From: yan@indetech.com ()
Subject: linux install experience, newbie question, and not so newbie question
Keywords: FAQ, install, gcc
Organization: Independence Technologies, Inc. Fremont, CA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:43:04 GMT


Sorry the first post didn't get out, saved to the wrong place.

[long post]

I am a newbie installing linux. Below are my experience, questions, etc.

The experience may help another newbie; Also if you got an answer to my
question please let me know.

Hardware:

386-40 + hd +4mb:

40m dos
20m extended dos
24m not used
40m linux

VGA+Trident --> Question: do I have no hope for X?

Software:

.97 boot
.97p1 root

Disk 3 to 10 of SLS package. tar'd to 3 inch floppies.

GCC 2.2.2d stuff.

Question: can some one tell me in brief why I want .97 rather than .96,
and in what level things are incompatible?

This installation is used primarily for someone to learn C programming
on unix systems.

Install experience and problems:

1. Dos partition the disk. (fdisk). one primary 40m, one extended 20m
which has D: drive on it. (I have 130m total)

2. Boot 0.97 then 0.97p1 root floppy
3. Install on hard disk, /dev/hda4, 40m. no swap no user

Question here: if I make the /dev/hda4 active, then DOS won't boot on C:
saying that illegal partition table entry or some such. Apparently only
one active partition is allowed in DOS. This is not covered in the FAQ.

4. go back to DOS, fix the bood disk, boot to hard drive.

5. tar SLS package

6. Question: found that all my /dev/*fd* entries are changed!!.
/dev/fd{0 1} use to have major minor of 2 0 or some such, now they are 0
0. Am I doing things wrong or is this the change between two versions?

6. go back to 0.97p1 root floppy and do install again, this correct the
/dev/fd* stuff. (just get the root dir files)

8. Now I have a 0.97 boot imag, with some 0.97p1 binaries + files, plus
whatever the rest come from SLS which is .96

Question -- am I in trouble? I really liked to have newer stuff, but I
should probably have used all 0.96 stuff, given that the system is used
for learning C programming on UNIX.

Question 2 -- I only found that ps didn't work, where can I find a
better ps binary?

Question 3 -- how can I make vi not insert blanks? get the .96 termcap
file?

Extended Install

9. get 0.97 source and install
10. patch <.97p1.patch or some. Got whole bunch of "hunt" failures, some
message complaining about that "this looks like new style diff to me" or
some such. Remember that I probably have .96's patch command, am I ok at
this point?

11. patch <.97p2.patch, same as above, but it even ask me why I am
reversing the patch done above! I just asked it to go ahead.

12. Question -- what have I got? 0.97 p2 source? really messed up 0.97
source?

13. I forgot if I installed the .97p1inc that came from gcc2.2.2d or
not, anyway I have it.

14. Tested that gcc from SLS works



Problems with SLS

15. as stated by other posters:  /tmp has wrong permissions, so is
/dev/*fd* which is not writeable by other users, causing mtools to fail.
emacs is missing a link from /usr/local/emacs to /usr/emacs ( path may
be wrong I don't remember).

Install GCC2.2.2d

Question -- what is the difference, overall, between the gcc that's in
SLS (2.2.2) and the 2.2.2d version? yes I can read the release note but
I simply don't understand what is a jump table, let alone some change to
it.

16. Did as readme said, the gcc set of files are from a dos disk, and the
name is really messed up, I have to restore them one by one as best as I
could

17. install.2.x

went through remarkably without major problems, as much as I can tell.

18. tested gcc works, this is the 2.2.2d gcc. Also, as this point I
found out that my disk has much more files than before the gcc install.

19. emacs complain that libx11.blah isn't found

20. ln -s /lib/lib.so.2blah /lib/libX11.blah

21 emacs runs fine (remember I have to do a link from /usr/local/emacs
to somewhere)


Now I am in trouble, people with more experience please help me, 

22. after a while, gcc would never work, gcc -v would produce an error:

can't load /lib/lib.so.2blah, 
Version mismatch (or something like this)

Is this somehow related to the stupid step 20? It worked for a while
(gcc), then won't anymore


23. reinstall of gcc from SLS would not help, gave me the same error

24. blow away everything, repeat the install again, but forget GCC2.2.2d

25. this time I am smart, I copied some /lib/libc.2.2.2 to
/lib/libX11.blah, rather than doing a link.

26. I never dared to install GCC2.2.2d again


Anyway it took me a while, but linux is a great system overall. 

But I think that in the FAQ, we should have an entry to help out the
newbies (non testers who probably want to get a stable system to use,
rather then installing things all day):

0.96 can be had by a SLS package, and is easier to install

0.97px is better than 0.96 because xxxx, also xxxx is not compatible
between the two version.

you can upgrade from 0.96 to 0.97, by swapping the files xxxx/and
following the procedure yyyy...

GCC 2.2.2d is different from SLS/gcc2.2.2(?) because ...., to install at
your own risk because then your debugger needs to be changed too(?)


This is a long post, if you read through here, thanks, and if possible,
let me know if you have answer to any questions.

Xudong
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux