
and other new features. See the [3]new features page for a more
complete list of new features found in the GCC 2.95 releases.
The sources include installation instructions in both HTML and
plaintext forms in the install directory in the distribution. However,
the most up to date [4]installation instructions and [5]build/test
status are on the web pages. We will update those pages as new
information becomes available.
The GCC developers would like to thank the numerous people that have
contributed new features, test results, bugfixes, etc to GCC. This
[6]amazing group of volunteers is what makes GCC successful.
And finally, we can't in good conscience fail to mention some
[7]caveats to using GCC 2.95.
Download GCC 2.95 from the [8]GNU FTP server (ftp://ftp.gnu.org)
Download GCC 2.95 from the [9]GCC/EGCS FTP server
(ftp://go.cygnus.com)
[10]Find a GNU mirror site
[11]Find a GCC/EGCS mirror site
For additional information about GCC please see the [12]GCC project
web server or contact the [13]GCC development mailing list.
_________________________________________________________________
References
1. http://egcs.cygnus.com/gcc-2.95/regress.html
2. http://egcs.cygnus.com/gcc-2.95/othertest.html
3. http://egcs.cygnus.com/gcc-2.95/features.html
4. http://egcs.cygnus.com/gcc-2.95/buildstat.html
6. http://egcs.cygnus.com/gcc-2.95/caveats.html
6. http://egcs.cygnus.com/thanks.html
7. http://egcs.cygnus.com/gcc-2.95/caveats.html
8. ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/
9. ftp://go.cygnus.com/pub/sourceware.cygnus.com/pub/egcs/releases/index.htm
l
10. http://www.gnu.org/order/ftp.html
11. http://egcs.cygnus.com/mirrors.html
12. http://egcs.cygnus.coms/index.html
13. mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org
===
Subject: Re: Red Hat 6.2
From: "Michael J. McGillick" <mike@universe.ne.mediaone.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 09:55:21 -0500 (EST)
Dominic:
Sorry for being so slow to get back to this. Based on what you said
below, shouldn't the RPM in Red Hat 6.2 be called gcc-2.95-2 (if it's the
latest) instead of showing egcs in the system? I guess what I'm trying to
determine is:
1) Did Red Hat take the latest combined effort of both groups
and call it egcs?
2) Is the version of egcs still the release prior to when both
groups got back together to work the combined version?
3) Is this version of egcs actually the combined effort and is
gcc-2.95-2, and Red Hat elected to continue calling it
egcs instead of gcc-2.95-2.
Sorry for the complete newbieness here, and I also apologize for being so
slow to grasp the complete picture here, but I was really hoping that the
6.2 version would included gcc-2.95-2. Please help me to understand the
big picture.
===
Subject: Re: 6.2
From: Dominic Mitchell <dominic@cedep.net>
Date: 13 Feb 2000 11:21:13 -0500
Hi,
I deleted the message where the person asked question about egcs
vs gcc. I am not a specialist in this... I believe that Redhat is
(was) shipping egcs-1.1.2. If you need gcc-2.95.x, there is a
package for it in rawhide (gcc-2.95.2-3). Note that rawhide has
also an rpm egcs-1.1.2-28.
gcc-2.95.x are not distributed with RH6.x AFAIK.
Maybe one solution for you would be to grab
egcs-1.1.2-28.src.rpm
egcs64-19980921-4.src.rpm
gcc-2.95.2-3.src.rpm
from rawhide and rebuild them on your system. Sorry I don't
remember the question, but egcs-1.1.2 is older than gcc-2.95.
===
Subject: Re: RH 6.2?
From: "Tonko de Rooy" <tderooy@raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:39:36 +0000
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:56:59 -0800, Rick Forrester wrote:
>
>cgalpin@lighthouse-software.com said:
>> I'm pretty sure this is not my problem, but would just like to
>> confirm..
>
>> I have a laptop with a Trident Cyber 9397 DVD video card (4 MB).
>
>> Neither 6.1 or 6.2beta graphical install works.
>
>> I *can* get X to work later with a few XF86Config tweaks, (the details
>> escape me right now), and my 6.2 text upgrade hasn't finished yet.
