12:05 p.m.
I've checked the archives, and not found anything useful (just two hits
searching on "Radeon 9600 Pro"), so if this has been covered before I
apologise.
I have the above-mentioned card, and am having a devil of a time getting
it to work properly. When selecting the driver that comes with FC1 for
Radeon 9600 Pro, my system locks up hard during the login process.
Normally I'm able to enter username/password, but it freezes before
getting the desktop. If I try to specifically select a desktop
environment (Gnome, KDE), I get a lockup in that dialog itself.
As I had done a number of things immediately before this first happened,
I did not immediately realise that it was the video driver itself which
had done this. A fortunately-timed kudzu run somehow removed the Radeon
driver and reinstalled the generic VESA, at which point things worked
again.
The relevant portions of the /etc/X11/XF86Config file follow:
Section "Device"
Identifier "Videocard0"
Driver "vesa"
VendorName "Videocard vendor"
BoardName "VESA driver (generic)"
EndSection
#Section "Device"
# Identifier "Videocard0"
# Driver "radeon"
# VendorName "Videocard vendor"
# BoardName "ATI Radeon 9600 Pro"
#EndSection
As you can see, I commented out the offending portion but kept it in for
historical purposes.
The ATI website has a driver for this board, one for each of the
following versions of XFree86: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3. It appears I am using
4.3, so I downloaded the corresponding RPM. Attempting to install the
RPM, however, gives the following error:
rpm -Uvh fglrx-glc22-4.3.0-3.7.0.i386.rpm
Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
file /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.2 from install of
fglrx-glc22-4.3.0-3.7.0 conflicts with file from package
XFree86-Mesa-libGL-4.3.0-42
I was not able to find anything on their website to address this issue.
I've heard somewhere that I shouldn't bother with the ATI-supplied
drivers in any event, so perhaps I'm not too heartbroken. However,
checking up on the above I don't understand the conflict; yum tells me
that my XFree86-Mesa-libGL is both installed and the latest version.
Any thoughts on how to resolve this, and/or pointers to where I might
look? I'd hate to think that I need to boot into Windows to get better
video playback, etc, not to mention the other features this card
supports.
Thanks for your time,
-Don
12:09 p.m.
Am So, den 18.01.2004 schrieb Don Levey um 19:05:
I've checked the archives, and not found anything useful (just
two hits
searching on "Radeon 9600 Pro"), so if this has been covered before I
apologise.
I have the above-mentioned card, and am having a devil of a time getting
it to work properly. When selecting the driver that comes with FC1 for
Radeon 9600 Pro, my system locks up hard during the login process.
Normally I'm able to enter username/password, but it freezes before
getting the desktop. If I try to specifically select a desktop
environment (Gnome, KDE), I get a lockup in that dialog itself.
As I had done a number of things immediately before this first happened,
I did not immediately realise that it was the video driver itself which
had done this. A fortunately-timed kudzu run somehow removed the Radeon
driver and reinstalled the generic VESA, at which point things worked
again.
The relevant portions of the /etc/X11/XF86Config file follow:
Section "Device"
Identifier "Videocard0"
Driver "vesa"
VendorName "Videocard vendor"
BoardName "VESA driver (generic)"
EndSection
#Section "Device"
# Identifier "Videocard0"
# Driver "radeon"
# VendorName "Videocard vendor"
# BoardName "ATI Radeon 9600 Pro"
#EndSection
As you can see, I commented out the offending portion but kept it in for
historical purposes.
The ATI website has a driver for this board, one for each of the
following versions of XFree86: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3. It appears I am using
4.3, so I downloaded the corresponding RPM. Attempting to install the
RPM, however, gives the following error:
rpm -Uvh fglrx-glc22-4.3.0-3.7.0.i386.rpm
Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
file /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.2 from install of
fglrx-glc22-4.3.0-3.7.0 conflicts with file from package
XFree86-Mesa-libGL-4.3.0-42
The ATI driver comes with his own GL libraries and so it conflicts with the already
Mesa-libGL package from XFree. It's the same with the NVidia driver. Just remove the
XFree86-Mesa-libGL. You need to rpm -e --nodeps.
I was not able to find anything on their website to address this
issue.
I've heard somewhere that I shouldn't bother with the ATI-supplied
drivers in any event, so perhaps I'm not too heartbroken. However,
checking up on the above I don't understand the conflict; yum tells me
that my XFree86-Mesa-libGL is both installed and the latest version.
Any thoughts on how to resolve this, and/or pointers to where I might
look? I'd hate to think that I need to boot into Windows to get better
video playback, etc, not to mention the other features this card
supports.
Thanks for your time,
-Don
Alexander
--
Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany
PGP key valid: made 13.07.1999
PGP fingerprint: 2307 88FD 2D41 038E 7416 14CD E197 6E88 ED69 5653
8:14 p.m.
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 13:09, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Am So, den 18.01.2004 schrieb Don Levey um 19:05:
> I have the above-mentioned card, and am having a devil of a time
getting
> it to work properly. When selecting the driver that comes with FC1 for
> Radeon 9600 Pro, my system locks up hard during the login process.
> Normally I'm able to enter username/password, but it freezes before
> getting the desktop. If I try to specifically select a desktop
> environment (Gnome, KDE), I get a lockup in that dialog itself.
>
The ATI driver comes with his own GL libraries and so it conflicts with the already
Mesa-libGL package from XFree. It's the same with the NVidia driver. Just remove the
XFree86-Mesa-libGL. You need to rpm -e --nodeps.
Alexander
Alexander, et al:
This was exactly what fixed it. I removed the stock Mesa-libGL package
and installed the ATI-supplied RPM. After running the configuration,
all was well. While not quite as nice as the HDTV in the next room,
it's much better than the generic VESA driver.
Thanks again!
-Don
12:01 p.m.
Don Levey wrote:
Alexander, et al:
This was exactly what fixed it. I removed the stock Mesa-libGL package
and installed the ATI-supplied RPM. After running the configuration,
all was well. While not quite as nice as the HDTV in the next room,
it's much better than the generic VESA driver.
Thanks again!
-Don
Don,
Are you saying that you have your 9600 pro working with full hardware
DRI using the ATI drivers?
I followed the ATI instructions but I still don't have hardware DRI.
I did the --force install but didn't do a remove of the Mesa-libGL.
This could have been my problem.
--
Robin Laing
12:14 p.m.
Robin wrote:
Don,
Are you saying that you have your 9600 pro working with full hardware
DRI using the ATI drivers?
I followed the ATI instructions but I still don't have hardware DRI.
