On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 08:55 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote: > 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.
That would be appreciated; it will at least save other people pulling their hair out! Regards, Andy Beverley -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
