Re: [alpha + udev_update] ICA Results In
On 4/10/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll make another run later. I'm doing a run with all the testsuites. > In automake right now. I'll be crossing my fingers that this won't > be a problem. The issue with pruning too much of the filesystem has been resolved. ICA and test suites run. ICA is as clean as always. Test suites had one failure in glibc (malloc/tst-calloc.out) and one in gcc (gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c). These are not new on this host, so I hope they aren't a problem. ICA/Farce results, and build logs for testing and ICA are here: http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/~dnicholson/lfs-alpha-20060408-reports/ >From my testing, the udev/alpha changes are ready for merging. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Adding newer headers to llh (Was Re: merging udev_update branch)
Jim Gifford wrote: Yes, building both GCC 4.1 and Glibc 2.4 with them. I also have a few others that have built it also. Add another. Only minor changes to the LFS build, lsb patch for util linux, glibc-libidn dir change, gcc specifics taken from Greg, groff 1.19.2, and probably a couple of others I've forgotten, but minor. I'm still flattening asm-generic (yes it's unnecessary, just a preference for one less directory). Checks okay on a few quick greps though the logs, but I won't be able to put it to work until after LFS/BLFS release. I _was_ :-D having segfaults and needed to stress the hardware a bit so it seemed like a good time to give it a go. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Tripwire
I've been working on Tripwire. The latest version is 2.4.0.1 (Dec 05) but it is still pretty crappy. It won't compile with GCC4. I created a patch and will use that. It still generates a huge number of warnings. The problem is that it won't install without what appears to be extraordinary efforts without an executable program that is named sendmail. The book says an MTA is optional, but that goes back to the original writeup for the book (o4/03/03). The options I see are: 1. Make an MTA required. 2. Change the install script to ignore the mail issue with a sed. 3. Make an empty sendmail executable: touch /usr/bin/sendmail; chmod +x /usr/bin/sendmail 4. Remove the Makefile execution of the initial setup and show the user how to do it manually instead of using the supplied script. I'm looking for opinions on the best way to go here. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Adding newer headers to llh (Was Re: merging udev_update branch)
DJ Lucas wrote: Jim Gifford wrote: Another option here is to use the headers package I've been working with a lot of people. It compiles a base LFS and CLFS with no issues at all.http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/linux-headers-2.6.16.2.tar.bz2, or roll your own by using http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/headers. Jim, are you building gcc and glibc against new headers? gcc-4.1.0 and glibc-2.4. It'll be a short lived build, but I think I've solved my hardware problems anyway. -- DJ Lucas Yes, building both GCC 4.1 and Glibc 2.4 with them. I also have a few others that have built it also. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Test, please ignore.
Please ignore. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Adding newer headers to llh (Was Re: merging udev_update branch)
Jim Gifford wrote: Another option here is to use the headers package I've been working with a lot of people. It compiles a base LFS and CLFS with no issues at all.http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/linux-headers-2.6.16.2.tar.bz2, or roll your own by using http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/headers. Jim, are you building gcc and glibc against new headers? gcc-4.1.0 and glibc-2.4. It'll be a short lived build, but I think I've solved my hardware problems anyway. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New server specs
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 04:41:14PM -0600, Gerard Beekmans wrote: > > SCSI vs. SATA. I'm a SCSI fan but I've had lots of good success with > SATA too. Plus sides being that we can get more space for much less money. If going 1U, I recommend SCSI and the best fans you can buy. > As far as CPUs go, we have some options. Pentium 4, Pentium D, and Intel > Xeons are my three choices at the moment (I'm still not an AMD fan but > I'll consider it too) as they offer nice amounts of speed for reasonable > prices. AMD 3000+ series procs now run considerably cooler than P4's. Another consideration if going with 1U. > The question is if we really need dual CPUs or not. They are > nice and will help with some of the work we do, but are they needed. I would put dual CPU into the luxury category. A P4 or equivalent AMD are quite fast. However, a dual proc-capable motherboard might allow for some future proofing without adding the 2nd proc to the upfront costs. -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: New server specs