I did the --force install but didn't do a remove of the Mesa-libGL.
This could have been my problem.
Well, I don't know if I'm using full DRI; I don't know how to go about
testing 3D at the moment. Here is the "dri" section from XF86Config-4:
Section "dri"
# Access to OpenGL ICD is allowed for all users:
Mode 0666
# Access to OpenGL ICD is restricted to a specific user group:
# Group 100 # users
# Mode 0660
EndSection
The ATI Device section is here:
# === ATI device section ===
Section "Device"
Identifier "ATI Graphics Adapter"
Driver "fglrx"
# ### generic DRI settings ###
# === disable PnP Monitor ===
#Option "NoDDC"
# === disable/enable XAA/DRI ===
Option "no_accel" "no"
Option "no_dri" "no"
# === misc DRI settings ===
Option "mtrr" "off" # disable DRI mtrr
mapper,
driver has its own code for mtrr
# ### FireGL DDX driver module specific settings ###
# === Screen Management ===
Option "DesktopSetup" "0x00000000"
Option "MonitorLayout" "AUTO, AUTO"
Option "IgnoreEDID" "off"
Option "HSync2" "unspecified"
Option "VRefresh2" "unspecified"
Option "ScreenOverlap" "0"
# === TV-out Management ===
Option "NoTV" "no"
Option "TVStandard" "NTSC-M"
Option "TVHSizeAdj" "0"
Option "TVVSizeAdj" "0"
Option "TVHPosAdj" "0"
Option "TVVPosAdj" "0"
Option "TVHStartAdj" "0"
Option "TVColorAdj" "0"
Option "GammaCorrectionI" "0x00000000"
Option "GammaCorrectionII" "0x00000000"
# === OpenGL specific profiles/settings ===
Option "Capabilities" "0x00000000"
# === Video Overlay for the Xv extension ===
Option "VideoOverlay" "on"
# === OpenGL Overlay ===
# Note: When OpenGL Overlay is enabled, Video Overlay
# will be disabled automatically
Option "OpenGLOverlay" "off"
# === Center Mode (Laptops only) ===
Option "CenterMode" "off"
# === Pseudo Color Visuals (8-bit visuals) ===
Option "PseudoColorVisuals" "off"
# === QBS Management ===
Option "Stereo" "off"
Option "StereoSyncEnable" "1"
# === FSAA Management ===
Option "FSAAEnable" "no"
Option "FSAAScale" "1"
Option "FSAADisableGamma" "no"
Option "FSAACustomizeMSPos" "no"
Option "FSAAMSPosX0" "0.000000"
Option "FSAAMSPosY0" "0.000000"
Option "FSAAMSPosX1" "0.000000"
Option "FSAAMSPosY1" "0.000000"
Option "FSAAMSPosX2" "0.000000"
Option "FSAAMSPosY2" "0.000000"
Option "FSAAMSPosX3" "0.000000"
Option "FSAAMSPosY3" "0.000000"
Option "FSAAMSPosX4" "0.000000"
Option "FSAAMSPosY4" "0.000000"
Option "FSAAMSPosX5" "0.000000"
Option "FSAAMSPosY5" "0.000000"
# === Misc Options ===
Option "UseFastTLS" "0"
Option "BlockSignalsOnLock" "on"
Option "UseInternalAGPGART" "yes"
Option "ForceGenericCPU" "no"
BusID "PCI:1:0:0" # vendor=1002, device=4150
Screen 0
EndSection
I don't know if this will help or not; how are you testing your DRI
functions?
-Don
12:43 p.m.
Don Levey wrote:
Robin wrote:
>Don,
>
>Are you saying that you have your 9600 pro working with full hardware
>DRI using the ATI drivers?
>
>I followed the ATI instructions but I still don't have hardware DRI.
>I did the --force install but didn't do a remove of the Mesa-libGL.
>This could have been my problem.
>
Well, I don't know if I'm using full DRI; I don't know how to go about
testing 3D at the moment. Here is the "dri" section from XF86Config-4:
EndSection
Your file looks similiar to mine. I will have to check this evening.
I don't know if this will help or not; how are you testing your DRI
functions?
-Don
I have used
glxinfo |grep rendering
If it comes back with
direct rendering: Yes
then it is working as expected.
--
Robin Laing
12:49 p.m.
Robin Laing wrote:
Don Levey wrote:
>
> I don't know if this will help or not; how are you testing your DRI
> functions? -Don
>
I have used
glxinfo |grep rendering
If it comes back with
direct rendering: Yes
then it is working as expected.
Hmm... I tried that and I got:
Error: unable to open display (null)
Then again, I'm on a text-based ssh session at the moment, so I'll run it at
home and see if the response is different.
-Don
12:52 p.m.
Don Levey wrote:
Robin Laing wrote:
> Don Levey wrote:
>>
>> I don't know if this will help or not; how are you testing your DRI
>> functions? -Don
>>
>
> I have used
> glxinfo |grep rendering
>
> If it comes back with
> direct rendering: Yes
> then it is working as expected.
>
Hmm... I tried that and I got:
Error: unable to open display (null)
Then again, I'm on a text-based ssh session at the moment, so I'll
run it at home and see if the response is different. -Don
Ah, here we go. I did:
export DISPLAY=:0.0
and got, as a result:
direct rendering: No
I'll be watching this one top...
-Don
12:59 p.m.
Don Levey wrote:
Don Levey wrote:
>Robin Laing wrote:
>
>
>>Don Levey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't know if this will help or not; how are you testing your DRI
>>>functions? -Don
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I have used
>> glxinfo |grep rendering
>>
>>If it comes back with
>> direct rendering: Yes
>>then it is working as expected.
>>
>>
>>
>Hmm... I tried that and I got:
> Error: unable to open display (null)
>
>Then again, I'm on a text-based ssh session at the moment, so I'll
> run it at home and see if the response is different. -Don
>
>
Ah, here we go. I did:
export DISPLAY=:0.0
and got, as a result:
direct rendering: No
I'll be watching this one top...
-Don
What are the results of your fglrxinfo ?
1:09 p.m.
fedora-list-admin(a)redhat.com wrote:
Don Levey wrote:
> Ah, here we go. I did:
> export DISPLAY=:0.0
> and got, as a result:
> direct rendering: No
>
> I'll be watching this one top...
> -Don
>
>
>
>
What are the results of your fglrxinfo ?
display: :0.0 screen: 0
OpenGL vendor string: Mesa project: www.mesa3d.org
OpenGL renderer string: Mesa GLX Indirect
OpenGL version string: 1.3 Mesa 4.0.4
-Don
1:18 p.m.
