From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Jul 16 04:07:32 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id EAA10905 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 04:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freebsd.gaffaneys.com (dialup13.gaffaneys.com [134.129.252.32]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA10899 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 04:07:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zach@localhost) by freebsd.gaffaneys.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id GAA00706; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 06:07:58 -0500 (CDT) To: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu Cc: Steve Emmert , questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Comm port trouble in 2.1.5 install References: From: Zach Heilig Date: 16 Jul 1996 06:07:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: Doug White's message of Mon, 15 Jul 1996 21:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <87687owj5e.fsf@freebsd.gaffaneys.com> Lines: 47 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.2.32/Emacs 19.31 Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Doug White 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.