devil-linux-discuss — General Mailing List for all discussions
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(59) |
Sep
(57) |
Oct
(5) |
Nov
(45) |
Dec
(21) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 |
Jan
(13) |
Feb
(22) |
Mar
(14) |
Apr
(7) |
May
(33) |
Jun
(57) |
Jul
(25) |
Aug
(40) |
Sep
(53) |
Oct
(58) |
Nov
(75) |
Dec
(22) |
| 2003 |
Jan
(101) |
Feb
(101) |
Mar
(103) |
Apr
(125) |
May
(85) |
Jun
(57) |
Jul
(62) |
Aug
(42) |
Sep
(76) |
Oct
(214) |
Nov
(290) |
Dec
(274) |
| 2004 |
Jan
(187) |
Feb
(172) |
Mar
(313) |
Apr
(209) |
May
(169) |
Jun
(147) |
Jul
(118) |
Aug
(193) |
Sep
(227) |
Oct
(125) |
Nov
(246) |
Dec
(191) |
| 2005 |
Jan
(244) |
Feb
(175) |
Mar
(165) |
Apr
(130) |
May
(217) |
Jun
(122) |
Jul
(188) |
Aug
(235) |
Sep
(165) |
Oct
(133) |
Nov
(209) |
Dec
(88) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(66) |
Feb
(89) |
Mar
(108) |
Apr
(91) |
May
(29) |
Jun
(45) |
Jul
(64) |
Aug
(42) |
Sep
(44) |
Oct
(81) |
Nov
(64) |
Dec
(9) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(24) |
Feb
(122) |
Mar
(55) |
Apr
(50) |
May
(84) |
Jun
(13) |
Jul
(80) |
Aug
(70) |
Sep
(78) |
Oct
(45) |
Nov
(56) |
Dec
(42) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(65) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(51) |
Apr
(151) |
May
(54) |
Jun
(72) |
Jul
(73) |
Aug
(47) |
Sep
(55) |
Oct
(123) |
Nov
(16) |
Dec
(4) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(23) |
Feb
(39) |
Mar
(27) |
Apr
(36) |
May
(35) |
Jun
(51) |
Jul
(11) |
Aug
(14) |
Sep
(40) |
Oct
(67) |
Nov
(38) |
Dec
(13) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(15) |
Feb
(35) |
Mar
(40) |
Apr
(11) |
May
(26) |
Jun
(10) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
(50) |
Sep
(86) |
Oct
(67) |
Nov
(36) |
Dec
(11) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(50) |
Feb
(6) |
Mar
(13) |
Apr
(13) |
May
(29) |
Jun
(27) |
Jul
(26) |
Aug
(27) |
Sep
(21) |
Oct
(7) |
Nov
(27) |
Dec
(4) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(11) |
Feb
(20) |
Mar
(48) |
Apr
(18) |
May
(8) |
Jun
(19) |
Jul
|
Aug
(15) |
Sep
(3) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(5) |
Dec
(1) |
| 2013 |
Jan
(13) |
Feb
(7) |
Mar
(4) |
Apr
(25) |
May
(2) |
Jun
(8) |
Jul
(4) |
Aug
(8) |
Sep
(7) |
Oct
|
Nov
(5) |
Dec
(10) |
| 2014 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(6) |
Apr
(20) |
May
(5) |
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
|
Sep
(8) |
Oct
(21) |
Nov
(4) |
Dec
(7) |
| 2015 |
Jan
(10) |
Feb
(9) |
Mar
(4) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(5) |
Sep
(11) |
Oct
|
Nov
(17) |
Dec
(32) |
| 2016 |
Jan
(10) |
Feb
(15) |
Mar
(4) |
Apr
(7) |
May
(10) |
Jun
(11) |
Jul
(15) |
Aug
(26) |
Sep
(13) |
Oct
(10) |
Nov
(16) |
Dec
(6) |
| 2017 |
Jan
(9) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
(2) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(3) |
Oct
(6) |
Nov
(8) |
Dec
|
| 2018 |
Jan
(12) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
1
(13) |
2
(5) |
3
(2) |
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
(16) |
8
(12) |
9
(14) |
10
(10) |
11
(13) |
|
12
|
13
(4) |
14
(19) |
15
(14) |
16
(6) |
17
(7) |
18
|
|
19
(1) |
20
(2) |
21
(2) |
22
|
23
|
24
(5) |
25
(1) |
|
26
|
27
(3) |
28
(20) |
29
(9) |
30
(5) |
31
(31) |
|
|
From: Heiko Zuerker <heiko@zu...> - 2003-10-31 21:26:16
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>>I have one right now, without kerberos and without high mem turned on. >>>(How much memory do you have? This copy only supports 1GB or less.) >>> >>> >>> >>Highmem on ... but only supports less then 1 GB ... >> >> > >Read again. I said "and _without_ high mem turned on". > > > >>did you already start drinking ? ;-) >> >> > >Have your eyes checked lately? ;-) > > Hmmm..... Actually I got a pair of glasses a short while ago and yes I was wearing them. I guess the sun flares affected my Notebook display and all the pixel where the "out" part was, didn't work. cya Heiko |
|
From: Bruce Smith <bws@ar...> - 2003-10-31 20:22:11
|
> >I have one right now, without kerberos and without high mem turned on. > >(How much memory do you have? This copy only supports 1GB or less.) > > > Highmem on ... but only supports less then 1 GB ... Read again. I said "and _without_ high mem turned on". > did you already start drinking ? ;-) Have your eyes checked lately? ;-) - BS |
