Re: cannot install KDE3 or KDE-LITE from ports
I downloaded ports.tar.gz August 26, 2004 and am currently building KDE3. I did not run into an error with that particular file, however the graphics/ImageMagick Makefile and distinfo file defined 6.0.5.3 as the version it wanted to download. There is no such version at ImageMagick.org and the KDE3 build would fail at that point. I downloaded 6.0.6.2 and edited the Makefile and distinfo files appropriately, and am now continuing with the KDE3 build. By the way, building KDE from source is an excrutiatingly long process (more than 5 hours so far) with numerous menus requiring human response to continue, and of course the occasional error as described above. Unless you really need to compile from source (I didn't, I just wanted to try it) use the binary. On Saturday 28 August 2004 08:07 am, Peter Ryan wrote: HI, I have just done a fresh install of 4.10 R from the ISO disk The first package I installed was cvsup, and then i did a complete ports upgrade from cvsup3. Then I tried to make KDE3. It failed trying to find a file called jpegexiforient.c. Having no idea what to do about that, I decided to make KDE-LITE. This also gives the same 'file not found' error. I have done this procedure a few times before when I reinstall freeBSD, and have never had this error. I have not reinstalled for about 3 weeks, so something may have changed in the port. I suspect it may have something to do with this qt-3.3.3 problem reported recently. Does anyone have any idea what I should do about this ? The message says to get the file manually, but I am not sure where to look if it is not on ftp.FreeBSD.org Thanks Peter ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compatible DVD players
I'm using the SONY DRU500 IDE drive (current model is DRU700) and have had no problems with it. It's the only one I have so I can't compare it against anything else. On Saturday 28 August 2004 09:25 am, Robert Huff wrote: One of my (SCSI) CD-ROM drives is dieing; to replace it, I was thinking of getting something that handles DVDs as well. Is anybody doing this (that's a pro forma question) and what advice do you have? Robert Huff ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: no user interface
As others have eluded to, FreeBSD does not provide a windows based user interface after an installation. The graphics you do eventually setup on the system will be based upon X windows (see www.xfree86.org). Unlike Microsoft, there are numerous options for graphical windows interfaces that can be installed and used on unix machines. Therefore, there is no standard or default windows configuration after installation although arguably there could be and people could change it later on. The Freesbie (www.freesbie.org) have done some nice work related to automating the process of detecting graphics cards and their parameters for X. The X configuration procedure can be daunting for a novice user, so be prepared to spend some time doing it and asking lots of questions. But you'renot done yet even if you get X working. You are most likely going to want a desktop environment like KDE (www.kde.org) or GNOME (www.gnome.org) based upon what I *think* you might be looking for. This is another layer of software that interacts with X to manage your desktop windows and provide easy interfaces for adding background images, changing colors, fonts, etc. Once you get here, your average person would have a hard time looking at the monitor and telling you what operating system was running on the system. The current KDE desktop environment is very user-friendly and looks alot like what you are used to with Microsoft. You can select X and a desktop environment as part of the FreeBSD installation. Unless you have very specific needs I suggest you select the package option that gives you everything. I don't recall the exact wording, but it's something like all sources, docs, games, and X. Your 10gig is plenty big enough for all of this. At some point during the installation you will be offered the opportunity to select a windows manager and you can select which one you want. I use KDE only because when I was in your situation someone pointed me to KDE and I just stuck with it. If they had told me about Gnome, I'd probably still be using that one. There are many other desktop software packages available as well. If you have the time, I suggest you do a search for unix desktop software or unix window manager and check out all the options. Most have screenshots available on their respective web sites. To get where you want to go, you need to: 1) Install FreeBSD 2) Install X 3) Install kde, gnome, or some other desktop manager 4) Configure X for your specific graphics card and monitor. You'll need to know EXACTLY which model graphics card you have and the technical specs of your monitor. 