Don Levey wrote:
fedora-list-admin(a)redhat.com wrote:
>Don Levey wrote:
>
>
>>Ah, here we go. I did:
>> export DISPLAY=:0.0
>>and got, as a result:
>> direct rendering: No
>>
>>I'll be watching this one top...
>>-Don
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>What are the results of your fglrxinfo ?
>
>
display: :0.0 screen: 0
OpenGL vendor string: Mesa project: www.mesa3d.org
OpenGL renderer string: Mesa GLX Indirect
OpenGL version string: 1.3 Mesa 4.0.4
-Don
There's a major problem - those mesa drivers need to go away. Look over
the thread at linuxquestions.org that I posted before and see if there
are any of those steps you did not complete. The full install step is
not necessary, just something I did out of frustration.
(http://linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=116223).
2:09 p.m.
>
> display: :0.0 screen: 0
> OpenGL vendor string: Mesa project: www.mesa3d.org
> OpenGL renderer string: Mesa GLX Indirect
> OpenGL version string: 1.3 Mesa 4.0.4
>
> -Don
>
>
>
>
There's a major problem - those mesa drivers need to go away. Look
over the thread at linuxquestions.org that I posted before and see if
there are any of those steps you did not complete. The full install
step is not necessary, just something I did out of frustration.
(http://linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=116223).
Just struck me - of course you have the mesa drivers loaded, according
to you XFreeconfig, the radeon drivers are commented out, i assume to
relieve the lockup issue you were having. Earlier I saw you had tried
to install the fire gl drivers and got the error about a conflict with
mesa, try to install the firegl drivers rpm with the --force option,
then run the fglrxconfig to create a new XFreeconfig file for you (or do
it manually)...that should help you get some meaningful information in
your XFree Error log if there is in fact still a problem. For me with
the 9700 pro (only 2D support provided by fedora) things didn't really
start to click until after a kernel recompile with agpart and radeon as
loadable modules. Unfortunately I have to work from memory here as the
box I did this on was for a friend and I don't have ready access to it.
2:36 p.m.
fedora-list-admin(a)redhat.com wrote:
>> display: :0.0 screen: 0
>> OpenGL vendor string: Mesa project: www.mesa3d.org
>> OpenGL renderer string: Mesa GLX Indirect
>> OpenGL version string: 1.3 Mesa 4.0.4
>>
>> -Don
>>
>>
>>
>>
> There's a major problem - those mesa drivers need to go away. Look
> over the thread at linuxquestions.org that I posted before and see if
> there are any of those steps you did not complete. The full install
> step is not necessary, just something I did out of frustration.
> (http://linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=116223).
>
>
>
Just struck me - of course you have the mesa drivers loaded, according
to you XFreeconfig, the radeon drivers are commented out, i assume to
relieve the lockup issue you were having. Earlier I saw you had tried
to install the fire gl drivers and got the error about a conflict with
mesa, try to install the firegl drivers rpm with the --force option,
then run the fglrxconfig to create a new XFreeconfig file for you (or
do it manually)...that should help you get some meaningful
information in your XFree Error log if there is in fact still a
problem. For me with the 9700 pro (only 2D support provided by
fedora) things didn't really start to click until after a kernel
recompile with agpart and radeon as loadable modules. Unfortunately
I have to work from memory here as the box I did this on was for a
friend and I don't have ready access to it.
I'm assuming that the "you" in your post is me, as I was having lockup
problems.
I don't recall trying to install firegl drivers; the XF86Config file I
posted at the start has been superceded. The file itself was either deleted
or modified and saved as XF86Config-4. I removed (rpm -e) the Mesa drivers;
what's there now was installed by the ATI rpm itself.
Considering the number of things I needed to do to get things working, I'd
reluctant to recompile the kernel. Perhaps I'll try it anyway, both the
current stock version with the modules and a 2.6.1 version. But it took me
so long to get sound on this machine (whine)...
-Don
2:45 p.m.
Don Levey wrote:
fedora-list-admin(a)redhat.com wrote:
>>>display: :0.0 screen: 0
>>>OpenGL vendor string: Mesa project: www.mesa3d.org
>>>OpenGL renderer string: Mesa GLX Indirect
>>>OpenGL version string: 1.3 Mesa 4.0.4
>>>
>>>-Don
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>There's a major problem - those mesa drivers need to go away. Look
>>over the thread at linuxquestions.org that I posted before and see if
>>there are any of those steps you did not complete. The full install
>>step is not necessary, just something I did out of frustration.
>>(http://linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=116223).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Just struck me - of course you have the mesa drivers loaded, according
>to you XFreeconfig, the radeon drivers are commented out, i assume to
>relieve the lockup issue you were having. Earlier I saw you had tried
>to install the fire gl drivers and got the error about a conflict with
>mesa, try to install the firegl drivers rpm with the --force option,
>then run the fglrxconfig to create a new XFreeconfig file for you (or
>do it manually)...that should help you get some meaningful
>information in your XFree Error log if there is in fact still a
>problem. For me with the 9700 pro (only 2D support provided by
>fedora) things didn't really start to click until after a kernel
>recompile with agpart and radeon as loadable modules. Unfortunately
>I have to work from memory here as the box I did this on was for a
>friend and I don't have ready access to it.
>
>
I'm assuming that the "you" in your post is me, as I was having lockup
problems.
I don't recall trying to install firegl drivers; the XF86Config file I
posted at the start has been superceded. The file itself was either deleted
or modified and saved as XF86Config-4. I removed (rpm -e) the Mesa drivers;
what's there now was installed by the ATI rpm itself.
Considering the number of things I needed to do to get things working, I'd
reluctant to recompile the kernel. Perhaps I'll try it anyway, both the
current stock version with the modules and a 2.6.1 version. But it took me
so long to get sound on this machine (whine)...
-Don
Understood - It's unfortunate that ATI doesn't provide nearly the level
of support that Nvidia does to *nix users. here's a great link for a
kernel compile, it's for redhat 8,9 but you should be able to adapt it
to FC1 without much trouble.
http://linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=91503
Best of luck, I nearly pulled my hair out, but in the end the results
were well worth it.
Thomas
3:22 p.m.
Don Levey wrote:
I'm assuming that the "you" in your post is me, as I was having lockup
problems.
I don't recall trying to install firegl drivers; the XF86Config file I
posted at the start has been superceded. The file itself was either deleted
or modified and saved as XF86Config-4. I removed (rpm -e) the Mesa drivers;
what's there now was installed by the ATI rpm itself.
