[Server-devel] XS 0.5.1 RC - Last round of testing...

[Sameer Verma]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Jerry Vonau <jvonau at shaw.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:19 -0800, Sameer Verma wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Jerry Vonau <jvonau at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 23:30 -0800, Sameer Verma wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Sameer Verma <sverma at sfsu.edu> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Martin Langhoff
>> >> > <martin.langhoff at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Sameer Verma <sverma at sfsu.edu> wrote:
>> >> >>> was with eth0 not showing up. It looks like I am the victim of the
>> >> >>> dreaded Realtek 8139 bug. It worked in XS 0.4 but in 0.5.1 it refuses
>> >> >>> to show up.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Strange, but it does look like a driver problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The links you provide show various different problems with that NIC.
>> >> >> In some cases, irqpoll in the kernel boot line fixes, in others some
>> >> >> fiddling with ethtool was needed...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It'll be good to know which of the fixes helps you :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > appending irqpoll has fixed that problem. Now, I've hit another bug.
>> >> > This is yum broken with _sha256 as stated here.
>> >> > http://fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t=193507
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm going to try the workaround.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> BTW, if you upgraded from XS-0.4, it might be a good idea to rm
>> >> >> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
>> >> >
>> >> > No, this was a clean install. I'm running the server for testing only,
>> >> > so I can afford to wipe it clean.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sameer
>> >> > --
>> >> > Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D.
>> >> > Associate Professor of Information Systems
>> >> > San Francisco State University
>> >> > San Francisco CA 94132 USA
>> >> > http://verma.sfsu.edu/
>> >> > http://opensource.sfsu.edu/
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So, after mucking around last night and today, I wiped my XS box and
>> >> reformatted it to remove ALL traces of 0.4  I have a clean 0.5.1
>> >> install on it. md5sum of the ISO is c0fde10b93cab3cb1a3bc3a42ceb5408
>> >>
>> >> I've circumvented the realtek 8139 problem by appending irqpoll in
>> >> grub.conf That seems to work, although I have to bring up eth0
>> >> manually and issuing dhcient eth0
>> >>
>> >> I still hit the bug of _sha256 as mentioned here:
>> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454179
>> >>
>> >> Note that I am not upgrading anything. Its a clean install. I believe
>> >> the appropriate word for this is: AARGH!
>> >>
>> >> I wish Fedora had  LTS or "Stable" branch (it does...kinda...in
>> >> RHEL...are we allowed to say CentOS here?) but that's another thread
>> >> and another rant. It does remind me of why I don't run anything on
>> >> Fedora anymore.
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, this is getting in the way. Is anyone seeing this too? If so,
>> >> then its a significant barrier for 0.5.1
>> >>
>> >> Suggestions?
>> >
>> > Can you post the /root/install.log and /root/anaconda.log or just send
>> > them to me.
>> >
>> > Jerry
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I've attached both. Note: anaconda.log was in /var/log/ and not in /root
>>
>> Sameer
>
> Martin:
>
> I'm seeing the same errors in the install log as Sameer while installing
> on an XO. openssl does not get installed, because uname returns as an
> i586 while there is no openssl.586 in the repo just .686. Just to backup
> my hunch note that a 586 kernel gets installed as recorded in the
> install log. "yum repolist" returns the same error as mentioned in the
> BZ on the XO.
>
> Sameer:
> What does "uname -a" return on this laptop?
>
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>

uname -a on the fujitsu laptop returns:

Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.27.9-73.fc9.i586 #1 SMP Tue Dec 16
14:34:16 EST 2008 i586 i586 i386 GNU/Linux

Sameer
-- 
Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Information Systems
San Francisco State University
San Francisco CA 94132 USA
http://verma.sfsu.edu/
http://opensource.sfsu.edu/