Re: some minor bootscript things

2005-09-16 Thread DJ Lucas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hey guys, > As an experiment, the other night I changed the /bin/sh symlink from /bin/bash > to /usr/bin/zsh. This is only a potential problem, but /usr should be expected to be a remote fs...only /bin is guaranteed to be available at boot-time. > It didn't go too wel

Re: MD5

2005-09-16 Thread petrus
> sha1sum is included in coreutils and is standard on LFS. It is? Excuse me for a minute while I go and wipe the egg off my face. ;-) -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: MD5

2005-09-16 Thread Archaic
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 11:48:47AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Both shasum and the library it needs, mhash, are available from here if anyone > is interested. > http://www.netsw.org/crypto/hash/ sha1sum is included in coreutils and is standard on LFS. -- Archaic Want control, education,

Re: MD5

2005-09-16 Thread petrus
Both shasum and the library it needs, mhash, are available from here if anyone is interested. http://www.netsw.org/crypto/hash/ The below address is the sourceforge download page for mhash as well. http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4286 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/

Re: MD5

2005-09-16 Thread petrus
> Another alternative to using md5sums to check the integity of a system > is to use sha1sums in addition to md5sums. It is not computationally > feasable to produce two files that have the same md5sum *and* sha1sum. That sounds like a good idea. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/l

Re: MD5

2005-09-16 Thread petrus
> In what context? For hashing our own tarballs? Or do you mean not Yes...hashing our own tarballs. I hadn't thought of it, but it makes sense that we'd need to keep it for backward compatibility. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq

Re: MD5

2005-09-16 Thread Bryan Kadzban
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > but the /. post talks about using SHA-256, and I've seen some sites > also using GPG. FYI, signing a file with GPG might still be "vulnerable" to any issues with MD5. You sign a file by first hashing it, then encrypting the hash value with your private key -- so if the

Re: iproute page - extra blank space

2005-09-16 Thread Matthew Burgess
Robert Connolly wrote: Hi. In chapter06/iproute2.html, the "./configure" command line has an extra unneeded space on the end. It has been there for a while. Thanks, fixed now. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the

iproute page - extra blank space

2005-09-16 Thread Robert Connolly
Hi. In chapter06/iproute2.html, the "./configure" command line has an extra unneeded space on the end. It has been there for a while. robert -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: MD5

2005-09-16 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Matthew Burgess wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> According to this:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Md5 and a number of >> articles >> I've seen on Slashdot, MD5 is apparently no longer entirely >> secure...there's a >> story on /. at the moment actually about Microsoft dropping MD5 for >> use

Re: MD5

2005-09-16 Thread Matthew Burgess
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to this:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Md5 and a number of articles I've seen on Slashdot, MD5 is apparently no longer entirely secure...there's a story on /. at the moment actually about Microsoft dropping MD5 for use in Vista. Should we possibly start conside

MD5

2005-09-16 Thread petrus
According to this:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Md5 and a number of articles I've seen on Slashdot, MD5 is apparently no longer entirely secure...there's a story on /. at the moment actually about Microsoft dropping MD5 for use in Vista. Should we possibly start considering something else? I kno

Re: some minor bootscript things

2005-09-16 Thread petrus
> Which is ... odd, because IIRC, ash and sh don't *have* a "source" > builtin. [1] All they have is ".", but if that doesn't work in zsh, > we'll be forced to remove support for one or the other shell. AFAIK, the problem there is only related to zsh's /bin/sh compatibility mode...Zsh when called

Re: RFC - Cross-LFS Future

2005-09-16 Thread Jürg Billeter
On Don, 2005-09-15 at 14:43 -0700, Jim Gifford wrote: > M.Canales.es wrote: > > >Yes, that is how I see it also. Both books could be almost indentical except > >in how the tolchains are created and the way used to build the final system > >(boot or chroot). > > > > > If we do this, we could re

Re: RFC - Cross-LFS Future

2005-09-16 Thread M.Canales.es
El Jueves, 15 de Septiembre de 2005 23:43, Jim Gifford escribió: > If we do this, we could remove chroot from the Cross-LFS, since it's > only there for same arch to same arch capability. Exactly ;-) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en

Re: some minor bootscript things

2005-09-16 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
Archaic wrote: Before you send patches, they need to work on ash as well, which IIRC, is the closest representation of the original bourne shell. But do we need a closest implementation of the original bourne shell or something that strives to be POSIX-compliant as much as possible? In the lat