Menu
▾
▴
devil-linux-develop
|
From: wwwwe r. <pa...@gm...> - 2004-10-29 08:23:26
|
Hi! I'm trying to create a DL cd without GRSecurity, I've followed the documentation point to point and everything is good,but when I try to launch make unpack I receive this error: warning : can't open /etc/mtab : No such file or directory umount: /proc:not mounted ERROR Sources not found, exiting make: ***[unpack] Error 1 the series of link end to a file 70* but the file is always one number more than the link.What's happen?Or better...where's my mistake? thanks Matteo -- Geschenkt: 3 Monate GMX ProMail + 3 Ausgaben der TV Movie mit DVD ++++ Jetzt anmelden und testen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ++++ |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-10-29 14:20:39
|
> I'm trying to create a DL cd without GRSecurity, I've followed the > documentation point to point and everything is good,but when I try to launch > make unpack I receive this error: > > warning : can't open /etc/mtab : No such file or directory > umount: /proc:not mounted > ERROR > Sources not found, exiting > make: ***[unpack] Error 1 Did you download all the sources by running update_src ? > the series of link end to a file 70* but the file is always one number more > than the link.What's happen?Or better...where's my mistake? You completely lost me there. I have a i686-SMP 1.2.1-pre-release compiled without grsecurity. It also has all the outstanding bugs fixed from 1.2 (pptp, etc.) I can put it on the FTP site if Heiko doesn't mind. Heiko? - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-10-29 16:00:44
|
>> I'm trying to create a DL cd without GRSecurity, I've followed the >> documentation point to point and everything is good,but when I try to >> launch >> make unpack I receive this error: >> >> warning : can't open /etc/mtab : No such file or directory >> umount: /proc:not mounted >> ERROR >> Sources not found, exiting >> make: ***[unpack] Error 1 > > Did you download all the sources by running update_src ? > >> the series of link end to a file 70* but the file is always one number >> more >> than the link.What's happen?Or better...where's my mistake? > > You completely lost me there. > > I have a i686-SMP 1.2.1-pre-release compiled without grsecurity. > It also has all the outstanding bugs fixed from 1.2 (pptp, etc.) > I can put it on the FTP site if Heiko doesn't mind. Heiko? Sure go ahead. I wanted to collect a few more updates/fixes, before we release an official 1.2.1 -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-10-29 18:05:09
|
> > I have a i686-SMP 1.2.1-pre-release compiled without grsecurity. > > It also has all the outstanding bugs fixed from 1.2 (pptp, etc.) > > I can put it on the FTP site if Heiko doesn't mind. Heiko? > > Sure go ahead. It's on the FTP site now (and hopefully the mirrors tomorrow): /pub/devel/testing/devil-linux-1.2.1-2004-10-26-i686-SMP-bs.tar.bz2 > I wanted to collect a few more updates/fixes, before we release an > official 1.2.1 Are there any updates/fixes currently outstanding? - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-10-29 18:41:18
|
>> > I have a i686-SMP 1.2.1-pre-release compiled without grsecurity. >> > It also has all the outstanding bugs fixed from 1.2 (pptp, etc.) >> > I can put it on the FTP site if Heiko doesn't mind. Heiko? >> >> Sure go ahead. > > It's on the FTP site now (and hopefully the mirrors tomorrow): > > /pub/devel/testing/devil-linux-1.2.1-2004-10-26-i686-SMP-bs.tar.bz2 > >> I wanted to collect a few more updates/fixes, before we release an >> official 1.2.1 > > Are there any updates/fixes currently outstanding? Nope. I guess I'll do some software updates, but other then that nothing is in the pipe so far. I only want to release a new version when this makes sense, because it's a pain in my 'behind' to compile and upload all those versions ( 2 uploads per version). -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-10-29 19:06:17
|
> > Are there any updates/fixes currently outstanding? > > Nope. > I guess I'll do some software updates, but other then that nothing is in > the pipe so far. > I only want to release a new version when this makes sense, because it's a > pain in my 'behind' to compile and upload all those versions ( 2 uploads > per version). Understood. So, with that said, what you think about adding another version? :-) I have some ideas about a server .config profile I'd like to run by you, if it's not too much work to add another one. I could also help with some of the compiling and uploading if you like. - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-10-29 19:19:47
|
>> > Are there any updates/fixes currently outstanding? >> >> Nope. >> I guess I'll do some software updates, but other then that nothing is in >> the pipe so far. >> I only want to release a new version when this makes sense, because it's >> a >> pain in my 'behind' to compile and upload all those versions ( 2 uploads >> per version). > > Understood. > > So, with that said, what you think about adding another version? :-) Aargh ;-) > I have some ideas about a server .config profile I'd like to run by you, I thought we already did? Anyhow, you can do it if you maintain the config file. > if it's not too much work to add another one. I was thinking about dropping support for i486 in the 1.3 series and for that only providing a i586-SMP. > I could also help with some of the compiling and uploading if you like. Oh I would certainly appreciate that ! -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-10-29 19:41:21
|
