Re: OpenSSH 5.2p1
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote: If you really want to be helpful, why don't you see if the current commands work with the new package. A review of the *key* changes in your own words would be helpful. For instance, it looks like they added a capability to log errors to syslog instead of stderr with a -y option, but there don't appear to be any critical security issues. I tend to be impatient, however. So keep that in mind. William. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: OpenSSH 5.2p1
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:06:01 -0600, William Immendorf will.immend...@gmail.com wrote: I tend to be impatient, however. So keep that in mind. And we tend to ignore impatient people who are unwilling/unable to help contribute to the books or support thereof. So keep that in mind. Honestly, William, could you not just have noticed that the new release had been made, test that the current book's instructions work with the new version and then instead of demanding the already stretched editors upgrade instantly, at least be able to say: There's a new version of the OpenSSH package. I've tested it using the latest book's instructions and it works/doesn't work (delete/add more info as appropriate). For bonus points, assuming the book's current instructions work as-is, providing the trivial patch against packages.ent would have gone a long way to boosting people's impressions of you. And now, given that, I hereby promise not to feed the troll anymore. Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Questions about the Jasper page
Hi all, This is mostly to Ken, as he created the Jasper page, but anyone else with comments are welcomed to reply. My question is: Why are the dependencies of Jasper recommended instead of optional? I perhaps can see libjpeg support being recommended, but I cannot see why. It is linked to the jasper library, and perhaps it is expected to be there by applications that link to the library. To me, the X dependency isn't even really a dependency, because it will be there if you have the GLUT libs and only the GLUT libs are really required, and that is for one program built by the package: jiv, which apparently is just an image viewer. Can anyone explain why we are recommending that this image viewer be built when the Jasper package is installed? -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 11:55:00 up 17 days, 4:18, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.02, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: OpenSSH 5.2p1
And now, given that, I hereby promise not to feed the troll anymore. I am not a troll, BTW. I am a austic guy. But I will still help. William -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Questions about the Jasper page
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:08:17PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote: Hi all, This is mostly to Ken, as he created the Jasper page, but anyone else with comments are welcomed to reply. My question is: Why are the dependencies of Jasper recommended instead of optional? To me, they look like a good idea. I perhaps can see libjpeg support being recommended, but I cannot see why. It is linked to the jasper library, and perhaps it is expected to be there by applications that link to the library. To me, the X dependency isn't even really a dependency, because it will be there if you have the GLUT libs and only the GLUT libs are really required, and that is for one program built by the package: jiv, which apparently is just an image viewer. Can anyone explain why we are recommending that this image viewer be built when the Jasper package is installed? The viewer seems marginally useful. I can understand keeping things as optional when they merely increase functionality of a program. In this case, you don't have the program if you don't provide the dependency. I can also understand _never_ recommending dependencies. Ever. that isn't how BLFS currently works. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 11:55:00 up 17 days, 4:18, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.02, 0.0 ¡ I hope this isn't the box where you are doing the BLFS-6.4 upgrades ! ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Questions about the Jasper page
Ken Moffat wrote: I can also understand _never_ recommending dependencies. Ever. that isn't how BLFS currently works. Why? What's wrong with an editor recommending a dependency? It's basically saying that the package will have significantly (in the editor's opinion) less functionality or usefulness without the dependency, but its not required for the build. There are lots of places in both LFS and BLFS where we make recommendations. One of the most basic is which packages are installed in LFS (e.g. vi vs emacs, bash vs another shell, etc). -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Questions about the Jasper page
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 02/24/09 16:54 CST: On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:08:17PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote: Why are the dependencies of Jasper recommended instead of optional? To me, they look like a good idea. This is a technical book. Could you provide some technical details why you think they should be recommended? The Jasper package was added to the book for the library. I would prefer if we put the dependencies as optional if we cannot find some better argument than To me, they look like a good idea What typically we do is say Optional (required to build the XYZ program). This let's users know they need the dependency if they wish to have the XYZ program built. I cannot see us recommending what programs the users have or don't have on their system when those programs have no other affect on the book. The viewer seems marginally useful. I can understand keeping things as optional when they merely increase functionality of a program. In this case, you don't have the program if you don't provide the dependency. See above. And this is how we do it in most of the BLFS packages where a dependency is soley used to build a sub-part of the package that nothing else in the book depends on. rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 11:55:00 up 17 days, 4:18, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.02, 0.0 ¡ I hope this isn't the box where you are doing the BLFS-6.4 upgrades ! What would it matter? x86 is x86. But for the record, no. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 18:26:00 up 17 days, 10:49, 1 user, load average: 0.43, 0.43, 0.24 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Questions about the Jasper page
