Thanks Russell! & Walt for your comments.
I'll admit that part of the reason that I re-installed Redhat, was
personal choice. I've been running it for several years, and I'm used to
it.
On the XFS front. I WAS finally able to get XFS & LVM to work on
Mandrake. The screwy e2fsprogs that Walt pointed out was exactly on
target. Once I installed the correct package to get the uuid libs, life
got a lot better.
The final straw came after I was already tired. It developed a problem
with the console. And I couldn't get frame buffering to work. I finally
sacked it.
I may yet return to it though. I generally liked the look & feel of
Mandrake better, their tools seemed better, and they were more up to
date on many of their packages, and methods (for example, Mandrake will
allow you to set up logical volumes at install time! Where Redhat won't
even include the code. You have to go find it on the web!).
So, my abandoning Mandrake 8.0 may not be perminent. I just needed a
break. :)
Also: Many thanks to all who tried to help me get it running. We were
nearly there! I greatly appreciate the assistance, and patience (which
exceeded my own) of the folks on this list!
Ric
Russell Cattelan wrote:
>
> Ric Tibbetts wrote:
>
> Just a side note here so people don't get the wrong impression
> Mandrake and XFS get along just fine.
> I have been running Mandrake (mainly cooker snapshots) on all my XFS
> development
> machines and my workstation for well over a year, and while it has had it's
> hiccup's
> it has been no more or less than our RH systems.
> The main reason I use Mandrake over Red Hat it the fact that they
> compile for i586 rather than i386 and they usually are more up-to-date
> on many packages.
>
> This is just personal experience; I'm not trying to change anybody mind
> about which distribution to use, I just want make sure people don't get
> the wrong impression about Mandrake + XFS.
>
> > I've surrendered the Mandrake battle. 3 days of it was enough. The box
> > now has Redhat 7.1 on it (again), and all is working well.
> >
> > Mandrake 'Looks" nice out of the box, but it's way to brittle. 3 days of
> > battles jsut trying to get XFS on it is over the top.
> >
> > I'd still like to make it work, but "work" is what it was. And it's not
> > necessary, since I can do it with Redhat in less time and far less
> > trouble.
> >
> > Thanks for the help.
> >
> > Ric
> >
> > Seth Mos wrote:
> > >
> > > At 09:45 28-4-2001 -0700, Ric Tibbetts wrote:
> > > >Keith Owens wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:40:14 -0700,
> > > > > Ric Tibbetts <ric@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >There isn't even an e2fsprogs-devel package available for intel. At
> > > > > >least not that's included on the CDs.
> > > > > >A check at rpmfind turns up several of them, from lots of
> > > > > >distributions,
> > > > > >but not Mandrake. At least not at the correct revision level, and
> > > > > >platform.
> > > > > >I did manage to find one that looked close. So I grabbed it.
> > > > > >The result of installing it via:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> rpm -ivh e2fsprogs-devel-1.19-1.i586.rpm
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:42:15 -0700,
> > > > > Ric Tibbetts <ric@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >Ok... the build just died on:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >gcc: /usr/lib/libuuid.a: No such file or directory
> > > > > >make[1]: *** [xfs_db] Error 1
> > > > > >make: *** [default] Error 2
> > > > > >
> > > > > >So we're back to the uuid problem. Any thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Do not install binary rpms from other distributions. Get the ext2
> > > > > source rpm for mandrake then build from source. Remove all the
> > > > > existing ext2 packages and install from your just compiled binary
> > > > > rpms.
> > > > > There is no point in guessing what some other distribution has done
> > > > > for
> > > > > uuid.
> > > >
> > > ><grin>
> > > >did that, and this problem went away. It was just a matter of figuring
> > > >out what package Mandrake hid it in. With that done, and the proper
> > > >package installed, everything build fine.
> > > >So that part is cured. THANK YOU to everyone who responded.
> > > >
> > > >Now if I can just fingure out the console problem... :(
> > > >
> > > >(the line you're typing on "at the console" flickers & dissapears...
> > > >Really strange. Makes it impossible to use.).
> > > >
> > > >Any thoughts on that one?
> > >
> > > I now that that console in general uses readline.
> > > What shell are you using?
> > > What videocard?
> > > Any special compile options, framebuffer support, videomode selection.
> > >
> > > It's a bit harder to find out what's wrong.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Seth
> > > Every program has two purposes
> > > one for which it was written and
> > > another for which it wasn't
> > > I make the last kind.
>
> --
> Russell Cattelan
> cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx
|