From: John K. <jk...@sa...> - 2003-05-31 22:26:35
|
Hey Guys, I'm very new to Devil Linux and I have a question regarding the build process for the latest CVS check and the multiple times the linux kernel is built. build_150_linux and build_159_linux. I understand why 159 has be done, after FreeS/WAN is built, but why is does 150 need to be done? Can 150linux be removed from the scripts/build directory? Cheers |
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2003-05-31 22:40:32
|
John Kiss wrote: > I'm very new to Devil Linux and I have a question regarding the build > process for the latest CVS check and the multiple times the linux kernel > is built. > > build_150_linux and build_159_linux. I understand why 159 has be done, > after FreeS/WAN is built, but why is does 150 need to be done? Can > 150linux be removed from the scripts/build directory? Please use the developer mailinglist for a question that is related to build system. Please no further replies to this thread on the normal user mailinglist. Thanks. The kernel build is up to Heiko, he'll have to answer that question. -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock ____________________________________________________________________ Friedrich Lobenstock Linux Services Lobenstock URL: http://www.lsl.at/ Email: fl...@fl... ____________________________________________________________________ |
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2003-05-31 22:45:26
|
Hey John, please send questions like this to our developer mailinglist. John Kiss wrote: > I'm very new to Devil Linux and I have a question regarding the build > process for the latest CVS check and the multiple times the linux kernel > is built. > > build_150_linux and build_159_linux. I understand why 159 has be done, > after FreeS/WAN is built, but why is does 150 need to be done? Can > 150linux be removed from the scripts/build directory? FreeS/WAN is pretty much the reason why we compile the full Kernel the first time, otherwise you can't apply the patches. It's also better to have the Kernel compiled once, before you add all the stuff we do. I'm not sure how FreeS/WAN 2.0 behaves, it's probably better. Regards Heiko |
From: Walter H. <wal...@gm...> - 2003-08-31 19:03:08
|
Hi! While searching the DL mailing list, I stumbled over this older post. If this is already obsolete, then please just forget about this email. However, it may speed up the DL build process otherwise. On Sat, 31 May 2003, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > > FreeS/WAN is pretty much the reason why we compile the full Kernel the > first time, otherwise you can't apply the patches. Not quite. A make dep is sufficient to satisfy freeswan. Then a "make precheck" and "make insert" from the freeswan (1.9x) directory patches the kernel. Next, you can build the kernel and the modules as usual. > It's also better to have the Kernel compiled once, before you add all > the stuff we do. Really? I never compile the kernel before all patches are applied to the source tree. > I'm not sure how FreeS/WAN 2.0 behaves, it's probably better. For freeswan-2.0x the procedure is: make oldconfig make dep pushd <freeswan directory> make precheck && make verset && make kpatch popd make bzImage && make modules Regards, Walter |
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2003-09-02 01:10:27
|
Walter Haidinger wrote: > Hi! Hi ! > While searching the DL mailing list, I stumbled over this older post. > If this is already obsolete, then please just forget about this email. > However, it may speed up the DL build process otherwise. No, still the same. > On Sat, 31 May 2003, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > >>FreeS/WAN is pretty much the reason why we compile the full Kernel the >>first time, otherwise you can't apply the patches. > > > Not quite. A make dep is sufficient to satisfy freeswan. Then a "make > precheck" and "make insert" from the freeswan (1.9x) directory patches the > kernel. Next, you can build the kernel and the modules as usual. What do others think about this? Any other experience ? >>It's also better to have the Kernel compiled once, before you add all >>the stuff we do. > > > Really? I never compile the kernel before all patches are applied to the > source tree. > > >>I'm not sure how FreeS/WAN 2.0 behaves, it's probably better. > > > For freeswan-2.0x the procedure is: > make oldconfig > make dep > pushd <freeswan directory> > make precheck && make verset && make kpatch > popd > make bzImage && make modules We decided to stay away fron FreeS/WAN for the next DL release. Of course you can change our mind with a good reason to do so. ;-) cya Heiko |