|
From: Heiko Zuerker <heiko@zu...> - 2003-10-31 20:16:18
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>>>>No. But you can compile your own DL version for i586-SMP. >>>>>The problem is that we can't provide pre-compiled version for all >>>>>kind of scenarios. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>I guess this isn't the right list to ask how I do that. >>>> >>>> >>>Correct, but I give you an answer anyway. ;-) >>>http://www.devil-linux.org/newdoc/ >>>http://www.devil-linux.org/newdoc/ch03.html >>> >>> >>Thanks! I guess it *does* get complicated after all. >> >> > >Sure, compiling your own is more complicated than just downloading it. > > > >>Isn't there a script you could guide me to? 8-) >> >> > >Oh, there are a LOT of scripts involved! :-) > >Would you be interested in a 1.1-beta copy? I usually compile them as >586-SMP. And there are enough new features now that I've been thinking >about uploading an ISO. > >I have one right now, without kerberos and without high mem turned on. >(How much memory do you have? This copy only supports 1GB or less.) > > Highmem on ... but only supports less then 1 GB ... did you already start drinking ? ;-) cya Heiko |
|
From: Bruce Smith <bws@ar...> - 2003-10-31 19:48:47
|
> >>>No. But you can compile your own DL version for i586-SMP. > >>>The problem is that we can't provide pre-compiled version for all > >>>kind of scenarios. > >> > >>I guess this isn't the right list to ask how I do that. > > > > Correct, but I give you an answer anyway. ;-) > > http://www.devil-linux.org/newdoc/ > > http://www.devil-linux.org/newdoc/ch03.html > > Thanks! I guess it *does* get complicated after all. Sure, compiling your own is more complicated than just downloading it. > Isn't there a script you could guide me to? 8-) Oh, there are a LOT of scripts involved! :-) Would you be interested in a 1.1-beta copy? I usually compile them as 586-SMP. And there are enough new features now that I've been thinking about uploading an ISO. I have one right now, without kerberos and without high mem turned on. (How much memory do you have? This copy only supports 1GB or less.) - BS |
|
From: Jeroen Roovers <rooversj@xs...> - 2003-10-31 19:38:35
|
On 31-10-2003 16:56, Heiko Zuerker wrote: >>>No. But you can compile your own DL version for i586-SMP. >>>The problem is that we can't provide pre-compiled version for all >>>kind of scenarios. >> >> >>I guess this isn't the right list to ask how I do that. > > > Correct, but I give you an answer anyway. ;-) > http://www.devil-linux.org/newdoc/ > http://www.devil-linux.org/newdoc/ch03.html Thanks! I guess it *does* get complicated after all. Isn't there a script you could guide me to? 8-) Jeroen Roovers |
|
From: Bruce Smith <bws@ar...> - 2003-10-31 18:23:03
|
> ... and it's even more sad ATA/flash devices haven't > been adopted more widely so far; they're great !) I've never tried one. Are they well supported in Linux? What kind do you have? (do you have a URL?) I'd like to buy one for a project I'm doing at work. Thanks, - BS |
|
From: Heiko Zuerker <heiko@zu...> - 2003-10-31 17:38:16
|
Dean Nedelman wrote: >>Heiko Zuerker wrote: >> >> >> >>>I can reproduce it on my box. >>>I'll document it as a bug and try to fix it. >>> >>> >>Here's the problem: >>---------------------- >>root@...:~ # iptables -A INPUT -j ACCEPT -p icmp -o eth0 -m icmp >>--icmp-type echo-request >>iptables v1.2.8: Couldn't load match >>`icmp':/usr/lib/iptables/libipt_icmp.so: undefined symbol: __guard >> >>Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more information. >>---------------------- >> >>Why didn't this problem show up earlier ? There seems to be a problem >>with the stack smashing protector. >>Anybody can reproduce that in a DL system (>= 1.0RC2) with iptables 1.2.8 >> >> >? > >It did show up earlier. Michael Pasdziernik reported the same bug under RC1 >on 10/13. > >>From the list archives, it appears that the "solution" was to upgrade from >1.2.7a to 1.2.8. I'm guessing that we never checked to see if 1.2.8 >actually fixed the problem! > > There rings a bell ! Dean is right, at least this time. ;-) So that bug is finally fixed now. I'm currently uploading the new release, this will take at least 4h to complete. :-(( Anybody wants to sponsor me a upgrade for my cable service ? cya Heiko |