Considering the number of things I needed to do to get things working, I'd
reluctant to recompile the kernel. Perhaps I'll try it anyway, both the
current stock version with the modules and a 2.6.1 version. But it took me
so long to get sound on this machine (whine)...
-Don
There is a script that makes the module to the source without comiling
the whole kernel. I cannot remember it at this time as the computer
is at home and I am at work.
The issue I have with ATI is that they provide drivers on their page
and as a user I would assume that they are "full feature" drivers. If
they aren't I wish ATI would put in large red flashing letters that
they are crap drivers and do not purchase the card.
I purchased a 9600 pro based on ATI having the drivers. I would have
gone to another manufacturer if I had known that their drivers only
enable part of the card.
I didn't remove the mesa drivers before installing but I wonder if
that is were the I am having a problem.
--
Robin Laing
Instrumentation Technologist Voice: 1.403.544.4762
Military Engineering Section FAX: 1.403.544.4704
Defence R&D Canada - Suffield Email: Robin.Laing(a)DRDC-RDDC.gc.ca
PO Box 4000, Station Main WWW:http://www.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca
Medicine Hat, AB, T1A 8K6
Canada
12:57 p.m.
Em Seg, 2004-01-19 Ã s 15:14, Don Levey escreveu:
Well, I don't know if I'm using full DRI; I don't know
how to go about
testing 3D at the moment. Here is the "dri" section from XF86Config-4:
I don't know if this will help or not; how are you testing your
DRI
functions?
run glxinfo - and look for "direct rendering"
--
[]s
Alexandre Ganso
500 FOUR vermelha - Diretor Steel Goose Moto Group
6:18 p.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
All,
I tried to upgrade RH 8 on another of my development machines and, while
the upgrade claimed it was successful, the upgrade process royally
messed up in setting up the modules for the kernel. The modules.info
file is missing from /boot. Also the /lib/modules/e2.4.20-20....
directory that contains those modules..... wasn't even created so when
Fedora boots up, I get a cascade of missing modules errors.
I have no idea why the modules files are missing, but more importantly
how can I fix this problem? Reinstalling from the distribution CD just
skips over everything and doesn't fix the problem. I imagine I'll have
to patch all of this by hand but don't really know where to start....
any ideas?
-- John
6:54 p.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 00:18, John Nelson wrote:
All,
I tried to upgrade RH 8 on another of my development machines and, while
the upgrade claimed it was successful, the upgrade process royally
messed up in setting up the modules for the kernel. The modules.info
file is missing from /boot. Also the /lib/modules/e2.4.20-20....
directory that contains those modules..... wasn't even created so when
Fedora boots up, I get a cascade of missing modules errors.
2.4.20-20 is the RHL8 kernel, so Fedora wouldn't create it as it knows
nothing about it.
I have no idea why the modules files are missing, but more
importantly
how can I fix this problem? Reinstalling from the distribution CD just
skips over everything and doesn't fix the problem. I imagine I'll have
to patch all of this by hand but don't really know where to start....
any ideas?
It sounds like something went wrong during the kernel upgrade.
You could just grab the latest update, and rpm -i that, and it should
sort everything out. (Afterwards, you can rpm -qa | grep kernel and
remove all the other non-working ones).
Dave
7:12 p.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:18:23 -0500
John Nelson <developer(a)computation.com> wrote:
All,
I tried to upgrade RH 8 on another of my development machines and,
while the upgrade claimed it was successful, the upgrade process
royally messed up in setting up the modules for the kernel. The
modules.info file is missing from /boot. Also the
/lib/modules/e2.4.20-20.... directory that contains those modules.....
wasn't even created so when Fedora boots up, I get a cascade of
missing modules errors.
I have no idea why the modules files are missing, but more importantly
how can I fix this problem? Reinstalling from the distribution CD just
skips over everything and doesn't fix the problem. I imagine I'll have
to patch all of this by hand but don't really know where to start....
any ideas?
Hi John,
No idea why FC install would mess things up. In order to fix it I would
try either:
1. install kernel RPMs with up2date (or apt-get, yum etc.)
2. install kernel source and compile/install
option #2 is slightly more complex if you're not used to compiling
kernel by hand, so you should really try option #1 first.
HTH
Andre
--
Andre Oliveira da Costa
8:59 a.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
On Monday 19 January 2004 07:18 pm, John Nelson wrote:
I tried to upgrade RH 8 on another of my development machines and,
while
the upgrade claimed it was successful, the upgrade process royally
messed up in setting up the modules for the kernel. The modules.info
file is missing from /boot. Also the /lib/modules/e2.4.20-20....
directory that contains those modules..... wasn't even created so when
Fedora boots up, I get a cascade of missing modules errors.
This box use LILO? I ran into this with a box; the cure was getting LILO
properly configured for the 2.4.22 kernel used by FC1. This was not trivial,
since several LILO support files had been changed in /boot. The modules were
removed by the RPM upgrade process, but LILO is still pointing to the old
kernel binary. I do not remember the full sequence of steps that were
required; if this box CAN use GRUB you will want to use GRUB on it;
installing GRUB from scratch isn't too fun, though. To boot the the right
kernel you can run mkbootdisk (that is, if the kernel isn't too large to fit
on a floppy) and boot from that, or you can boot the install CD in rescue
mode to get things mounted to where you can work on them.
--
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC 28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu
10:28 a.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Monday 19 January 2004 07:18 pm, John Nelson wrote:
>I tried to upgrade RH 8 on another of my development machines and, while
>the upgrade claimed it was successful, the upgrade process royally
>messed up in setting up the modules for the kernel. The modules.info
>file is missing from /boot. Also the /lib/modules/e2.4.20-20....
>directory that contains those modules..... wasn't even created so when
>Fedora boots up, I get a cascade of missing modules errors.
This box use LILO? I ran into this with a box; the cure was getting LILO
properly configured for the 2.4.22 kernel used by FC1. This was not trivial,
since several LILO support files had been changed in /boot. The modules were
removed by the RPM upgrade process, but LILO is still pointing to the old
kernel binary. I do not remember the full sequence of steps that were
required; if this box CAN use GRUB you will want to use GRUB on it;
installing GRUB from scratch isn't too fun, though. To boot the the right
kernel you can run mkbootdisk (that is, if the kernel isn't too large to fit
on a floppy) and boot from that, or you can boot the install CD in rescue
mode to get things mounted to where you can work on them.
