Date: 16 Jul 1996 06:07:57 -0500 From: Zach Heilig <zach@freebsd.gaffaneys.com> To: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu Cc: Steve Emmert <steve@emmert.com>, questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Comm port trouble in 2.1.5 install Message-ID: <87687owj5e.fsf@freebsd.gaffaneys.com> In-Reply-To: Doug White's message of Mon, 15 Jul 1996 21:23:30 -0700 (PDT) References: <Pine.BSI.3.94.960715212241.2447D-100000@gdi.uoregon.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug White <dwhite@riley-net170-164.uoregon.edu> writes: > On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Steve Emmert wrote: > > > When I selected FTP install and COM 2 (/dev/cuaa1) then went to iij-ppp > > the modem would not respond to "at". I then did a "show modem" and found > > the device set to COM 1 (/dev/cuaa0). No amount of hacking with the option > > selections or "set device" in iij-ppp would work to get the modem on-line > > even when "show modem" displayed /dev/cuaa1. I took the disk back home and > > tried it on my system with the same results. I even FTP'ed a new boot.flp > > but nothing seems to work. My old 2.1 boot floppy works but a 2.2 -SNAP > > boot floppy fails too. > > > > Any ideas?? > > Make sure sio0 is being probed. I just changed that option on my 2.1.5 > installed machine, no problems. > > Did you check baudrate and data bits also? I noticed the same thing. If you look closely, I think the options of which device to attach the iij-ppp (and the slip stuff) to both mention cuaa0. No matter which of the 4 choices I was given, I always got /dev/cuaa0. I was able to manually select /dev/cuaa1, but the install hung later (nameserver crashed.. not really a 2.1.5 problem :-) I ended up just ftp'ing everything I needed manually, and extracting it over my running system. I merged my original /etc with the new /etc, installed the new bootblocks, rebooted, and recompiled my kernel, and rebooted. I noticed I had both /usr/lib/libutil.so.2.0 and /usr/lib/libutil.so.2.1, and I also noticed that it chose the 2.0 version as opposed to the 2.1 version (ftp complained about having to use minor version 0, which is why I discovered it). Is there any reason ld.so would chose 2.0, when 2.1 is also present? One minor hitch: I accidentally extracted the kerberos distribution over my system as well. It is rather annoying, I should be able to get rid of it by just re-extracting the appropriate files from the bin distribution, right? -- Zach Heilig (zach@blizzard.gaffaneys.com) Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have! ALL unsolicited commercial email is unwelcome. My policy is avoid dealing with companies that send out such mailings.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87687owj5e.fsf>