RE: 4.0 or not 4.0 advice?

Alan Wood (alan@abfl.co.uk)
Mon, 28 Oct 1996 11:56:05 -0000

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Carles Perello Garcia: "ELF disk space saving?"
Previous message: Nils Faerber: "Re: cannot execute binary file"
Next in thread: Carles Perello Garcia: "ELF disk space saving?"
Reply: Carles Perello Garcia: "ELF disk space saving?"
Reply: Erik Troan: "RE: 4.0 or not 4.0 advice?"

Hi,

I managed an FTP upgrade from 3.0.3 to 4.0 on my UDB, no
noticeable problems (once I had a working .img set, but that
was a W95 related problem :-) I did see the error setting
passive mode box, and just ignored it; it carried on, all was
OK and I was happy.

All I need to do now is work out how to set PAM up to allow me
to use rmt on the UDB.

Alan

----------
From: Scott Serr[SMTP:serrs@uffenham.isu.edu]
Sent: 26 October 1996 18:25
To: axp-list@redhat.com
Subject: Re: 4.0 or not 4.0 advice?

>> I've been trying to install 4.0 via ftp from my mirror (Intel 3.0.3),
>> with no success. I've also tried install from NFS with no success.
>> Next week, I will attempt to mount a big scsi disk on one UDB (3.0.3)
>> put the files on the ext2 fs and then take the disk over to the
>> (soon to be 4.0) UDB for a hard drive install.
>>
>> If someone could please tell me if they have had ANY success with
>> an FTP or NFS install on the Alpha I would appreciate it.
>>
>
>i was unable to get ftp install to work..i kept getting messages: ftping
>base/hdlist to a fd. hdlist on unseekable media. and then blue box with
>comps Error: package setup at line 4dne.
>
>i was able to get nfs install to work though. i mounted
>ftp.interpath.com:/home/ftp/.2 and all went well.

Ah-ha! My ftp install did the same thing from "mirror" sites, but when
I tried to ftp install from my RedHat 3.0.3 (intel) machine it would
give me the famous "passive mode error". I saw previously in the list
that one of the RedHat guys told someone with this problem that their
ftp site didn't follow some RFC, well... Does the ftpd in RedHat 3.0.3
follow this RFC? I would imagine the "passive" error is erroneous
in this case. I might add that this was on the SECOND file that it
was getting, base/comps I believe. (Yes, all through this I could
ping the machine)

I was using the new ramdisk.img too. OK, then when I tried the NFS
install, on my host I did this in my export file:

/home/ftp/pub/redhat/4.0/axp 134.50.*.*(ro)

I checked that it was properly exported from another machine, when I
NFS installed, it gave me an error like "NFS server denied permission".
???

Possibly, other's successes with NFS were do to using the original
ramdisk.img?

Well, thanks all that replied... Gave me something to think about
lots of mixed opinions. :)

Thanks,
Scott Serr
serrs@uffenham.isu.edu

-- To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe axp-list-request@redhat.com < /dev/null

--
To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe axp-list-request@redhat.com < /dev/null

Next message: Carles Perello Garcia: "ELF disk space saving?"
Previous message: Nils Faerber: "Re: cannot execute binary file"
Next in thread: Carles Perello Garcia: "ELF disk space saving?"
Reply: Carles Perello Garcia: "ELF disk space saving?"
Reply: Erik Troan: "RE: 4.0 or not 4.0 advice?"