> As far as CPUs go, we have some options. Pentium 4, Pentium D, and Intel > Xeons are my three choices at the moment (I'm still not an AMD fan but > I'll consider it too) as they offer nice amounts of speed for reasonable > prices. The question is if we really need dual CPUs or not. They are > nice and will help with some of the work we do, but are they needed. At > 2.8 to 3.0 GHz, there's plenty of speed that dual CPU could be > considered money we don't really need to spend. I'd rather put it into > more RAM or larger hard drives. A dual-core CPU would be very beneficial I think in a server configuration, without much extra cost at all (maybe $100 or so?). At least with AMD configurations, The X2 CPUs are pin-compatible with standard motherboards so there is no expensive dual-cpu motherboard. I understand Dell still doesn't supply Athlon 64 or Opteron CPUs though, so it might be a moot point. Will this machine be used for builds as well? If so, 64-bit would be useful. Otherwise it doesn't matter, of course. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New server specs
My $0.02 on the drives: I have somewhere in the neighborhood of two dozen computers in my home office, mostly older generation servers bought on e-Bay. Aside from one SCSI drive that was DOA when I bought it, I have not had any failures, including the used drives. I have had a number of IDE drives fail, including a SATA drive that was purchased new and failed without warning after a little over a year. That drive wasn't even on all the time. I believe that the IDE drives (and possibly SATA drives as well) are not made for continuous operation, especially in an environment that has high ambient temperatures (my office is usually 30-35 deg C, 85-95 deg F). -- Carsten Gehrke LFS No.: 190using Linux since kernel 0.98 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tech.rollinghorse.com/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS needs a new server.
Robert Connolly wrote: Paypal is processing it. Its a bank account transfer. Paypal should take it tommorrow, then they hold it for another week. Its like waiting for a check to clear. Ah I see. I've noted your pending donation down then in the budget so it'll be taken into account already. Thanks! -- Gerard Beekmans /* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
New server specs
Hi guys, First off, thank you all so very much for the support. Within just a few short hours of Bruce emailing earlier today I've received a lot of support in the form of donations and pledges. It means a lot to me personally as well. And it's still trickling in. I'll give all of you guys some time to get these emails in the various timezones. I'll get back to you guys with a running total of how much has been donated to the server fund. Already there's enough to purchase a more than decent server right now that will last us many years. The question that obviously comes up is what kind of specs, brand, whatever. I don't just want to go out and buy something, I'd like you all to be involved and give me your recommendations and suggestions. I'd like to concentrate on actual specs, not brandnames and prices so much. Let's figure out what we really need (read: not what we'd like to have. 4 GB of RAM and quadruple 200 GB SCSI may sound nice, but overkill). For those who don't know, the current specs of the server: P3-750 MHz, 512 MB RAM, dual 9GB SCSI hard drives. Obviously no longer sufficient for what LFS needs today. 1 GB of RAM will be the absolute minimum but I'm looking toward 2 GB so we don't bottleneck ourselves too soon. As for hard drives, we don't truly need tremendous amounts of space. The current 18 GB is a bit tight so we'll want more there. I was thinking dual 80 GB drives in a RAID 1 configuration for safety. 80 GB usable space is more than plenty for us. SCSI vs. SATA. I'm a SCSI fan but I've had lots of good success with SATA too. Plus sides being that we can get more space for much less money. As far as CPUs go, we have some options. Pentium 4, Pentium D, and Intel Xeons are my three choices at the moment (I'm still not an AMD fan but I'll consider it too) as they offer nice amounts of speed for reasonable prices. The question is if we really need dual CPUs or not. They are nice and will help with some of the work we do, but are they needed. At 2.8 to 3.0 GHz, there's plenty of speed that dual CPU could be considered money we don't really need to spend. I'd rather put it into more RAM or larger hard drives. Those are just some thoughts. As far as the budget we have to work with, I can't provide an exact amount yet because it keeps changing. Right now we're looking between $1,000 and $1,500 USD. This includes the pesky "hidden" costs such as taxes, shipping, handling, and other costs that come to look with a server upgrade and replacement of this kind. The budget for the actual server itself will be closer to $1,000 than $1,500 but like I said, this changes depending on the amount of donations. -- Gerard Beekmans /* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS needs a new server.