Randy McMurchy wrote: What would it matter? x86 is x86. But for the record, no. Umm [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] Doesn't much look like LFS-6.4. ;-) -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Questions about the Jasper page
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 02/24/09 19:04 CST: Randy McMurchy wrote: What would it matter? x86 is x86. But for the record, no. Umm [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] Doesn't much look like LFS-6.4. ;-) What's with the Umm... The elipsis you use means you had something else to say. What exactly is it you omitted? What is you guy's point? Why are there questions about what computer I wish to use for my email-client? -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 19:14:01 up 17 days, 11:37, 1 user, load average: 0.45, 0.11, 0.06 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [BLFS Trac] #2720: Cairo-1.8.6
On Wed, Feb 25, at 12:21 BLFS Trac wrote: #2720: Cairo-1.8.6 +--- Reporter: ra...@… | Owner: k...@… Type: task| Status: assigned Priority: normal | Milestone: 6.4 Component: BOOK| Version: SVN Severity: normal |Keywords: +--- Comment(by ra...@…): Hmmm, why do I feel there is a confrontation starting? :-) Anyway, there is no urgency. However, I have it installed, have tested it, and want to get the book updated. We don't sit on package versions when there is Editor interest to update it. Another thing is that I wanted to fix the dependencies, which are incorrect right now. In that case, could you comment on: http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/2664#comment:2 http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/2580#comment:1 http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/2539#comment:5 Ticket URL: http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/2720#comment:6 Regards, Ag. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [BLFS Trac] #2720
On Tue, Feb 24, at 07:28 Randy McMurchy wrote: Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 02/24/09 19:14 CST: In that case, could you comment on: http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/2664#comment:2 http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/2580#comment:1 http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/2539#comment:5 I don't know what you're asking. Perhaps instead of me having to guess what you want me to comment on, you could just come out and ask it. I don't have time to try and read your mind, Ag. Please just ask questions and I will comment on your questions. I looked at the tickets you post above, but cannot see any correlation to the subject. Perhaps I didn't look hard enough, but then, why can't you just make this easier for me by pointing out what it is I'm supposed to be commenting on. It was just your expression (about an editor's interest to upgrade a package). You said: We don't sit on package versions when there is Editor interest to update it That's all, no big deal. Regards, Ag. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [BLFS Trac] #2720
Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 02/24/09 19:33 CST: It was just your expression (about an editor's interest to upgrade a package). You said: We don't sit on package versions when there is Editor interest to update it That's all, no big deal. Now I see a correlation. As far as commenting on them: Ticket 2664: That was a month ago. Perhaps I overlooked it or didn't read it. Can't remember. You know, it wouldn't hurt to throw out a subtle hint when it appears folks have overlooked something that you're waiting on an answer for. Answer: commit it, though there are mistakes that can be fixed later. Ticket 2580: I remember this one and thinking Jeremy's not an editor of the BLFS book. History time: As far as I know Jeremy was never asked to be an Editor before I became Editor of the book. I did, however, ask him and he politely declined. Sometime later, someone added him to the BLFS list of folks with write permissions to SVN. Nobody asked me, nor was an announcement ever made that Jeremy was an Editor. For all I know Jeremy has root perms to Quantum and added himself. I ignored the post as I didn't feel it was proper to have non-editors making commits to the book. The patch sent in is now obsolete. Ticket 2539: Same as the previous one. And again obsolete as Bruce took care of it not long after Jeremy submitted a patch. Again, Jeremy is not an Editor, so I really don't see where you're going with this. More thoughts: All I can think of Ag, is that you're upset I overlooked your patch you sent in. Get over it. I've been busy. It's not like you sent any reminders. It's almost as though you been waiting to use this to take a poke at me. I'd prefer and you simply man up (American expression meaning grow a pair), and come to me with anything that's on your mind. Not hold it in and use it months later in some effort of trying to take a poke at me. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 19:44:00 up 17 days, 12:07, 1 user, load average: 0.22, 0.44, 0.68 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [BLFS Trac] #2720
Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 02/24/09 20:14 CST: On Tue, Feb 24, at 07:57 Randy McMurchy wrote: I'm thinking it's better to leave this one alone, but since there's a distinct item Ag leaves out, it needs to be said. Ticket 2539: Same as the previous one. And again obsolete as Bruce took care of it not long after Jeremy submitted a patch. Again, Jeremy is not an Editor, so I really don't see where you're going with this. You are absolutely wrong about this. We've discussed this, in a private (between all the editors of the project, except Gerard, Robert, Jim and Ryan) conversation last year, and the conclusion was an open call to all non BLFS editors to commit anytime they think they have something to contribute. That's not the way I remember it. In fact, I sent an open letter to all Editors in the project asking if they wanted to become BLFS Editors as well. Some accepted, some did not. Those that accepted were added to the list of Editors and such pointed out in a public announcement. If some that accepted didn't get public announcement, then that would be a mistake on my part, yet I would know that they've accepted the position. Jeremy declined the offer, therefore, I never have thought him as one that should make commits to the book. If you find somewhere that I've said elsewhere, I'd like you to point it out to me. I could then say I am in error and didn't recall such conversation. Please don't just blindly say something as important as this without some link to a thread where you say it was discussed. If it was in private emails, then of course, we need to move this discussion to private emails. All I can think of Ag, is that you're upset I overlooked your patch you sent in. Get over it. I've been busy. It's not like you sent any reminders. It's almost as though you been waiting to use this to take a poke at me. I'd prefer and you simply man up (American expression meaning grow a pair), and come to me with anything that's on your mind. Not hold it in and use it months later in some effort of trying to take a poke at me. Excuse me, but how you came up with that conclusion? Thinking out loud at the keyboard. It is an opinion. I'm entitled to it even if my opinion is dead wrong. Anyway, I wasn't trying to be personal, I mostly was trying to convey to you that you need to communicate better. If I somehow don't respond to something you are expecting me to respond to, then send an email, post again, do something. Just as I did when I mentioned twice that DJ commented on one of my commits which he though was wrong, and I had to ask him twice after the initial remark I made before he responded back to me. We are all busy. I know I read messages knowing I don't have the time to respond right then, but I read them thinking that I'll get back and respond. Sometimes the get back and respond gets neglected due to time constraints. This is something that Open Source needs to be flexible with and team-members (you and I for example) need to communicate so things don't get dropped. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 20:35:00 up 17 days, 12:58, 1 user, load average: 0.25, 0.18, 0.12 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Samba 3.3.1
New version of Samba, mainly a bugfix release. Release notes are here: http://samba.org/samba/history/samba-3.3.1.html -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Questions about the Jasper page
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 02/24/09 18:32 CST: Ken Moffat wrote these words on 02/24/09 16:54 CST: rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 11:55:00 up 17 days, 4:18, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.02, 0.0 ¡ I hope this isn't the box where you are doing the BLFS-6.4 upgrades ! What would it matter? x86 is x86. But for the record, no. When I responded, it didn't dawn on me that you meant the *partition* on that box. box is very vague when it comes to multiple operating systems being installed on it. For the record, the box you refer to above does have an LFS-6.4 partition on it but is not complete with the BLFS stuff, but as you can see I'm booted into a different partition. If I ever get time to get Thunderbird on the 6.4 partition of this box, I'll migrate there. That's why I said x86 is x86. Hope that helps make better sense of my comment above. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 21:01:01 up 17 days, 13:24, 1 user, load average: 0.15, 0.16, 0.16 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [BLFS Trac] #2720
Excuse me, but how you came up with that conclusion? Thinking out loud at the keyboard. So do I have to thinking loud also? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [BLFS Trac] #2720
On Tuesday February 24 2009 10:22:35 pm Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote: Excuse me, but how you came up with that conclusion? Thinking out loud at the keyboard. So do I have to thinking loud also? Gentlemen please. We're all on the same team here. Some of us are overzealous, and some of us are short on patience, but we're not enemies. I'm sure we could accomplish more if we all just calmed down and respected eachother. This is not the first time. Please consider our goals, and consider that others share the same goals, and it is not helpfull to be brash. Be patient with eachother, and cooperative. I have been finding the atmosphere here to be coming coarse, and I don't think its progressive. robert pgpSYBhSk5MWB.pgp Description: PGP signature -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [BLFS Trac] #2720
Hi Robert, it's late morning (here) of a day that looks cold. On Tue, Feb 24, at 11:20 Robert Connolly wrote: On Tuesday February 24 2009 10:22:35 pm Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote: Excuse me, but how you came up with that conclusion? Thinking out loud at the keyboard. So do I have to thinking loud also? Gentlemen please. We're all on the same team here. Some of us are overzealous, and some of us are short on patience, but we're not enemies. I'm sure we could accomplish more if we all just calmed down and respected eachother. To be honest, I was really determined to continue this Felix Oscar type of game to the eternity, but since there was an expression of discontent, I am stopping it. This is not the first time. You are right. Please consider our goals, and consider that others share the same goals, and it is not helpfull to be brash. Be patient with eachother, and cooperative. You are wrong about the patient thing. We both have a lot of patience. I have been finding the atmosphere here to be coming coarse, and I don't think its progressive. On the contrary, I strongly believe it was getting progressive through exchange. O.T Robert, I have a wish! The simple most useful package (right now) that is missing from the book, it's libcap. I wouldn't mind at all to see it's introduction in the book, alongside with a set of instructions, so we can drop some root privileges. I don't have this expertise to do it myself. In any case by familiarity with security subjects, you are the right person to maintain it. robert Best Regards and Sorry for the noise. Ag. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