|
From: Dean Nedelman <din-dl@ti...> - 2003-10-31 17:22:02
|
>Heiko Zuerker wrote: > >> I can reproduce it on my box. >> I'll document it as a bug and try to fix it. > >Here's the problem: >---------------------- >root@...:~ # iptables -A INPUT -j ACCEPT -p icmp -o eth0 -m icmp >--icmp-type echo-request >iptables v1.2.8: Couldn't load match >`icmp':/usr/lib/iptables/libipt_icmp.so: undefined symbol: __guard > >Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more information. >---------------------- > >Why didn't this problem show up earlier ? There seems to be a problem >with the stack smashing protector. >Anybody can reproduce that in a DL system (>= 1.0RC2) with iptables 1.2.8 ? It did show up earlier. Michael Pasdziernik reported the same bug under RC1 on 10/13. From the list archives, it appears that the "solution" was to upgrade from 1.2.7a to 1.2.8. I'm guessing that we never checked to see if 1.2.8 actually fixed the problem! Dean |
|
From: Heiko Zuerker <heiko@zu...> - 2003-10-31 16:10:28
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>OK I upload 1.0.1 this afternoon: >>iptables without SSP >>thttpd 2.24 (security hole) >>Updated Setup with Broadcast ? >> >> > >I made the setup changes to 1.0, which included adding the ipcalc >program. I have no way to test my changes on 1.0 since I don't have >sources downloaded. (or the time to compile it anyway) > > Don't be scared, I'll do a quick test. Heiko |
|
From: Heiko Zuerker <heiko@zu...> - 2003-10-31 16:06:20
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>OK I upload 1.0.1 this afternoon: >>iptables without SSP >>thttpd 2.24 (security hole) >>Updated Setup with Broadcast ? >> >> > >I made the setup changes to 1.0, which included adding the ipcalc >program. I have no way to test my changes on 1.0 since I don't have >sources downloaded. (or the time to compile it anyway) > > You tested it under 1.1, correct ? That should be enough cya Heiko |
|
From: Heiko Zuerker <heiko@zu...> - 2003-10-31 16:01:22
|
Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On 31-10-2003 15:55, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > >> No. But you can compile your own DL version for i586-SMP. >> The problem is that we can't provide pre-compiled version for all >> kind of scenarios. > > > I guess this isn't the right list to ask how I do that. Correct, but I give you an answer anyway. ;-) http://www.devil-linux.org/newdoc/ http://www.devil-linux.org/newdoc/ch03.html >> i686-SMP won't work. > > > I feared as much. > >>> 2) Does anyone have any (positive or negative) experience with ATA >>> Flash disk installs? >> >> >> >> No but I should work without major changes, since it's not to >> different from a USB pendrive. >> >> 64 MB Flash Disk ? You'll get some problems fitting DL 1.0 on it. :-(( >> If you want a i586-SMP, you have to compile DL anyway yourself >> (really easy), so you need to strip it down. > > > It's probably not to hard (??) to strip a lot of unnecessary stuff > from the release ISO, and since I need it only for the > router/firewall, and since 0.5 actually had everything I ever needed > for that particular system (that is, everything *except* support for > running off a hard disk), I guess it shouldn't be too much work to get > it going. (Or I could buy a bigger flash disk; I am not going to run a > simple router off a (slow) cd or a (noisy, power hungry) hard drive. > > (It's actually quite sad how most good small Linux-routers usually > come with a lot of fluff that you wouldn't need to run it off a > (equally small) ATA flash disk, and it's even more sad ATA/flash > devices haven't been adopted more widely so far; they're great !) There's a lot of great technology, which is not used. :-(( Heiko |
|
From: Bruce Smith <bws@ar...> - 2003-10-31 15:50:30
|
> >All done! :-) > > > Don't you want to do it for 1.0.1 , too ? > You did it only for 1.1 Keep your shirt on ... it's done on 1.0.1 now. :-) - BS |
|
From: Bruce Smith <bruce@ar...> - 2003-10-31 15:48:10