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-09-02 01:24:20
|
> >>FreeS/WAN is pretty much the reason why we compile the full Kernel the > >>first time, otherwise you can't apply the patches. > > > > Not quite. A make dep is sufficient to satisfy freeswan. Then a "make > > precheck" and "make insert" from the freeswan (1.9x) directory patches the > > kernel. Next, you can build the kernel and the modules as usual. > > What do others think about this? > Any other experience ? I only compiled a kernel one time for myself with freeswan, and I didn't have to compile it twice. It would be really nice to shave some time off the compile! :-) - BS |
From: Walter H. <wal...@gm...> - 2003-09-02 07:53:01
|
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > We decided to stay away fron FreeS/WAN for the next DL release. > Of course you can change our mind with a good reason to do so. ;-) IMHO, this is a _bad_ idea because DL is very well suited for a VPN gateway. Besiders, I think that there is already a substantial user-base using FreeSWAN. Or am I the _only_ one? If you drop FreeSWAN, which IPsec implementation do you plan to add? None? I definitely doubt that... Yes, IPsec is available in recent/upcoming 2.6 kernels but this is neither well documented (in comparison to FreeSWAN) nor are there user-space tools (I'm only aware of two) yet, again compared to FreeSWAN. Then, will you drop the stable 2.4 kernel branch just to get "native" IPsec support? Finally, I have to ask: Why do you want to drop a mature IPsec implentation on which (I think) many DL users rely upon? This doesn't make sense to me. Regards, Walter |
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2003-09-02 13:05:29
|
Walter Haidinger wrote: > On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > > >>We decided to stay away fron FreeS/WAN for the next DL release. >>Of course you can change our mind with a good reason to do so. ;-) > > > IMHO, this is a _bad_ idea because DL is very well suited for a VPN > gateway. Besiders, I think that there is already a substantial user-base > using FreeSWAN. Or am I the _only_ one? > > If you drop FreeSWAN, which IPsec implementation do you plan to add? > None? I definitely doubt that... SORRY ! I was too tired when I wrote this email. We will NEVER drop the IPSec support in DL! What I wanted to write was that we stay away from FreeS/WAN 2.x for the meantime. All the additional patches are not yet available for it and I didn't have any time to investigage more on it. Unfortunately I don't use FreeS/WAN anymore. :-(( > Yes, IPsec is available in recent/upcoming 2.6 kernels but this is neither > well documented (in comparison to FreeSWAN) nor are there user-space tools > (I'm only aware of two) yet, again compared to FreeSWAN. > > Then, will you drop the stable 2.4 kernel branch just to get "native" > IPsec support? > > Finally, I have to ask: Why do you want to drop a mature IPsec > implentation on which (I think) many DL users rely upon? > > This doesn't make sense to me. That was an email after 3 days of diving, the brain just doesn't work anymore.... ;-) Sorry for the confusion! cya Heiko |
From: Walter H. <wal...@gm...> - 2003-09-02 13:28:36
|
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > SORRY ! I was too tired when I wrote this email. > We will NEVER drop the IPSec support in DL! > What I wanted to write was that we stay away from FreeS/WAN 2.x for the > meantime. Thanks. You scared me, though... > All the additional patches are not yet available for it and I didn't > have any time to investigage more on it. Unfortunately I don't use > FreeS/WAN anymore. :-(( Right, there is no super-freeswan patch for 2.x available yet. That's why I applied super-freeswan-1.99 when patching 2.4.22 to upgrade the kernel of my old DL 0.5. However, I run freeswan 2.01 on my gateway at home. There isn't much difference (patching, compiling, config-file changes), really. I'd say once a super-freeswan-2.x patch is available, you should drop freeswan! (*) > That was an email after 3 days of diving, the brain just doesn't work > anymore.... ;-) Deco-stops at appropriate depths are reported to help! ;-) Regards, Walter (*) just freeswan 1.99, of course! SCNR... |
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2003-09-02 13:40:32
|