5) Run startx after logging in, or configure the system to start X and let your desktop manager take care of the login process. It's a lot of work, but the results are worth it.I've gotten to the point where I use my FBSD/KDE desktop for 95% of my needs. No cost, no licenses. Just take it one step at a time and you'll get to where you want to go. The latest iterations of xfree86 and kde web sites have gotten very good with their install and configure documentation so there is lots of info available to start you off. On Tuesday 24 August 2004 06:19 pm, james heck wrote: I just installed 5.2.1 via download onto cdr media. I left about 10 gigs open for freebsd, and left 9 for my win2000. the dual boot works fine on my dell laptop, however when i go to load freebsd 5.2.1, i cant get into a graphical interface. Instead it stays in a dos-like interface with commands only. It recognizes my user name and the admin name of root, but there is only a command line and no background. i installed cd1, i have a boot only and a second disc which i have not installed. please point me in the correct direction james heck _ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reinstalling, then upgrading (Was Re: Salvageable? (Was Re:makeinstallworld error))
On Wednesday 25 August 2004 09:28 am, Charles Ulrich wrote: epilogue said: Just out of curiosity, is it incorrect to simply say that ports build packages? Yes. Well, now I've received one explicit yes answer and one explicit no answer to this question, leading me to believe that there might not be a clear consensus even among experienced FreeBSD users. (I count myself as one also.) It's possible that we're splitting hairs with all of this, but splitting hairs is what explanation is all about. Maybe because you used a negative (incorrect) instead of a positive (correct)? I had to read the above exchange three times before I realized he was saying, yes it is incorrect. I thought he was agreeing, originally. No, it is not incorrect.yes, it is correct.to say that FreeBSD ports build FreeBSD packages. The last thing a FreeBSD port does is register itself as a loaded package. You can run pkg_info() and see that your port has been installed on the system. Furthermore, I agree with the original email stating that ports v package is confusing terminology for people new to FreeBSD. As pointed out by a subsequent post, the documented explanation is quite clear. However, it would be nice to use terminology that was prima facia obvious. Unfortunately, what is obvious is usually in the mind of the beholder. Personally, I would prefer port and binary. Or maybe port and ready-to-load. I've never understood how the work package was an obvious indicator that the contents were pre-compiled and ready to load. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: installed ATA RAID, now cannot boot - get mountroot prompt
You could try using the ed editor which should be located on the root partition for just this reason. Or, manually mount the usr partition when you get to the shell prompt so you have access to other editors such as vi. Hopefully you know what partition the usr file system is on (ie da0s1e) and can then use: mount /dev/da0s1e /usr On Wednesday 25 August 2004 12:53 pm, DA Forsyth wrote: Hiya all I'm searching the web for answers on this too, but so far nothing useful. hard to know what question to ask the search engines! anyhow, the situation: I installed 5.2.1-R some time back as a start to making a new server. I used a 40 and an 80 Gb IDE drive plugged into the motherboard Now I've got an Adaptec 2400a IDE RAID card and have installed it. I created to raid 1 packs (2x40 and 2x80) and behold it starts to boot, finds all the drives etc, no problems, but then it cannot find root as root WAS on /dev/ad0s1a and is now on /dev/da0s1a I get a mountroot prompt and I type ufs:/dev/da0s1a and it starts to boot but obviously gets a lot of errors because /etc/fstab contains the old drives names. I eventually get a shell but cannot now edit fstab because only root has mounted and all the editors are 'somewhere unmounted' now I'm lost. how to do edit fstab to get it to mount the partitions? doubly lost because I know I can mount them manually but don't know the parameters for 'mount' and , yes, 'man' won't work either. yes, I'm still new at this BSD thing please help anyway. -- DA Fo rsythNetwork Supervisor Principal Technical Officer -- Institute for Water Research http://www.ru.ac.za/institutes/iwr/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: installed ATA RAID, now cannot boot - get mountroot prompt