|
> OK I upload 1.0.1 this afternoon: > iptables without SSP > thttpd 2.24 (security hole) > Updated Setup with Broadcast ? I made the setup changes to 1.0, which included adding the ipcalc program. I have no way to test my changes on 1.0 since I don't have sources downloaded. (or the time to compile it anyway) - BS |
|
From: Jeroen Roovers <rooversj@xs...> - 2003-10-31 15:43:43
|
On 31-10-2003 15:55, Heiko Zuerker wrote:
> No. But you can compile your own DL version for i586-SMP.
> The problem is that we can't provide pre-compiled version for all kind
> of scenarios.
I guess this isn't the right list to ask how I do that.
> i686-SMP won't work.
I feared as much.
>>2) Does anyone have any (positive or negative) experience with ATA
>>Flash disk installs?
>
>
> No but I should work without major changes, since it's not to different
> from a USB pendrive.
>
> 64 MB Flash Disk ? You'll get some problems fitting DL 1.0 on it. :-((
> If you want a i586-SMP, you have to compile DL anyway yourself (really
> easy), so you need to strip it down.
It's probably not to hard (??) to strip a lot of unnecessary stuff from
the release ISO, and since I need it only for the router/firewall, and
since 0.5 actually had everything I ever needed for that particular
system (that is, everything *except* support for running off a hard
disk), I guess it shouldn't be too much work to get it going. (Or I
could buy a bigger flash disk; I am not going to run a simple router off
a (slow) cd or a (noisy, power hungry) hard drive.
(It's actually quite sad how most good small Linux-routers usually come
with a lot of fluff that you wouldn't need to run it off a (equally
small) ATA flash disk, and it's even more sad ATA/flash devices haven't
been adopted more widely so far; they're great !)
Thanks for all your advice!
Jeroen Roovers
|
|
From: Heiko Zuerker <heiko@zu...> - 2003-10-31 15:41:22
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>>>broadcast should be 172.20.23.15 >>>> >>>> >>>OK, I'm working on a fix now. >>>Unfortunately it's a little to late to make it into version 1.0. :-) >>> >>> >>> >>It looks like we need to release a 1.0.1, so hurry up. ;-) >> >> > >All done! :-) > > Don't you want to do it for 1.0.1 , too ? You did it only for 1.1 Heiko |
|
From: Bruce Smith <bws@ar...> - 2003-10-31 15:30:33
|
> >>broadcast should be 172.20.23.15 > > > >OK, I'm working on a fix now. > >Unfortunately it's a little to late to make it into version 1.0. :-) > > > It looks like we need to release a 1.0.1, so hurry up. ;-) All done! :-) - BS |
|
From: Bruce Smith <bws@ar...> - 2003-10-31 15:09:29
|
> > 2) Does anyone have any (positive or negative) experience with ATA Flash > > disk installs? > > This should be the same as a harddisk install. > > Bruce, do you know is harddisk install ready or still in development? I didn't know we were supporting hard drive installs? They _should_ be similar to USB flash drives, but YMMV. - BS |
|
From: Friedrich Lobenstock <fl@fl...> - 2003-10-31 14:57:48
|
Jeroen Roovers wrote on 31.10.2003 15:45 MET: > 2) Does anyone have any (positive or negative) experience with ATA Flash > disk installs? This should be the same as a harddisk install. Bruce, do you know is harddisk install ready or still in development? -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock ____________________________________________________________________ Friedrich Lobenstock Linux Services Lobenstock URL: http://www.lsl.at/ Email: fl@... ____________________________________________________________________ |
|
From: Heiko Zuerker <heiko@zu...> - 2003-10-31 14:56:17
|
Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On 31-10-2003 14:49, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > >> Hey, >> >> I like this part most of Bruces' interview on Newsforge: >> <quote> >> The Devil-Linux developers tend to be light-hearted, but don't let >> their conversational silliness fool you: This is serious software >> with a serious purpose. >> </quote> > > > Great quote. Good reason for me to butt in about the new final 1.0 > release, because I have some burning issues to ask about. > > I have tried 0.5 on a 1995 SMP system from HP, the Vectra XU 5/90, > upgraded with 128 megabytes of memory and 2 Pentium 133 processors. > It's a great machine, but its PCI performance sucks at throughputs > from anything to anything else capping at about 10 megabytes a second > (total that is, don't get your hopes up!). > > With ADSL connectivity coming to my part of the backwaters of the > world, I thought this ancient but very robust machine could very well > handle 2 megabit downloads and 640 kilobit uploads, so I looked around > for some (Linux) software to run on it. DL 0.5 met just about all my > criteria, but didn't seem to use both processors. Now there is an > ..-i686-SMP of DL 1.0 out, but apparently not the ..-i586-SMP edition > I am looking to deploy. What I'd like to know if an SMP ISO package > for 586's like the Pentium 133 is planned. No. But you can compile your own DL version for i586-SMP. The problem is that we can't provide pre-compiled version for all kind of scenarios. > BTW, I am dying to try out the install-on-usb script, since I have > this 64 MB ATA Flash Disk from Apacer that I'd like to employ instead > of the cd-rom/floppy configuration. DL 0.5 fitted neatly onto that > two-chip IDE device, but of course I would have had to rewrite all the > init scripts and cut away the initrd (and possibly compile a custom > kernel after all) to have it run well off this Flash HDD. I am still > wondering if I could get Slackware 9 running well on this, but it > would lack the simple configuration. Anyway.. > > To sum up my questions: > > 1) Will there be an i586-SMP package of DL 1.0? Could I run i686-SMP > on it after all (probably not)? i686-SMP won't work. > > 2) Does anyone have any (positive or negative) experience with ATA > Flash disk installs? No but I should work without major changes, since it's not to different from a USB pendrive. 64 MB Flash Disk ? You'll get some problems fitting DL 1.0 on it. :-(( If you want a i586-SMP, you have to compile DL anyway yourself (really easy), so you need to strip it down. cya Heiko |
|
From: Heiko Zuerker <heiko@zu...> - 2003-10-31 14:46:18
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>>I can reproduce it on my box. >>>I'll document it as a bug and try to fix it. >>> >>> >>Here's the problem: >>---------------------- >>root@...:~ # iptables -A INPUT -j ACCEPT -p icmp -o eth0 -m icmp >>--icmp-type echo-request >>iptables v1.2.8: Couldn't load match >>`icmp':/usr/lib/iptables/libipt_icmp.so: undefined symbol: __guard >> >>Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more information. >>---------------------- >> >>Why didn't this problem show up earlier ? There seems to be a problem >>with the stack smashing protector. >>Anybody can reproduce that in a DL system (>= 1.0RC2) with iptables 1.2.8 ? >> >> > >Yup: > >root@...:~ # iptables -v >iptables v1.2.8: no command specified >Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more information. > >root@...:~ # iptables -A INPUT -j ACCEPT -p icmp -o eth0 -m icmp --icmp-type echo-request >iptables v1.2.8: Couldn't load match `icmp':/usr/lib/iptables/libipt_icmp.so: undefined symbol: __guard > >Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more information. >root@...:~ # > > > OK I upload 1.0.1 this afternoon: iptables without SSP thttpd 2.24 (security hole) Updated Setup with Broadcast ? cya Heiko |
|
From: Heiko Zuerker <heiko@zu...> - 2003-10-31 14:45:18
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>Yes with ip static >> >>in setup if i put >> >>IP 172.20.23.1 >>NETMASK 255.255.255.240 >> >>ifconfig eth0 >> >>inet addr 172.20.23.1 brodcast 172.20.255.255 netmask 255.255.255.240 >> >>broadcast should be 172.20.23.15 >> >> > >OK, I'm working on a fix now. >Unfortunately it's a little to late to make it into version 1.0. :-) > > It looks like we need to release a 1.0.1, so hurry up. ;-) Heiko |
|
From: Jeroen Roovers <rooversj@xs...> - 2003-10-31 14:44:03
|
On 31-10-2003 14:49, Heiko Zuerker wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I like this part most of Bruces' interview on Newsforge:
> <quote>
> The Devil-Linux developers tend to be light-hearted, but don't let their
> conversational silliness fool you: This is serious software with a
> serious purpose.
