----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Wolzak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Desmond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [LRP] busybox and dd - was: My eiger-dynamic box got owned!
>
> > David Douthitt wrote a great incident handling routine
> > that I printed out in big letters and hung by the LRP
> > but I find it won't work for me...
> >
> > >3. Login in as root on the LRP box and do the
> > >following:
> > >
> > >dd if=/dev/ram0 | gzip - | nc safe.host.local 17389
> > >
> >
> > Is there an EigenStein-speak version of this? The
> > busybox on ES's doesn't support the if= and of=
> > options. It looks like it only supports standard_in to
> > standard_out with options for # of blocks and # of
> > bytes/block.
> >
> > And has anyone tried to replace the v0.28 busybox on
> > ES with something just a wee bit newer? There's a note
> > on the list to the effect that the lrp packages get
> > corrupted during backup if the busybox gets upgraded.
> > Ouch.
> One of this messages is from me, the problem however was only
> the use of the busybox tar, without using this there is no problem
> using bb 0.49. I use the bb 0.49 with eigerstein for about a month
> now.
> We are upgrading the whole disc. That is the reason that we didn't
> present a new root.lrp
Charles:
Just as a question (and I may have missed a email about this) but do you
plan on updating the Eigerstein base to the newer busybox/utils?
Ive avoided doing anything of this nature myself because its my opinion that
we are creating a mess with the disk images.
LEAF dev:
Basically i feel until a combined branch of LEAF can be made (which said
project may have already be dropped) that basically three branches of LRP
exist.....
Eigerstein Varient - Firewall
Oxygen Varient - Util/App system
LRP 2.9.8 - Router
each of these branches deal extensivly in one direction (except LRP 2.9.8
which is generalized unless im mistaken)
If a Disk Image is based off a branch (example my own PPPoE image based on
Eigerstein2BETA) is should NOT contain extensive modifications in comparison
to the original branch unless thouraly documented or a start to a new branch
Example..
My PPPoE image is NOTHING more than eigerstein2BETA with upgraded with newer
packages that the default eigerstein image doesnt include (example is
dnscache, weblet, dhcpd) and config settings changed (which i need to stop
being a hypacrite and document)
Its my opinion is that disk images should contain the same package versions
as the main branch image with the obvious difference of extra packages
(sshd, pppd, pppoe, seti303, etc) and settings in network.conf
The advantage of this is that based on each branch a default package and
version set
hmmmmmm...though this may go back to the old concept of having a package
control system...which may be high time that we concentrate on this
ok.....i need to end my rant/bitch
-Kenneth Hadley
> > -John
> >
> > PS: the 'nc' on ES is 'mnc'
> >
> ps is going to change too ;), i think
>
> Eric Wolzak
> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/ericw
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-router maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.linuxrouter.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-router
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
