Trikx
11-15-2001, 11:22 AM
Ok, I got fed up with everyone claiming to have but nobody actually uploading a good 2.5 image last night (that seems to have changed slightly this morning, but nonetheless) so I went and did it myself...
Started w/ 2.0 on a DSR6000
forced 1st call home, DL'd 1st update (just info)
forced 2nd call home, DL'd 2.5 update, went to "pending restart"
Pulled the plug at "pending", backed up the image.
I just looked over at my main PC, and it's all saved. So I now have a 2.0 image with the 2.5 downloaded but not installed.
I assume this is what everyone wants, so PM me a COUPLE of ftp sites to drop this and I'll happily upload it for all to share.
One quick question: The 2.0 image I used to download was enabled for shell access, which means that the rc.sysinit was chattr +i.
I had a concern that the 2.5 upgrade process might require changing the rc.sysinit in order to install the upgrade ... does it? Or is the upgrade called from some other startup script. If it is called from rc.sysinit, then there might be a problem because the +i would have prevented any upgrade calls from being added to the startup sequence.....any clues?
Started w/ 2.0 on a DSR6000
forced 1st call home, DL'd 1st update (just info)
forced 2nd call home, DL'd 2.5 update, went to "pending restart"
Pulled the plug at "pending", backed up the image.
I just looked over at my main PC, and it's all saved. So I now have a 2.0 image with the 2.5 downloaded but not installed.
I assume this is what everyone wants, so PM me a COUPLE of ftp sites to drop this and I'll happily upload it for all to share.
One quick question: The 2.0 image I used to download was enabled for shell access, which means that the rc.sysinit was chattr +i.
I had a concern that the 2.5 upgrade process might require changing the rc.sysinit in order to install the upgrade ... does it? Or is the upgrade called from some other startup script. If it is called from rc.sysinit, then there might be a problem because the +i would have prevented any upgrade calls from being added to the startup sequence.....any clues?