Glad it's working. On Thu, 25 Aug, Lloyd T Brown wrote: > Actually, I had a line for both eth1 and eth0 in the ks.cfg. By some > random coincidence, eth1 was first, although that may not mean much. I > commented out the line for eth1, and the install went straight through. > Normally, this would probably not set up the eth1 interface at all, but > the appropriate files for our really weird network setup are being > copied over in the %post script, so everything should be fine. It's > installing right now. I'll let you all know if I have any other problems. > > So, I guess that means that the installer was pulling the ks.cfg over > eth0, noticed the eth1 line (static, but without any address) and tried > to configure it. Do you suppose that the fact that the eth1 line was > above the eth0 line in the file had anything to do with it? I may have > to experiment some more tomorrow. I think this is exactly what happened, but I am sure the order makes no difference. KS tried to configure eth1 because it was included in the ks.cfg but was lacking a complete confgiuration. The proof of this would be to put the line back in but with all the config info for it included. > Thanks again. You guys have been a great help > Lloyd Brown > BYU Supercomputing (http://marylou.byu.edu) > > :) Harry
