Bao C. Ha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If I want both the freeswan module capability and IPVS, how should
> I proceed.
If all you need is to run freeswan, then you can unapply the IPSEC patch,
and simply use KLIPS.
If you need the new stack, then you will need to fix the conflicts.
It should
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry but this is not true and your documentation is misleading ! You have
> already known that your ipsec patch can't even be unapplied cleanly, and it
> is documented for kernel-source-2.4.22-2 in #213987... This is not corrected
> for kernel-sour
On Monday 06 October 2003 19:38, Bao C. Ha wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 07:12:03PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> Hi Herbet,
>
> If I want both the freeswan module capability and IPVS, how should
> I proceed.
You need kernel hacker skills to do that. Even if these patches both apply
cleanly eac
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 05:10:18PM +0200, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 07:12:03PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > You can either use a vanilla kernel, or unapply the IPSEC patch as
> > documented in the README.Debian file.
>
> Why is the ipsec patch applied by default in th
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 07:12:03PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
Hi Herbet,
If I want both the freeswan module capability and IPVS, how should
I proceed.
Thanks.
Bao
> Bao C. Ha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I am trying to patch the kernel 2.4.22 and got into troubles. It seems
> > that the
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 07:12:03PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Bao C. Ha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I am trying to patch the kernel 2.4.22 and got into troubles. It seems
> > that the Debian kernel has been patched to do away the pmtu field of
> > the struct dst_entry (include/net/dst.h).
Bao C. Ha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am trying to patch the kernel 2.4.22 and got into troubles. It seems
> that the Debian kernel has been patched to do away the pmtu field of
> the struct dst_entry (include/net/dst.h).
>
> Any sugegstions on how to get it working again. The last working
#include
* martin f krafft [Mon, Sep 22 2003, 08:03:18PM]:
> This is a good point. Debian makes an effort to be kernel
> independent, so why does the kernel-source install Linux?
>
> I think we should rename to linux-kernel-source, linux-kernel-image
> and so on...
Good point. The idea is not n
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 01:56:09PM -0500, Ryan Underwood wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:03:18PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> >
> > This is a good point. Debian makes an effort to be kernel
> > independent, so why does the kernel-source install Linux?
> >
> > I think we should
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:03:18PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>
> This is a good point. Debian makes an effort to be kernel
> independent, so why does the kernel-source install Linux?
>
> I think we should rename to linux-kernel-source, linux-kernel-image
> and so on...
I very much agre
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:03:18PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.22.1213 +0200]:
> > So your complain reduces in my eyes to an incomplete label.
> > I personally think not having the term "linux" in it more of an
> > issue than having "-de
Matthias Berse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, I mean a way to go from let's say kernel-source-2.4.3 to
> kernel-source-2.4.4 without the need to download the whole big .deb,
There's no point in doing that as you can always maintain your own upstream
kernel source by patching, then you can apply
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:41:46PM +0200, Robert van der Meulen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Matthias Berse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > No, I mean a way to go from let's say kernel-source-2.4.3 to
> > kernel-source-2.4.4 without the need to download the whole big .deb,
> > but a patch similar to those pa
Hi,
Quoting Matthias Berse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> No, I mean a way to go from let's say kernel-source-2.4.3 to
> kernel-source-2.4.4 without the need to download the whole big .deb,
> but a patch similar to those patches found on kernel.org, but as a
> debian package which the patches the installe
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:26:20PM +0200, Robert van der Meulen wrote:
>
> Quoting Matthias Berse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > expand vanilla-debian kernels for let's say xfs. Since the
> > kernel-source package is rather large compared to the usual
> > kernel-to-kernel patch why do not provide a ker
Quoting Matthias Berse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> expand vanilla-debian kernels for let's say xfs. Since the
> kernel-source package is rather large compared to the usual
> kernel-to-kernel patch why do not provide a kernel-patch packet which
> can patch the kernel up do date?
I think you're either
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> The /usr/src/linux symlink is no longer necessary for anything
Ian> very much, and in any case it seems to me that having the
Ian> most-recently-unpacked thing alway set this link to itself is
Ian> bad.
Umm, I could not think of anot
Brian Mays writes ("Re: kernel-source and kernel-headers packages"):
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Can't these be retired ?
...
> > Why not just ship the (debianised, obviously) source to the
> > kernels we ship as .tar.gz and .diff.
18 matches
Mail list logo
