Re: udev-100 [was: Glibc-2.4]

2006-09-19 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 9/19/06, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually, these rules will require udev-098 or higher, which isn't in the book yet -- which means if I commit this change, we'll have to hold off on building the udev-config tarball until we update the udev version. (It's easy enough to skip

Re: udev-100 [was: Glibc-2.4]

2006-09-19 Thread Bryan Kadzban
Matthew Burgess wrote: > but I had the same doubt as you as to why we'd want to walk the tree, > hence I assumed I was in need of a cluebat :-) Well, most of the time it may not be needed. But I figure if the old rules did it, the new ones probably should as well. At least for now. > Feel free

Re: Status of HLFS project

2006-09-19 Thread Robert Baker
Well I have about the same schedule as you Robert, but I am willing to throw my hat in the ring to help maintain HLFS-Stable. I have a big interest in seeing that we can work out a hardened system capable of being used for stable server environments. I think that starting another branch

Re: Glibc-2.4 / kernel-headers

2006-09-19 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 9/19/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt, I agree, but, what I think is wrong is the idealism that David Woodhouse has on this, he doesn't care if something breaks. A really good example here is iptables. How would you suggest handling that can of worms. The thing is, it's not

Re: Glibc-2.4 / kernel-headers

2006-09-19 Thread Matthew Burgess
Jim Gifford wrote: Matt, I agree, but, what I think is wrong is the idealism that David Woodhouse has on this, he doesn't care if something breaks. A really good example here is iptables. How would you suggest handling that can of worms. As per my proposal above, patch iptables to fix the bu

Re: Glibc-2.4 / kernel-headers

2006-09-19 Thread Jim Gifford
Matthew Burgess wrote: Jim Gifford wrote: This means userspace still will be broken until we submit patches to the upstream maintainers for the programs that are broke. And that's exactly what my proposal suggested we tackle. The way I see it, if a package fails to build using the headers_i

Re: util-linux using libcrypto

2006-09-19 Thread Jan Dvořák
Hi, another think I just found out. Glibc's sunrpc has it's own impl of DES. As noted in sunrpc/des_impl.c: Collected from libdes and modified for SECURE RPC by Martin Kuck 1994, funny huh? :] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- http://linuxfromscratch.org

Re: Glibc-2.4 / kernel-headers

2006-09-19 Thread Matthew Burgess
Jim Gifford wrote: This means userspace still will be broken until we submit patches to the upstream maintainers for the programs that are broke. And that's exactly what my proposal suggested we tackle. The way I see it, if a package fails to build using the headers_install kernel headers i

Re: util-linux using libcrypto

2006-09-19 Thread Jan Dvořák
Hi, > It shouldn't be hard to remove libcrypt from glibc We'll have to build it later as it defines crypt(). Maybe we could only replace it's MD5 algo with OpenSSL's and build it separately once libcrypto is in place... # EOF -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev FAQ: http://w

Re: Upgrade of openldap to 2.3.27.

2006-09-19 Thread Stef Bon
Dan Nicholson wrote: > On 9/19/06, Stef Bon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> in the current book the version of openldap is 2.3.20. This is not an >> stable version!!! A lot of bugs as I found out when modifying a >> ldapdirectory with ldbm backend. >> >> The current stable 2.3.27 is much better!

Re: Upgrade of openldap to 2.3.27.

2006-09-19 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 9/19/06, Stef Bon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: in the current book the version of openldap is 2.3.20. This is not an stable version!!! A lot of bugs as I found out when modifying a ldapdirectory with ldbm backend. The current stable 2.3.27 is much better! Thanks, Stef. There's a bug for this

Upgrade of openldap to 2.3.27.

2006-09-19 Thread Stef Bon
Hello, in the current book the version of openldap is 2.3.20. This is not an stable version!!! A lot of bugs as I found out when modifying a ldapdirectory with ldbm backend. The current stable 2.3.27 is much better! Stef Bon -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://

Re: Glibc-2.4 / kernel-headers

2006-09-19 Thread Jim Gifford
Dan Nicholson wrote: On 9/18/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Matt, David will not listen to this, I have tried. His words are, it's not userspace submit patches to the actual program maintainer. Jim, I'm sorry, but I've read this a few times now and I can't understand what the

Re: Glibc-2.4 / kernel-headers

2006-09-19 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 9/18/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Matt, David will not listen to this, I have tried. His words are, it's not userspace submit patches to the actual program maintainer. Jim, I'm sorry, but I've read this a few times now and I can't understand what the second sentence means.