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 have to admit that I didn't really understand the sanatized kernel headers stuff before this, but I do now! One question this leads me onto though - is the Linux-Libc-Headers project still being maintained? The download area I've found has not been updated since July 2005, which is the ones that LFS uses. Before that they seemed to have been updated fairly regularly. Surely at some point a newer version will be needed otherwise there will gradually be more programs that require newer versions, leading to similar problems as this? I appreciate this is getting off-topic. Maybe it's a question for lfs-dev instead. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
