[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: independence (fwd)

In this case (with the RPMs), the name screwups are not as important as the case
of the RPMS directory.  I downloaded to Win95 and transferred them to a ext2fs
partition in RH5.1.  While Win95 dropped the multi dots, Linux ignored the Win95
long filename and truncated to the Win95 default 8.3 format.  I was faced with
the massive task of fixing all the names, but decided to try the install first.
I had some script errors (I identified them to the list but never got a response
- do they matter or not?) but all the packages were identified and installed.  I
have had no problems running KDE although I have had to use a workaround -
startkde won't do a startx or xinit so I have had to run xinit followed by
startkde in the console window that appears.  I would assume that the install is
smart enough to ignore the bad filenames and delve into the guts of the RPMs
themselves to find out what package is inside.

Brian Wiens

"Sharp, Lee" wrote:

> >I've no time to answer this, can somebody else respond?
> >
> >--roger
> Some have, but they may have missed something.
> >Forwarded message:
> >> From: "Shirley Ames" <navymom@forbin.com>
> >> To: seul@seul.org
> >> Subject: independence
> >> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:09:40 -0500
> >
> >> What is an independence installation tree, and why will the install not =
> >> find it.?I have unzipped the independence file in a directory named =
> >> independence. After I have downloaded 250 meg of stuff (on company =
> >> time), I am stalled at this.
> >
> >> SIR RAT
>    There are three ways to install Independence.  One is with a FTP
> install, but it requires a supported NIC.  One is with a "built"
> distribution, which is made by installing the two big .tar files on top
> of a Red Hat 5.2 CD.  <This will be missing some patches>  The third is
> to grab everything in the directory with the two big .tar files.  That
> is about 400 meg, with the .tar files.
>    If you FTP everything, there is a very real chance the names will get
> massively screwed up.  DOS doesn't like more than one "." in a file
> name.  Neither does Navigator, or IE.  They like to change them to "_"
> and ignore case.  Linux is case sensitive, so this can be a problem.
> Does this help?
>                         Lee