Another thing you can do is put the install disk on and choose to
upgrade your current system and simply walk through the install again.
It shouldn't overwrite everything you've already done, but you can
choose to install Grub to your mbr at that point....without the
configuration.
Wade
2 p.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
Wade Chandler wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Monday 19 January 2004 07:18 pm, John Nelson wrote:
>
Another thing you can do is put the install disk on and choose to
upgrade your current system and simply walk through the install again.
It shouldn't overwrite everything you've already done, but you can
choose to install Grub to your mbr at that point....without the
configuration.
Wade
I had a similiar problem and I had to do an install instead of an
upgrade from the installation CD. I only installed the kernel. The
upgrade would not work as the rpm database said that the kernel was
installed already.
My computer crashed during a kernel upgrade and I could not install
teh kernel from RPM using either booting off of the CD or the
emergency disk.
It did change my boot from dual (FC/XP) so I cannot boot into XP but I
don't care as I was about to trash XP anyways.
This was a good lesson in keeping an older kernel on the HD in cases
something like this happens again.
--
Robin Laing
11:53 p.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
I tried this. The update just went through the motions and concluded that
the install was completed. No change in modules.
-- John
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Robin Laing wrote:
Wade Chandler wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> On Monday 19 January 2004 07:18 pm, John Nelson wrote:
>>
>
> Another thing you can do is put the install disk on and choose to
> upgrade your current system and simply walk through the install again.
> It shouldn't overwrite everything you've already done, but you can
> choose to install Grub to your mbr at that point....without the
> configuration.
>
> Wade
>
>
>
I had a similiar problem and I had to do an install instead of an
upgrade from the installation CD. I only installed the kernel. The
upgrade would not work as the rpm database said that the kernel was
installed already.
My computer crashed during a kernel upgrade and I could not install
teh kernel from RPM using either booting off of the CD or the
emergency disk.
It did change my boot from dual (FC/XP) so I cannot boot into XP but I
don't care as I was about to trash XP anyways.
This was a good lesson in keeping an older kernel on the HD in cases
something like this happens again.
10:06 a.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 06:53, John T Nelson wrote:
I tried this. The update just went through the motions and concluded
that
the install was completed. No change in modules.
-- John
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Robin Laing wrote:
> Wade Chandler wrote:
> > Lamar Owen wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday 19 January 2004 07:18 pm, John Nelson wrote:
> >>
>
> >
> > Another thing you can do is put the install disk on and choose to
> > upgrade your current system and simply walk through the install again.
> > It shouldn't overwrite everything you've already done, but you can
> > choose to install Grub to your mbr at that point....without the
> > configuration.
> >
> > Wade
> >
> >
> >
>
> I had a similiar problem and I had to do an install instead of an
> upgrade from the installation CD. I only installed the kernel. The
> upgrade would not work as the rpm database said that the kernel was
> installed already.
>
> My computer crashed during a kernel upgrade and I could not install
> teh kernel from RPM using either booting off of the CD or the
> emergency disk.
>
> It did change my boot from dual (FC/XP) so I cannot boot into XP but I
> don't care as I was about to trash XP anyways.
>
> This was a good lesson in keeping an older kernel on the HD in cases
> something like this happens again.
>
>
>
And you asked the installer to install GRUB?
Sturla
9:55 p.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
No... update the current loader which is LILO.
-- John
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Sturla Holm Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 06:53, John T Nelson wrote:
> I tried this. The update just went through the motions and concluded that
> the install was completed. No change in modules.
>
> -- John
>
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Robin Laing wrote:
>
> > Wade Chandler wrote:
> > > Lamar Owen wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Monday 19 January 2004 07:18 pm, John Nelson wrote:
> > >>
> >
> > >
> > > Another thing you can do is put the install disk on and choose to
> > > upgrade your current system and simply walk through the install again.
> > > It shouldn't overwrite everything you've already done, but you can
> > > choose to install Grub to your mbr at that point....without the
> > > configuration.
> > >
> > > Wade
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I had a similiar problem and I had to do an install instead of an
> > upgrade from the installation CD. I only installed the kernel. The
> > upgrade would not work as the rpm database said that the kernel was
> > installed already.
> >
> > My computer crashed during a kernel upgrade and I could not install
> > teh kernel from RPM using either booting off of the CD or the
> > emergency disk.
> >
> > It did change my boot from dual (FC/XP) so I cannot boot into XP but I
> > don't care as I was about to trash XP anyways.
> >
> > This was a good lesson in keeping an older kernel on the HD in cases
> > something like this happens again.
> >
> >
> >
>
And you asked the installer to install GRUB?
Sturla
9:53 p.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
This sounds similar to my problem. Apparently the Fedora upgrade process
has some kind of bug. I have another box that runs Windows XP (that's why
the subject of this article is "ANOTHER... tale of woe") which exhibits
the same problems with XP that you have (can't boot into XP). Trying to
upgrade to Fedora CORE, installed GRUB over the Windows MBR and now I
can't boot into XP. Just goes to the "GRUB L?" prompt.
Of course, now my setup is mangled.
-- John
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Robin Laing wrote:
Wade Chandler wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> On Monday 19 January 2004 07:18 pm, John Nelson wrote:
>>
>
> Another thing you can do is put the install disk on and choose to
> upgrade your current system and simply walk through the install again.
> It shouldn't overwrite everything you've already done, but you can
> choose to install Grub to your mbr at that point....without the
> configuration.
>
> Wade
>
>
>
I had a similiar problem and I had to do an install instead of an
upgrade from the installation CD. I only installed the kernel. The
upgrade would not work as the rpm database said that the kernel was
installed already.
My computer crashed during a kernel upgrade and I could not install
teh kernel from RPM using either booting off of the CD or the
emergency disk.
It did change my boot from dual (FC/XP) so I cannot boot into XP but I
don't care as I was about to trash XP anyways.
This was a good lesson in keeping an older kernel on the HD in cases
something like this happens again.
11:58 p.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
Don't think this is the problem. THere is only one kernel on this
machine... the FC1 kernel. Problem is that the FC1 upgrade didn't install
all the module support needed. I can boot into FC1 but get lots of errors
complaining about missing modules.
Any chance I can correct this by hand since the installer disk does not
correct this condition (the installer created the problem in the fist
place)?
-- John
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Wade Chandler wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Monday 19 January 2004 07:18 pm, John Nelson wrote:
>
>>I tried to upgrade RH 8 on another of my development machines and, while
>>the upgrade claimed it was successful, the upgrade process royally
>>messed up in setting up the modules for the kernel. The modules.info
>>file is missing from /boot. Also the /lib/modules/e2.4.20-20....