Try this. Get to the shell prompt and run: ed /etc/fstab 1,$s/ad0/da0/ w q Then reboot the system. On Wednesday 25 August 2004 12:53 pm, DA Forsyth wrote: Hiya all I'm searching the web for answers on this too, but so far nothing useful. hard to know what question to ask the search engines! anyhow, the situation: I installed 5.2.1-R some time back as a start to making a new server. I used a 40 and an 80 Gb IDE drive plugged into the motherboard Now I've got an Adaptec 2400a IDE RAID card and have installed it. I created to raid 1 packs (2x40 and 2x80) and behold it starts to boot, finds all the drives etc, no problems, but then it cannot find root as root WAS on /dev/ad0s1a and is now on /dev/da0s1a I get a mountroot prompt and I type ufs:/dev/da0s1a and it starts to boot but obviously gets a lot of errors because /etc/fstab contains the old drives names. I eventually get a shell but cannot now edit fstab because only root has mounted and all the editors are 'somewhere unmounted' now I'm lost. how to do edit fstab to get it to mount the partitions? doubly lost because I know I can mount them manually but don't know the parameters for 'mount' and , yes, 'man' won't work either. yes, I'm still new at this BSD thing please help anyway. -- DA Fo rsythNetwork Supervisor Principal Technical Officer -- Institute for Water Research http://www.ru.ac.za/institutes/iwr/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: incorrect disk geometry warning using 3ware controler
Yes. On Sunday 22 August 2004 01:28 am, FreeBSD Daemon wrote: Dear list I bought a 3ware 7500-4LP controller and 4x 200GB IDE disks to go with it. Now installing FreeBSD 4.10 I get a warring that the disk geometry (72963cyls/255heads/63sectrors) is wrong. Can I ignore this warning safely? TIA zheyu ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IPFW portforwarding / kernel question
I'd suggest using port forwarding with NATD instead since I'm assuming you are already running NAT between 192.168.1.1 and your ADSL public address. The natd man page covers port and address forwarding pretty well. On Sunday 22 August 2004 10:02 am, Henk wrote: Dear FreeBSD addict, I am running FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE on a machine with 4 ehternet devices. 192.168.1.1 is connected to my ADSL router. My FreeBSD machine nicely routs all traffic between the 4 devices. rl0 192.168.1.1/24 (WAN-side) rl1 10.0.10.1/24 (LAN) rl2 10.0.20.1/24 (LAN) rl3 10.0.30.1/24 (LAN) My wish is to forward all incoming tcp traffic that arrives on 192.168.1.1:4265 to 10.0.10.151:4265 in the local network. Question 1: Can somebody help me out with the right ipfw command to achieve this (or a link to where *forwarding* is explained). Question 2: Do I need to recompile my kernel with the IPFIREWALL_FORWARD option? My kernel is compiled with the following options: # options for IPFW / NATD options IPFIREWALL options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE_LIMIT=10 options IPDIVERT ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IPFW/NATD Transparent Proxy
On Sunday 08 August 2004 04:38 pm, JJB wrote: A new rewrite of the FreeBSD handbook firewall section is currently being made ready for update to the handbook. You can get an in-process copy from www.a1poweruser.com/FBSD_firewall/ The firewall rewrite only deals with a single public nic and a single internal nic and does not have the information I require. From what you posted looks like you want public internet users to access web server on one of your LAN machines. Both ipfw and ipfilter does this normally with port redirect. No, I want a user on 192.168.1.247 to be redirected to 192.168.2.250:80 when they request 1.2.3.4:80, where 1.2.3.4 is a PUBLIC ip number on the FreeBSD internet gateway. Again, the configuration is de0 = PUBLIC IP = 1.2.3.4 de1 = 192.168.1.1 de2 = 192.168.2.1 I don't have a problem with incoming requests for 1.2.3.4:80 from the Internet being redirected to 192.168.2.250. That works fine. But I want