Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> So, I'm not sure where this leaves us.
Exactly where you were before. Nothing has changed.
> The bug does still seem to exist
> in expect, but, at least currently, the test-suites that make use of
> expect seem unaffected by the inclusion or absence of the patch.
No.
On 10/31/06, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's been slow getting the server ready because nobody knows all the
details of the setup anymore. I didn't want to blindly copy files and
get things working without understanding what really is necessary and
what simply must be changed in
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Hello,
Was taking a peek at this ticket:
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1625
Thanks Jeremy, and a belated welcome back!
So, I'm not sure where this leaves us. The bug does still seem to exist
in expect, but, at least currently, the test-suites that make us
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> These operations (creating the socket and bind()ing it) will generate
> their own log messages, but they'll be put into the log when udevd
> starts up, not later. So you may have to change the logging level in
> the config file (...if that's even possible anymore)
Yup. You
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Stef Bon wrote:
>> Socket operation on non-socket
>
>
> Based on pure guesswork, I'd say it's possible that your kernel doesn't
> have PF_NETLINK (netlink socket) support. But that's just a guess; we'd
> need the error description from the socket or bind call to know for
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Stef Bon wrote:
>> Socket operation on non-socket
>
>
> Based on pure guesswork, I'd say it's possible that your kernel doesn't
> have PF_NETLINK (netlink socket) support. But that's just a guess; we'd
> need the error description from the socket or bind call to know for
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> This is off topic, but could someone with mailman privileges please
> make patches subscriber only or blacklist a user? It's getting
> hammered with spam.
Well... I think whoever it is has stopped sending long ago (probably
yesterday around 10:30 AM my time). Actually, I
On 11/2/06, Stef Bon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Stef Bon wrote:
>> Socket operation on non-socket
>
> Based on pure guesswork, I'd say it's possible that your kernel doesn't
> have PF_NETLINK (netlink socket) support. But that's just a guess; we'd
> need the error descrip
On 11/2/06, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As much as I don't like making lists subscriber-only in general, that's
the only way I can think of to stop this in the future that would work.
I think it has to be until the new server comes along and has more
resources to handle the proble
Hi
In LFS-SVN-20061029, Chapter 3.2 there's a note reading:
The Linux kernel is updated relatively often, many times due to
discoveries of security vulnerabilities. The latest available 2.6.17.x
kernel version should be used, unless the errata page says otherwise.
Do not use version 2.6.18 or l
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 07:29:05AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> You need at least CONFIG_NETFILTER_NETLINK
I'm not so sure on that. Isn't netfilter the filtering (i.e. iptables)
interface?
It may help to see whether "ip route show" tells you anything or gives
an error -- iproute2 uses a netlink
Greg Schafer wrote:
Exactly where you were before. Nothing has changed.
Yes, mostly. With the exception that I know a little bit more about the
history of the patch. :) If you, or anyone else, has more information on
the reasons why the expect devs say that it's a problem with tcl (or
that H
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Thanks Jeremy, and a belated welcome back!
Thanks. Not sure exactly what my status is or to what level I'm
committing myself, but it's nice hearing from you all again.
As Trac seems to have lost the original
test script I put up, I've added another one (I'd lost the o
13 matches
Mail list logo