>>directory that contains those modules..... wasn't even created so when
>>Fedora boots up, I get a cascade of missing modules errors.
>
>
> This box use LILO? I ran into this with a box; the cure was getting LILO
> properly configured for the 2.4.22 kernel used by FC1. This was not trivial,
> since several LILO support files had been changed in /boot. The modules were
> removed by the RPM upgrade process, but LILO is still pointing to the old
> kernel binary. I do not remember the full sequence of steps that were
> required; if this box CAN use GRUB you will want to use GRUB on it;
> installing GRUB from scratch isn't too fun, though. To boot the the right
> kernel you can run mkbootdisk (that is, if the kernel isn't too large to fit
> on a floppy) and boot from that, or you can boot the install CD in rescue
> mode to get things mounted to where you can work on them.
Another thing you can do is put the install disk on and choose to
upgrade your current system and simply walk through the install again.
It shouldn't overwrite everything you've already done, but you can
choose to install Grub to your mbr at that point....without the
configuration.
Wade
4:17 a.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
On Wednesday 21 January 2004 05:58, John T Nelson wrote:
THere is only one kernel on this
machine... the FC1 kernel. Problem is that the FC1 upgrade didn't install
all the module support needed. I can boot into FC1 but get lots of errors
complaining about missing modules.
If you upgraded, why don't you have the kernel(s)
from your previous system?
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
9:44 a.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
Timothy Murphy wrote:
On Wednesday 21 January 2004 05:58, John T Nelson wrote:
>THere is only one kernel on this
>machine... the FC1 kernel. Problem is that the FC1 upgrade didn't install
>all the module support needed. I can boot into FC1 but get lots of errors
>complaining about missing modules.
If you upgraded, why don't you have the kernel(s)
from your previous system?
I think the problem with rpm is the term upgrade and install when it
comes to kernels. I have made the same mistake of "upgrading" by
using the "U" to upgrade, not following the idea of "installing" the
second kernel using "i" and then using grub to boot to the new kernel.
I did it last month in a rush at christmas time but I had a computer
crash at the same time so more went wrong.
I don't know if it is possible to configure the rpm or kernel files to
give a warning that using the U command could crash the system and not
install all files. Or to fall back to the install instead of
upgrading the kernel and modules.
--
Robin Laing
12:20 p.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
All,
To make a long story short, I tried to upgrade RH8 to Fedora CORE
upgrade but booting CORE gives me module loading errors (out the wazoo).
The CORE kernel is being booted but /boot/map seems to be pointing to old
RH8 module info. So the /boot/map file is not being updated.
Ok, so when I run lilo hoping to update this map somehow, I get a Fatal
error because it claims the map info doesn't exist (the file does exist
and I get the same message if I remove the file.... yes lilo.conf does
specify the right path).
So I can't rebuild my map file. I feel certain that if I could do that
then the kernel would boot with the correct module info. Is this the right
approach?
-- John
5:16 p.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
On Sunday 25 January 2004 18:20, John T Nelson wrote:
To make a long story short, I tried to upgrade RH8 to Fedora CORE
upgrade but booting CORE gives me module loading errors (out the wazoo).
If you upgraded, wouldn't your old kernels be available?
Ok, so when I run lilo hoping to update this map somehow, I get a
Fatal
error because it claims the map info doesn't exist (the file does exist
and I get the same message if I remove the file.... yes lilo.conf does
specify the right path).
Fedora uses grub by default, rather than lilo.
I don't know if that is the problem.
It's probably simplest to go over to grub,
unless you have religious objections.
The config file for grub is /etc/grub.conf .
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
1:05 a.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Timothy Murphy wrote:
On Sunday 25 January 2004 18:20, John T Nelson wrote:
> To make a long story short, I tried to upgrade RH8 to Fedora CORE
> upgrade but booting CORE gives me module loading errors (out the wazoo).
It's probably simplest to go over to grub,
unless you have religious objections.
The config file for grub is /etc/grub.conf .
I did the same thing and ran into the same problem.
Fedora upgrade didnt add any initrd to the grub config so all raid
controllers stopped working after the upgrade. Had to manually create an
initrd and add it to grub.conf, then everything worked ok.
I then downloaded kernel upgrade to latest version and it properly created
the initrd required, so modules.conf was properly configured from start.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se
12:37 p.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
On Sunday 25 January 2004 01:20 pm, John T Nelson wrote:
To make a long story short, I tried to upgrade RH8 to Fedora CORE
upgrade but booting CORE gives me module loading errors (out the wazoo).
The CORE kernel is being booted but /boot/map seems to be pointing to old
RH8 module info. So the /boot/map file is not being updated.
It's deeper than that. You originally wrote that kernel 2.4.20 was booting.
This is NOT the CORE kernel.
Ok, so when I run lilo hoping to update this map somehow, I get a
Fatal
error because it claims the map info doesn't exist (the file does exist
and I get the same message if I remove the file.... yes lilo.conf does
specify the right path).
I had this same problem upgrading a HP NetServer from 8.0 to FC1. I installed
a Lilo RPM (lilo-21.4.4-24 is what I have installed), and had to go through
some hoops. I think I had to create a /boot/message file with some string in
it. I'd be glad to send those files to you if they would help. I was able
to fix the problem after consulting the LILO man page.
In my case, GRUB doesn't like this box, at least the RHL8.0 GRUB didn't.
There's critical data on this box currently, so I'm not updating to GRUB
until I absolutely have to (which will be shortly after I get another box
doing this function, and move the NetServer to dong something else, at which
time I may reinstall).
Run /sbin/lilo -q -v and tell us what it says. The -v option is your friend;
my latest lilo run, with verbosity follows:
[root@discus boot]# /sbin/lilo -v
LILO version 21.4-4, Copyright (C) 1992-1998 Werner Almesberger
'lba32' extensions Copyright (C) 1999,2000 John Coffman
boot = /dev/sda, map = /boot/map.0801
Reading boot sector from /dev/sda
Merging with /boot/boot.b
Mapping message file /boot/message
Boot image: /boot/vmlinuz-2.4.22-1.2163.nptl
Mapping RAM disk /boot/initrd-2.4.22-1.2163.nptl.img
Added 2.4.22-1.2163.1
Boot image: /boot/vmlinuz-2.4.22-1.2163.nptlsmp
Mapping RAM disk /boot/initrd-2.4.22-1.2163.nptlsmp.img
Added 2.4.22-1.2163.n *
Boot image: /boot/vmlinuz-2.4.22-1.2115.nptl.pari
Mapping RAM disk /boot/initrd-2.4.22-1.2115.nptl.pari.img
Added 2.4.22-1.2115.2
Boot image: /boot/vmlinuz-2.4.22-1.2115.nptl.parismp
Mapping RAM disk /boot/initrd-2.4.22-1.2115.nptl.parismp.img
Added 2.4.22-1.2115.1
Boot image: /boot/vmlinuz-2.4.22-1.2115.nptl
Mapping RAM disk /boot/initrd-2.4.22-1.2115.nptl.img
Added 2.4.22-1.2115.n
/boot/boot.0800 exists - no backup copy made.