> </quote>
Great quote. Good reason for me to butt in about the new final 1.0
release, because I have some burning issues to ask about.
I have tried 0.5 on a 1995 SMP system from HP, the Vectra XU 5/90,
upgraded with 128 megabytes of memory and 2 Pentium 133 processors. It's
a great machine, but its PCI performance sucks at throughputs from
anything to anything else capping at about 10 megabytes a second (total
that is, don't get your hopes up!).
With ADSL connectivity coming to my part of the backwaters of the world,
I thought this ancient but very robust machine could very well handle 2
megabit downloads and 640 kilobit uploads, so I looked around for some
(Linux) software to run on it. DL 0.5 met just about all my criteria,
but didn't seem to use both processors. Now there is an ..-i686-SMP of
DL 1.0 out, but apparently not the ..-i586-SMP edition I am looking to
deploy. What I'd like to know if an SMP ISO package for 586's like the
Pentium 133 is planned.
BTW, I am dying to try out the install-on-usb script, since I have this
64 MB ATA Flash Disk from Apacer that I'd like to employ instead of the
cd-rom/floppy configuration. DL 0.5 fitted neatly onto that two-chip IDE
device, but of course I would have had to rewrite all the init scripts
and cut away the initrd (and possibly compile a custom kernel after all)
to have it run well off this Flash HDD. I am still wondering if I could
get Slackware 9 running well on this, but it would lack the simple
configuration. Anyway..
To sum up my questions:
1) Will there be an i586-SMP package of DL 1.0? Could I run i686-SMP on
it after all (probably not)?
2) Does anyone have any (positive or negative) experience with ATA Flash
disk installs?
Thanks,
Jeroen Roovers
|
|
From: Bruce Smith <bws@ar...> - 2003-10-31 14:32:42
|
> Yes with ip static > > in setup if i put > > IP 172.20.23.1 > NETMASK 255.255.255.240 > > ifconfig eth0 > > inet addr 172.20.23.1 brodcast 172.20.255.255 netmask 255.255.255.240 > > broadcast should be 172.20.23.15 OK, I'm working on a fix now. Unfortunately it's a little to late to make it into version 1.0. :-) > if we put BROADCAST=172.20.23.15 in /etc/sysconfig/nic/ifcfg-eth0 it's > ok ;-) Yeah, you'll have to do it that way in the mean time. Sorry about that! - BS |
|
From: Bruce Smith <bws@ar...> - 2003-10-31 14:23:32
|
> > I can reproduce it on my box. > > I'll document it as a bug and try to fix it. > > Here's the problem: > ---------------------- > root@...:~ # iptables -A INPUT -j ACCEPT -p icmp -o eth0 -m icmp > --icmp-type echo-request > iptables v1.2.8: Couldn't load match > `icmp':/usr/lib/iptables/libipt_icmp.so: undefined symbol: __guard > > Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more information. > ---------------------- > > Why didn't this problem show up earlier ? There seems to be a problem > with the stack smashing protector. > Anybody can reproduce that in a DL system (>= 1.0RC2) with iptables 1.2.8 ? Yup: root@...:~ # iptables -v iptables v1.2.8: no command specified Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more information. root@...:~ # iptables -A INPUT -j ACCEPT -p icmp -o eth0 -m icmp --icmp-type echo-request iptables v1.2.8: Couldn't load match `icmp':/usr/lib/iptables/libipt_icmp.so: undefined symbol: __guard Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more information. root@...:~ # - BS |
|
From: Heiko Zuerker <heiko@zu...> - 2003-10-31 14:20:20
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>I like this part most of Bruces' interview on Newsforge: >><quote> >>The Devil-Linux developers tend to be light-hearted, but don't let their >>conversational silliness fool you: This is serious software with a >>serious purpose. >></quote> >> >> > >Yes, I wish I could take credit for that line, but Robin (the article's >author) wrote that. I guess that's why he's a writer and I'm not! ;-) > >http://www.newsforge.com/software/03/10/30/2029210.shtml?tid=150&tid=2&tid=78&tid=82&tid=94 > > The Link is already on our website. ;-) Heiko |
2 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.