> > I have some ideas about a server .config profile I'd like to run by you, > > I thought we already did? Anyhow, you can do it if you maintain the config > file. I've been thinking and talking about it, but haven't done it yet. First I need to decide how to configure the security settings. Getting rid of grsecurity is a given, but what about the other ones? I see a "server" as something that should run as fast as possible, so how much of a performance hit are the other security options? Any idea? Or should I just remove them all? And, if we create a "server", should we remove some services from the default profile? Maybe drop some stuff that really shouldn't be run on a firewall, like samba, etc? Or drop the default profile and only have a router profile and a server profile? Essentially switch to a firewall release AND a server release, and not combine the two? Or add the server option and leave the others alone? > > if it's not too much work to add another one. > > I was thinking about dropping support for i486 in the 1.3 series and for > that only providing a i586-SMP. Sounds good to me! A i586-SMP firewall, and a i686-SMP server release? > > I could also help with some of the compiling and uploading if you like. > > Oh I would certainly appreciate that ! You'll have to tell me the steps you follow to compile the official releases (along with stuff on how to get rid of the date as part of the release number, etc.) Of course that's assuming I can still compile DL ... I just upgraded all my desktops to SuSE 9.2 and haven't tried a DL compile yet. :-) - BS |
|
From: MaNU & S. <ee...@fr...> - 2004-10-30 08:58:39
|
Bruce Smith a =E9crit : >>>I have some ideas about a server .config profile I'd like to run by yo= u, >>> =20 >>> >>I thought we already did? Anyhow, you can do it if you maintain the con= fig >>file. >> =20 >> > >I've been thinking and talking about it, but haven't done it yet. > =20 > So Do I ... not "happy" to find DVDCSS or ALSA on a firewall ... >First I need to decide how to configure the security settings. >Getting rid of grsecurity is a given, but what about the other ones? > >I see a "server" as something that should run as fast as possible, >so how much of a performance hit are the other security options? =20 >Any idea? Or should I just remove them all? > >And, if we create a "server", should we remove some services from the >default profile? Maybe drop some stuff that really shouldn't be run on >a firewall, like samba, etc? Or drop the default profile and only have >a router profile and a server profile? > > =20 > I love this idea as it keeps DL from becoming a general Distro (we're=20 not so far from including X ;-)) >Essentially switch to a firewall release AND a server release, and not >combine the two? Or add the server option and leave the others alone? > > =20 > >>>if it's not too much work to add another one. >>> =20 >>> >>I was thinking about dropping support for i486 in the 1.3 series and fo= r >>that only providing a i586-SMP. >> =20 >> > >Sounds good to me! A i586-SMP firewall, and a i686-SMP server release? > > =20 > 100% Agree >>>I could also help with some of the compiling and uploading if you like= . >>> =20 >>> >>Oh I would certainly appreciate that ! >> =20 >> > >You'll have to tell me the steps you follow to compile the official >releases (along with stuff on how to get rid of the date as part of the >release number, etc.) > >Of course that's assuming I can still compile DL ... I just upgraded >all my desktops to SuSE 9.2 and haven't tried a DL compile yet. :-) > > =20 > How do you manage to get it so early? Please tell us about it! Worth=20 spending 90 =80 or wait 1 month for ftp? Best Regards --=20 Emmanuel ESCARABAJAL Sys-Admin et Logiciels Libres ee...@fr... |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-10-30 02:58:58
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>>I have some ideas about a server .config profile I'd like to run by you, >>> >>> >>I thought we already did? Anyhow, you can do it if you maintain the config >>file. >> >> > >I've been thinking and talking about it, but haven't done it yet. > >First I need to decide how to configure the security settings. >Getting rid of grsecurity is a given, but what about the other ones? > >I see a "server" as something that should run as fast as possible, >so how much of a performance hit are the other security options? >Any idea? Or should I just remove them all? > > I'm not sure if it is wise, I would at least keep the ssp. >And, if we create a "server", should we remove some services from the >default profile? Maybe drop some stuff that really shouldn't be run on >a firewall, like samba, etc? Or drop the default profile and only have >a router profile and a server profile? > > I would not change the default profile. Maintaining one more profile (like router) I would not do, because of the work it will cause. >Essentially switch to a firewall release AND a server release, and not >combine the two? Or add the server option and leave the others alone? > > > I'd say add server, leave others alone. The router profile is not maintained right now, so you can get rif of it if you want. >>>if it's not too much work to add another one. >>> >>> >>I was thinking about dropping support for i486 in the 1.3 series and for >>that only providing a i586-SMP. >> >> > >Sounds good to me! A i586-SMP firewall, and a i686-SMP server release? > > > i586-SMP default i686-SMP server sounds good to me. >>>I could also help with some of the compiling and uploading if you like. >>> >>> >>Oh I would certainly appreciate that ! >> >> > >You'll have to tell me the steps you follow to compile the official >releases (along with stuff on how to get rid of the date as part of the >release number, etc.) > > That's easy, let's do it offline. >Of course that's assuming I can still compile DL ... I just upgraded >all my desktops to SuSE 9.2 and haven't tried a DL compile yet. :-) > > Please give us a report, I was thinking about buying 9.2 too. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-10-31 20:39:38
|
> >Of course that's assuming I can still compile DL ... I just upgraded > >all my desktops to SuSE 9.2 and haven't tried a DL compile yet. :-) > > > Please give us a report, I was thinking about buying 9.2 too. Seems to work fine. I ran a 1.2 compile on my SuSE 9.2 desktop overnight and it completed without a problem. I'll reply to the rest of this email later; no time now... - BS |