Walter Haidinger wrote: > On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Heiko Zuerker wrote: >>All the additional patches are not yet available for it and I didn't >>have any time to investigage more on it. Unfortunately I don't use >>FreeS/WAN anymore. :-(( > > > Right, there is no super-freeswan patch for 2.x available yet. That's why > I applied super-freeswan-1.99 when patching 2.4.22 to upgrade the kernel > of my old DL 0.5. > > However, I run freeswan 2.01 on my gateway at home. There isn't much > difference (patching, compiling, config-file changes), really. > > I'd say once a super-freeswan-2.x patch is available, you should drop > freeswan! (*) That's one of the next things on my list, using Super-FreeS/WAN. This guy does a nice work with the patch. >>That was an email after 3 days of diving, the brain just doesn't work >>anymore.... ;-) > > > Deco-stops at appropriate depths are reported to help! ;-) You mean I shouldn't shoot like a rocket to the surface ? ;-) Heiko |
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-09-02 12:22:49
|
> > > We decided to stay away fron FreeS/WAN for the next DL release. > > > Of course you can change our mind with a good reason to do so. ;-) > > VERY BAD IDEA !!! I think there has been a misunderstanding. FreeS/WAN is in the next release of DL. (I've seen it! :) We're staying away from the 2.0 version, but including 1.99. If 2.x is worth upgrading to, please let us know. There is still time. - BS |
From: Manu <ee...@fr...> - 2003-09-02 11:50:09
|
Walter Haidinger a écrit: >On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > > > >>We decided to stay away fron FreeS/WAN for the next DL release. >>Of course you can change our mind with a good reason to do so. ;-) >> >> VERY BAD IDEA !!! >IMHO, this is a _bad_ idea because DL is very well suited for a VPN >gateway. Besiders, I think that there is already a substantial user-base >using FreeSWAN. Or am I the _only_ one? > >If you drop FreeSWAN, which IPsec implementation do you plan to add? >None? I definitely doubt that... > >Yes, IPsec is available in recent/upcoming 2.6 kernels but this is neither >well documented (in comparison to FreeSWAN) nor are there user-space tools >(I'm only aware of two) yet, again compared to FreeSWAN. > >Then, will you drop the stable 2.4 kernel branch just to get "native" >IPsec support? > >Finally, I have to ask: Why do you want to drop a mature IPsec >implentation on which (I think) many DL users rely upon? > >This doesn't make sense to me. > >Regards, Walter > > I completly agree with Walter as i'm using it nearly each time iI install DL on a box ! Cya MaNU > >------------------------------------------------------- >This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek >Welcome to geek heaven. >http://thinkgeek.com/sf >_______________________________________________ >Devil-linux-discuss mailing list >Dev...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss > > > > |
From: Walter H. <wal...@gm...> - 2003-09-02 13:12:59
|
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Bruce Smith wrote: > I think there has been a misunderstanding. > > FreeS/WAN is in the next release of DL. (I've seen it! :) > We're staying away from the 2.0 version, but including 1.99. What a relief! > If 2.x is worth upgrading to, please let us know. There is still time. I'm not sure if 2.x is _worth_ upgrading to unless you need opportunistic encryption, of course. However, I've upgraded my machine at home from Freeswan 1.99 to 2.01. It happily talks to gateways running DL v0.5 (Freeswan 1.98b) and DL v0.5b6 (Freeswan < 1.98b). No problems at all. I had to make _small_ changes to ipsec.conf: http://www.freeswan.org/freeswan_trees/freeswan-2.01/doc/upgrading.html In all, I do not see why one shouldn't upgrade to Freeswan 2.x. The changes required are minimal. Other packages, which require modification of the config files, are upgraded too, right? Regards, Walter |
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-09-02 13:21:23
|
> I had to make _small_ changes to ipsec.conf: > http://www.freeswan.org/freeswan_trees/freeswan-2.01/doc/upgrading.html > > In all, I do not see why one shouldn't upgrade to Freeswan 2.x. The > changes required are minimal. Other packages, which require modification > of the config files, are upgraded too, right? I'm not a IPSEC user, but someone might want/need opportunistic encryption. Heck, I'll all for including the latest releases of everything in the new DL. If it was up to me, I'd upgrade to kernel-2.6-testX. :-) (probably a good thing it's not up to me ;) - BS |