Writing boot sector.
boot = /dev/sdc, map = /boot/map.0821
Reading boot sector from /dev/sdc
Merging with /boot/boot.b
Mapping message file /boot/message
Boot image: /boot/vmlinuz-2.4.22-1.2163.nptl
Mapping RAM disk /boot/initrd-2.4.22-1.2163.nptl.img
Added 2.4.22-1.2163.1
Boot image: /boot/vmlinuz-2.4.22-1.2163.nptlsmp
Mapping RAM disk /boot/initrd-2.4.22-1.2163.nptlsmp.img
Added 2.4.22-1.2163.n *
Boot image: /boot/vmlinuz-2.4.22-1.2115.nptl.pari
Mapping RAM disk /boot/initrd-2.4.22-1.2115.nptl.pari.img
Added 2.4.22-1.2115.2
Boot image: /boot/vmlinuz-2.4.22-1.2115.nptl.parismp
Mapping RAM disk /boot/initrd-2.4.22-1.2115.nptl.parismp.img
Added 2.4.22-1.2115.1
Boot image: /boot/vmlinuz-2.4.22-1.2115.nptl
Mapping RAM disk /boot/initrd-2.4.22-1.2115.nptl.img
Added 2.4.22-1.2115.n
/boot/boot.0820 exists - no backup copy made.
Writing boot sector.
[root@discus boot]#
At the beginning of this run I rm'd both map.0801 and map.0821, and the lilo
run created them for me. But having a legal /boot/message was critical to
getting it to work. In my case, a cat of message is 'Booting'.
--
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC 28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu
12:33 a.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
I assumed that Fedora CORE removes old RH systems after it does the
upgrade. Probably wants to remove all traces of the old system since they
are no longer supported.
-- John
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Timothy Murphy wrote:
On Wednesday 21 January 2004 05:58, John T Nelson wrote:
> THere is only one kernel on this
> machine... the FC1 kernel. Problem is that the FC1 upgrade didn't install
> all the module support needed. I can boot into FC1 but get lots of errors
> complaining about missing modules.
If you upgraded, why don't you have the kernel(s)
from your previous system?
11:58 p.m.
New subject: Upgrading to FC1 from RH7.1 and RH8.0
Everyone,
I am preparing to upgrade one RH 7.1 and two RH 8.0 machines to FC1. Are
there any major problems with these upgrades that should cause me to be
concerned? Will I be able to do an actual upgrade without needing to erase
the old and rebuild with FC1?
Also, does anyone know when FC2 will be released?
Thanks,
Greg Ennis
12:09 a.m.
New subject: Upgrading to FC1 from RH7.1 and RH8.0
On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 16:58, Greg Ennis wrote:
Everyone,
I am preparing to upgrade one RH 7.1 and two RH 8.0 machines to FC1. Are
there any major problems with these upgrades that should cause me to be
concerned? Will I be able to do an actual upgrade without needing to erase
the old and rebuild with FC1?
Should be fine to upgrade. Read the various FAQs before hand so you are
aware of potential issues (there are a few). Backup of course :)
Also, does anyone know when FC2 will be released?
When it's ready? :) I think it is planned for early April 2004.
Cheers, Ben
12:10 a.m.
New subject: Upgrading to FC1 from RH7.1 and RH8.0
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Greg Ennis wrote:
Everyone,
I am preparing to upgrade one RH 7.1 and two RH 8.0 machines to FC1. Are
there any major problems with these upgrades that should cause me to be
concerned? Will I be able to do an actual upgrade without needing to erase
the old and rebuild with FC1?
You should be able to upgrade. I have never had any problems doing upgrades,
but others have.
Also, does anyone know when FC2 will be released?
No, it is skd for some time in April but given that test1 is already late and
that the skd was very agressive to begin with I suspect it will be late. Just
how late remains to be seen as we get closer to the actual date. I would much
rather delay things than have them put out junk.
Tom
6:54 p.m.
New subject: Upgrading to FC1 from RH7.1 and RH8.0
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Greg Ennis wrote:
Everyone,
I am preparing to upgrade one RH 7.1 and two RH 8.0 machines to FC1. Are
there any major problems with these upgrades that should cause me to be
concerned? Will I be able to do an actual upgrade without needing to
erase
the old and rebuild with FC1?
You should be able to upgrade. I have never had any problems doing upgrades,
but others have.
Also, does anyone know when FC2 will be released?
No, it is skd for some time in April but given that test1 is already late
and
that the skd was very agressive to begin with I suspect it will be late.
Just
how late remains to be seen as we get closer to the actual date. I would
much
rather delay things than have them put out junk.
Tom
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Ben and Tom,
I'll make sure I digest the FAQ's carefully!
Greg
10:24 a.m.
New subject: ANOTHER Fedora upgrade tale of woe...
On Wednesday 21 January 2004 12:58 am, John T Nelson wrote:
Don't think this is the problem. THere is only one kernel on
this
machine... the FC1 kernel. Problem is that the FC1 upgrade didn't install
all the module support needed. I can boot into FC1 but get lots of errors
complaining about missing modules.
No, this is not what happened. The kernel version you quoted (2.4.20) is NOT
the FC1 kernel, it IS the RHL8 kernel. The right kernel and all modules (a
2.4.22 kernel) are all installed, but the bootloader is not booting the FC1
kernel. You have to tell the bootloader to do so. If you previously had
LILO as your bootloader, this can happen; I had it happen to me. I fixed it
by rerunning /sbin/lilo after tracking down a good LILO package for FC1 and
getting all the files straightened out. It was a mess.
Any chance I can correct this by hand since the installer disk does
not
correct this condition (the installer created the problem in the fist
place)?
