Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 13:33:42 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: "Greg Rowe" <greg@uswest.net> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2.2 BETA Upgrade Problem Message-ID: <928.852759222@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 Jan 1997 11:15:10 CST." <9701081115.ZM12694@nevis.oss.uswest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is weird, and I will look into it when I get back home. I tested the FTP upgrade and NFS installation procedures during my shake-out period, but I can't say that I tested an NFS upgrade. They should be the same, and there's no difference between the way "upgrade" uses the media and the way that the standard install uses it, so this is quite odd. Jordan > Has anyone seen a problem with 2.2 BETA upgrade procedure using NFS ? If I d o > an upgrade using NFS, as soon as it gets to the point of installing the > distributions, it immediately comes back with a "Couldn't extract the followi ng > distributions" (all distributions are listed) error. The debug screen shows > that the device was mounted to /dist but ls'ing /dist gives a "Stale NFS fil e > handle" error. If I create another directory(while still in the install shell ) > and try doing the mount again, the mount command completes with no error but > again ls'ing produces the "Stale NFS file handle" error. > > I've tried upgrading two different systems, from two different NFS servers > with the same results. Both NFS servers contain the 2.1.6 Release directory a nd > that upgrade works fine. I can upgrade another system if you need me to test > anything. Thanks. > > Greg Rowe > > -- > Greg Rowe | > U S West - Interact Services | INTERNET greg@uswest.net > 111 Washington Ave. South | Fax: (612) 672-8537 > Minneapolis, MN USA 55401 | Voice: (612) 672-8535 > > Never trust an operating system you don't have source for.... >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?928.852759222>