>
>> I get a blank screen when X tries to start, and the last line on
>> virtual console 1 says it's using a Linear Frame Buffer on
>> 0x0fe400000, size 4mb
>
>If you can get it to run afterwards by tweaking your config file, it's
>probably not the frame buffer problem. Probably wouldn't hurt to try,
>it might contribute to the disorder in any case. The kernel rebuild
>instructions as I gave them work cleanly and give a kernel identical to
>the install version _except_ for frame buffering. The problem with
>laptops, as you know, charles, is that the manufacturers tweak the
>chipset support to meet their needs & they're not quite the same as
>their regular chipsets - so the frame buffering is one more complication
>that I can live without.
>
>It didn't break X support on my home system with an Millenium G200 AGP
>card, but things were a wee bit flakey. So last night, when I compiled
>a custom kernel, I left the frame buffering out & it seems a bit more
>stabile.
This does indeed happen on IBM ThinkPad's (at least on the
770 series with the Trident Cyber chipsets). The problem is
the VGA server that is used and its settings clash with the
LCD screens capabilities resulting in a black screen or just
a total mess.
Using a kernel with SVGA framebuffer support and a
framebuffer X server would actually be a solution for these
machines, as the SVGA framebuffer works perfectly on the IBM
ThinkPad's (well at least it does on the 600 and 770 series,
as those are the models I have tried it with), including
high colour depth and high resolutions.
My vote would be for using a kernel with SVGA framebuffer
support and the framebuffer X server, but then I don't have
any machine to worry about with an ATI videocard (as from
what I understand the ATI cards have problems with the SVGA
framebuffer).
===
Subject: Re: RH6.2 ISO Image - where
From: "Adam Sleight" <adams@linearcorp.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 14:37:42 -0800
> Easy question...
>
> Where is the best place to find an ISO image of RH6.2?
ftp://ftp.linux.tucows.com/pub/ISO/RedHat/
===
Subject: RH 6.2B PCMCIA Woes
From: "kirk@thrust66.com" <kirk@thrust66.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 21:08:58 -0800
I upgraded my laptop and everything went smooth (aside from having to
connect an external monitor). The only problem is on the reboot into 6.2
PCMCIA will not initialize. I have not network connection. :-( Does anyone
know a solution to this? When I do /etc/rc.d/init.d/pcmcia start it just
goes back to prompt. no [ok] or [failed]. I tried modprobe pcmcia_core
(which is OK) but inserting some of the other modules did not help most
would not work. My laptop has been through 5.2 , 6.0 , 6.1 upgrades with no
hangups. Is there something I missed? Laptop is K6-2 333 (intel chipset),
96M ram, 4.3G HDD, ATAPI cdrom, ne2k-pci NIC, SVGA graphics, TX Instruments
pcmcia ( I think). All Ideas will help.
===
Subject: Re: RH 6.2B PCMCIA Woes
From: "Adam Sleight" <adams@linearcorp.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:42:04 -0800
not sure...I checked in linuxconf if pcmcia is enabled (on desktop 6.2 piglet)
and it just says automatic (no package.....also try /etc/rc.d/init.d/pcmcia
start & stop and nothing also...
I guess that's why I'm still using 6.0 on my laptop works great...3com pcmcia
network card and a pcmcia smartmedia adapter for getting images from my digital
camera. I remember I had to fool around a bit to get 6.0 working by loading
some module. Such a long time ago I don't remember. Maybe after 6.2 final is
release I'll give it a shot on my laptop too and suffer the consequences too.
is cardmgr detecting it? do a man cardmgr ...check /var/state/pcmcia/stab or
/var/lib/pcmcia/stab so it says.
> I upgraded my laptop and everything went smooth (aside from having to
> connect an external monitor). The only problem is on the reboot into 6.2
> PCMCIA will not initialize. I have not network connection. :-( Does anyone
> know a solution to this? When I do /etc/rc.d/init.d/pcmcia start it just
> goes back to prompt. no [ok] or [failed]. I tried modprobe pcmcia_core
> (which is OK) but inserting some of the other modules did not help most
> would not work. My laptop has been through 5.2 , 6.0 , 6.1 upgrades with no
> hangups. Is there something I missed? Laptop is K6-2 333 (intel chipset),
> 96M ram, 4.3G HDD, ATAPI cdrom, ne2k-pci NIC, SVGA graphics, TX Instruments
> pcmcia ( I think). All Ideas will help.
===
Subject: Re: RH6.2 ISO Image - where
From: "Michael J. McGillick" <mike@universe.ne.mediaone.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:39:18 -0500 (EST)
What FTP site are you going to where you saw 6.2 direcotry and not the
Beta? On ftp.redhat.com, I see no such thing. Am I looking in the wrong
place?
===