On 2/7/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 08:32 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote: > > On 2/7/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Sorry, I don't mean modules as such. I mean extensions. Each > > > target/match for iptables has its own extension. > > > > Yeah, you're right. Could you show the exact errors? I'm guessing that > > our kernel headers are just too old in LFS-6.2. > > I don't think the kernel headers are too old, but there's not an error > as such for the following reasons: > > The extensions that require the headers all have a hidden test script > located in the extensions directory. > > For example the connbytes extension has a test script > iptables-1.3.x/extensions/.connbytes-test
Thanks for the explanation. Well, I don't think anything's changed, then. I don't have a libipt_connbytes.so for iptables-1.3.5, either. For BLFS, I think you just get the extensions that build against the sanitized kernel headers. This has been working fine for people for a long time. I don't envision us changing that since it would require us to always build against the raw headers, which can change constantly with kernel version. Not that it's really important, but Fedora builds against the sanitized headers, too. I suppose we could add a note that says you can build more extensions against the raw kernel sources at your own risk. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