I've already described how to do it:
> > This box use LILO? I ran into this with a box; the cure
was getting
> > LILO properly configured for the 2.4.22 kernel used by FC1. This was
> > not trivial, since several LILO support files had been changed in
> > /boot. The modules were removed by the RPM upgrade process, but LILO
> > is still pointing to the old kernel binary. I do not remember the full
> > sequence of steps that were required; if this box CAN use GRUB you will
> > want to use GRUB on it; installing GRUB from scratch isn't too fun,
> > though. To boot the the right kernel you can run mkbootdisk (that is,
> > if the kernel isn't too large to fit on a floppy) and boot from that,
> > or you can boot the install CD in rescue mode to get things mounted to
> > where you can work on them.
--
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC 28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu
9:59 p.m.
New subject: Tammy Fox - Where is she?
Is this person alive ? I've yet to receive any answers to my emails
that I have sent her. I've sent her follow up emails as outlined
below. I've have been patient and considerate. As of today I noticed
that more vendors have been added to the list. Do I need to call HQ to
resolve this matter? Anyone have any insight?
Thanks,
Byte
I've sent tfox(a)redhat.com (Tammy) the info that is required to be added
to the vendor list and I haven't heard a peep back. I've sent three
emails
1st Email with info Jan 01.
2nd Email asking about status (with info) Jan 6
3rd Email asking about status (with info) Jan 12
4th Email asking about status (with info) Jan 19
3:08 p.m.
New subject: Tammy Fox - Where is she?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 20 Jan 2004 3:59 am, ByteEnable wrote:
Is this person alive ? I've yet to receive any answers to my
emails
that I have sent her. I've sent her follow up emails as outlined
below. I've have been patient and considerate. As of today I noticed
that more vendors have been added to the list. Do I need to call HQ to
resolve this matter? Anyone have any insight?
Thanks,
Byte
I've sent tfox(a)redhat.com (Tammy) the info that is required to be added
to the vendor list and I haven't heard a peep back. I've sent three
emails
1st Email with info Jan 01.
2nd Email asking about status (with info) Jan 6
3rd Email asking about status (with info) Jan 12
4th Email asking about status (with info) Jan 19
I got a n e-mail from her today:
"I just committed a few changes. I have to get on a plane in 2 hours to
go to NY for the rest of the week, but I should have access to email at
night if you have any questions or other patches."
- --
Regards
http://www.magicfx.co.uk
http://www.suretecsystems.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFADZjmgNqd7Kng8UoRAvCXAJ0SkiazgODaE2dW9GCnCFuwo72W7ACgvSMQ
zf9oiPWeR9aHtCjVHnaWDZA=
=FZbE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10:58 p.m.
New subject: Tammy Fox - Where is she?
Sorry for the delay. I have been swamped with request so I have been
queuing them up to add. I'll get your entry added this week.
Tammy
On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 22:59, ByteEnable wrote:
Is this person alive ? I've yet to receive any answers to my
emails
that I have sent her. I've sent her follow up emails as outlined
below. I've have been patient and considerate. As of today I noticed
that more vendors have been added to the list. Do I need to call HQ to
resolve this matter? Anyone have any insight?
Thanks,
Byte
I've sent tfox(a)redhat.com (Tammy) the info that is required to be added
to the vendor list and I haven't heard a peep back. I've sent three
emails
1st Email with info Jan 01.
2nd Email asking about status (with info) Jan 6
3rd Email asking about status (with info) Jan 12
4th Email asking about status (with info) Jan 19
4:33 a.m.
New subject: Tammy Fox - Where is she?
From the looks of it she is one of those nice people running around
like mad because of LWCE. She did spend some time at the Fedora chat
last night before being called away for something else.
ciao!
leam
Tammy Fox wrote:
Sorry for the delay. I have been swamped with request so I have been
queuing them up to add. I'll get your entry added this week.
Tammy
12:29 p.m.
Don Levey wrote:
I've checked the archives, and not found anything useful (just two
hits
searching on "Radeon 9600 Pro"), so if this has been covered before I
apologise.
I have the above-mentioned card, and am having a devil of a time getting
it to work properly. When selecting the driver that comes with FC1 for
Radeon 9600 Pro, my system locks up hard during the login process.
Normally I'm able to enter username/password, but it freezes before
getting the desktop. If I try to specifically select a desktop
environment (Gnome, KDE), I get a lockup in that dialog itself.
As I had done a number of things immediately before this first happened,
I did not immediately realise that it was the video driver itself which
had done this. A fortunately-timed kudzu run somehow removed the Radeon
driver and reinstalled the generic VESA, at which point things worked
again.
The relevant portions of the /etc/X11/XF86Config file follow:
Section "Device"
Identifier "Videocard0"
Driver "vesa"
VendorName "Videocard vendor"
BoardName "VESA driver (generic)"
EndSection
#Section "Device"
# Identifier "Videocard0"
# Driver "radeon"
# VendorName "Videocard vendor"
# BoardName "ATI Radeon 9600 Pro"
#EndSection
As you can see, I commented out the offending portion but kept it in for
historical purposes.
The ATI website has a driver for this board, one for each of the
following versions of XFree86: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3. It appears I am using
4.3, so I downloaded the corresponding RPM. Attempting to install the
RPM, however, gives the following error:
rpm -Uvh fglrx-glc22-4.3.0-3.7.0.i386.rpm
Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
file /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.2 from install of
fglrx-glc22-4.3.0-3.7.0 conflicts with file from package
XFree86-Mesa-libGL-4.3.0-42
I was not able to find anything on their website to address this issue.
I've heard somewhere that I shouldn't bother with the ATI-supplied
drivers in any event, so perhaps I'm not too heartbroken. However,
checking up on the above I don't understand the conflict; yum tells me
that my XFree86-Mesa-libGL is both installed and the latest version.
Any thoughts on how to resolve this, and/or pointers to where I might
look? I'd hate to think that I need to boot into Windows to get better
video playback, etc, not to mention the other features this card
supports.
Thanks for your time,
-Don
I have a 9700 pro and had a difficult time getting it to come together.
I did get it working and posted a short explanation of my procedure over
at linuxquestions.org. This may help someone get their radeon product
working
http://linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=116223
Thomas
7385
days inactive
7408
days old
43 comments
20 participants
participants (20)
-
Alexander Dalloz -
Alexandre Strube -
Andre Costa -
Ben Stringer -
ByteEnable -
Dave Jones -
Don Levey -
Gavin Henry -
Gregory P. Ennis -
John T Nelson -
Lamar Owen -
Leam Hall -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Robin Laing -
Sturla Holm Hansen -
Tammy Fox -
Thomas Reed -
Timothy Murphy -
Tom Diehl -
Wade Chandler