someone on 192.168.1.247 to ALSO be redirected to 192.168.2.250:80 when they request the public address 1.2.3.4:80. Put another way, I have a FreeBSD server acting as a Router/Firewall. It has a public interface with an IP number of 1.2.3.4 and is assigned the DNS name www.ishouldhaveusedipfilter.com. It also has a second NIC that supports a private address space of 192.168.1.0/255.255.255.0 and a third NIC that supports a private address space of 192.168.2.0/255.255.255.0 When someone from the Internet tries to reach www.ishouldhaveusedipfilter.com they get redirected to 192.168.2.250 because I've included a redirect_port rule for NATD. This works fine. But, users on all private networks (I have two, but there could be 20) also need to be redirected to 192.168.2.250 when they try to go to www.ishouldhaveusedipfilter.com So the user sitting at 192.168.1.247 shouldn't have to worry about putting in the IP number of the company web server, they should just be able to put in the company domain name (www.ishouldhaveusedipfilter.com) and be redirected to 192.168.2.250 just like anyone coming from the outside. You need to post more info about your system config. Post the full contents of your rc.conf and firewall rules files. My rc.conf file is properly configured and has no bearing on my question. My gateway works fine from public to private IP space and private to public IP space. I've tried so many combination of rules and NATD options that I wouldn't know what to post. What I need is someone who has completed a similar configuration to send me their configuration (change the IP numbers if you like). From what I can see, I don't believe this is possible with stateful rules. Let me add that I've been successful with stateless rules, but I'd like to use 100% stateful if possible. The limit you write about ipfilter is not true. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 2:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: IPFW/NATD Transparent Proxy Anyone up for a challenge? I've come to the conclusion that IPFW/NATD cannot support transparent proxying with ONLY stateful rules. I'd like to hear from anyone who has been successful doing so in case I'm missing something. Configuration is: FreeBSD 5.2.1 3 - NICS (de0, de1, de2) de1 = Public IP = 1.2.3.4 de2 = LAN1 = 192.168.1.0 de3 = LAN2 = 192.168.2.0 The challenge: 1) TCP request from 192.168.1.247 to 1.2.3.4:80 2) Redirect 1.2.3.4:80 to 192.168.2.250:80 3) Use stateful rules On another note, I read somewhere on the Internet that IPFILTER has a limitation in that it cannot redirect a public destination to a private destination if the source machine is on the same subnet as the redirected destination. In other words, the following supposedly will not work: 1) A tcp request from 192.168.1.247 to 1.2.3.4:80 2) Redirect 1.2.3.4:80 to 192.168.1.100:80 Is this an accurate limitation of IPFILTER? J ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IPFW/NATD Transparent Proxy
de0 = 1.2.3.4 (make up any valid public ip) (mydomain.com) de1 = 192.168.1.1 de2 = 192.168.2.1 When 192.168.1.247 requests a web page from MYDOMAIN.COM the request needs to be forwarded to 192.168.2.250:80 In the ruleset below, 15100 is required for this to work. If I pull out 15100 I get no response from the web page because there is no rule to allow 1.2.3.4 back out to 192.168.1.247. I can't find a solution that does not require an explicit rule to allow 1.2.3.4 back out to 192.168.1.247. In other words, I can't find a set of rules that allows dynamic setup of 192.168.1.247: - 1.2.3.4:80 192.168.1.247: - 192.168.2.250:80 I hope this information helps. Thanks in advance for pointing me in the right direction. IPFW RULES == 00100 divert 9000 log ip from any to any 00200 allow log ip from any to any out via de0 keep-state 00300 skipto 15000 log ip from any to any via de1 00400 skipto 2 log ip from any to any via de2 00500 deny log ip from any to any 15000 allow log ip from any to any in via de1 keep-state 15100 allow log ip from any to any out via de1 15200 deny log ip from any to any 2 allow log ip from any to any in via de2 keep-state 20100 allow log ip from any to any dst-port 80 out via de2 keep-state 20200 deny log ip from any to any 20300 deny log ip from any to any NATD Config File (/etc/natd.conf) redirect_port tcp 192.168.2.250:80 1.2.3.4:80 NATD Command /sbin/natd -dynamic -n de0 -p 9000 -f /etc/natd.conf On Sunday 08 August 2004 06:30 pm, Eric Crist wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 5:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IPFW/NATD Transparent Proxy On Sunday 08 August 2004 04:38 pm, JJB wrote: A new rewrite of the FreeBSD handbook firewall section is currently being made ready for update to the handbook. You can get an in-process copy from www.a1poweruser.com/FBSD_firewall/ The firewall rewrite only deals with a single public nic and a single internal nic and does not have the information I require. From what you posted looks like you want public internet users to access web server on one of your LAN machines. Both ipfw and ipfilter does this normally with port redirect. No, I want a user on 192.168.1.247 to be redirected to 192.168.2.250:80 when they request 1.2.3.4:80, where 1.2.3.4 is a PUBLIC ip number on the FreeBSD internet gateway. Again, the configuration is de0 = PUBLIC IP = 1.2.3.4 de1 = 192.168.1.1 de2 = 192.168.2.1 I don't have a problem with incoming requests for 1.2.3.4:80 from the Internet being redirected to 192.168.2.250. That works fine. But I want someone on 192.168.1.247 to ALSO be redirected to 192.168.2.250:80 when they request the public address 1.2.3.4:80. Could you send us (or me, peronally) your firewall script, and the address you want to use? Thanks. Eric F Crist ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network Help
Given your current network configuration as I understand it, there's no reason for running NAT on your FBSD box so don't even go there. Is your router blocking http either inbound or outbound (port 80) ? Why aren't you using dhclient to get the ip address for all your computers dynamically from the router? Does /etc/resolv.conf have any information in it? On Sunday 09 May 2004 10:46 pm, Jeffrey P. Toth wrote: On the router question, no, the router is a separate device, a D-Link 504H but is a loaner while my D-Link 804HV is in the shop. After changing them out is when I discovered I had problems. Apparently the DL804 handled whatever the problem was without a complaint. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems resolving sites in browsers under KDE
I had a similar, but different problem with 4.7 which impacted all network traffic but was most noticible using Konqueror. I was getting similar pauses regardless of the application I ran. Unless you are running BIND and attempting to get at zones that you adminster, I don't think this is a DNS issue. In my case, the problem was a high rate of collision and dropped packets between the NIC and the switch it was connected to. I changed the media information for my network card from 100TX to 10baseT using ifconfig() and that seems to have fixed the problem. You might try this just for the heck of it to see if it helps your situation. At 10:09 AM 5/7/04 -0400, Dragoncrest wrote: Just recently I've started having a DNS issue of sorts on two of my workstations running KDE 3.2 on Freebsd 4.9 and using both Mozilla and Firebird for browsers. What happens is I'll be surfing around and suddenly I'll hit something and I can't go forward, I can't go back, I can't go anywhere. It just sits there saying resolving host whatever.com and does this for like 30 seconds, then finally it resolves it and continues on. Then it'll gag again on something else in the page as it's loading and do that all over again. Then I might be fine for another 5-15 minutes before it does it again. When this happens I can jump into a console either via KDE or control-alt-f1 and I can surf all I want to using lynx, I can resolve sites, I can telnet, or do whatever I want. But my browsers just sit there and look stupid. Is there something I'm missing? What could be causing this. It's been occuring periodically before this, but it's really gotten bad now. So far all I can tell that's affected is Mozilla and Firebird. Any ideas guys? Oh, yes. I did test this in Konqueror and it's doing the same thing in there too. So the issue is not unique to just Mozilla and Firebird. But from what I can see, not much else is affected on the network level. Is there ways I can test things in KDE that might give me some more information as to what's causing this? Or is there some network setting somewhere that I should look at? Maybe something that might affect my ability to surf smoothly? I know it's not my internet connection because I can surf just fine in my windows box that sits right next ot it on the same net connection. Any input would be welcome. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