Paypal is processing it. Its a bank account transfer. Paypal should take it tommorrow, then they hold it for another week. Its like waiting for a check to clear. robert On April 11, 2006 06:20 pm, Gerard Beekmans wrote: > Robert Connolly wrote: > > I'm in for one hundred. It's pending at paypal until the 21st. > > Meaning it's pending on your end? I haven't seen anythign on my end here. > > -- > Gerard Beekmans > > /* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS needs a new server.
Robert Connolly wrote: I'm in for one hundred. It's pending at paypal until the 21st. Meaning it's pending on your end? I haven't seen anythign on my end here. -- Gerard Beekmans /* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS needs a new server.
On April 11, 2006 05:39 pm, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Matt Darcy wrote: > > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> I am soliciting donations to the LFS Server Fund. We only need > >> $1000 US. Please consider giving whatever you can afford. > > > > Bruce, > > > > After speaking to Archaic, I understand your about $500 short of the > > new dell box. > > > > I think - through my business I maybe able to cover that, > > If not (or if it's more than that, or whatever), I probably can. :-) I'm in for one hundred. It's pending at paypal until the 21st. robert -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS needs a new server.
Matt Darcy wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> I am soliciting donations to the LFS Server Fund. We only need >> $1000 US. Please consider giving whatever you can afford. > > Bruce, > > After speaking to Archaic, I understand your about $500 short of the > new dell box. > > I think - through my business I maybe able to cover that, If not (or if it's more than that, or whatever), I probably can. :-) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Adding newer headers to llh (Was Re: merging udev_update branch)
Andrew Benton wrote: Looking at linux/socket.h in the tarball, it looks like this #ifndef LINUX_SOCKET_H #include #endif Renaming the variable $new_header in some places fixes the issue for me. (I haven't had time to build with it yet) Andy --- /home/andy/headers 2006-04-11 07:24:04.0 +0100 +++ /home/andy/headers-test.bash 2006-04-11 22:15:38.0 +0100 @@ -600,30 +600,30 @@ done for header in $ROOT_HEADERS; do - new_header="`echo $header | cut -f2 -d/`" + noo_header="`echo $header | cut -f2 -d/`" HEADING="`echo $header | tr '[:lower:]' '[:upper:]' | cut -f2 -d/ | cut -f1 -d.`" - CONTENT="#include <$new_header>" + CONTENT="#include <$noo_header>" create_linux_header done for header in $NET_HEADERS; do - new_header="`echo $header | cut -f2 -d/`" + noo_header="`echo $header | cut -f2 -d/`" HEADING="`echo $header | tr '[:lower:]' '[:upper:]' | cut -f2 -d/ | cut -f1 -d.`" - CONTENT="#include " + CONTENT="#include " create_linux_header done for header in $NETINET_HEADERS; do - new_header="`echo $header | cut -f2 -d/`" + noo_header="`echo $header | cut -f2 -d/`" HEADING="`echo $header | tr '[:lower:]' '[:upper:]' | cut -f2 -d/ | cut -f1 -d.`" - CONTENT="#include " + CONTENT="#include " create_linux_header done for header in $SYS_HEADERS; do - new_header="`echo $header | cut -f2 -d/`" + noo_header="`echo $header | cut -f2 -d/`" HEADING="`echo $header | tr '[:lower:]' '[:upper:]' | cut -f2 -d/ | cut -f1 -d.`" - CONTENT="#include " + CONTENT="#include " create_linux_header done -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS needs a new server.
Bruce Dubbs wrote: This is a request for donations. The LFS server is creaking along poorly. It is a 750MHz/512MB Ram/2 x 9G SCSI system. It frequently has high load factors and out of memory problems. Right now, Gerard is funding the server hosting fees from the meager PayPal donations he receives and supplementing it with his personal funds. I am paying for anduin's fees. I am soliciting donations to the LFS Server Fund. We only need $1000 US. Please consider giving whatever you can afford. You can donate via PayPal: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/contribute.html#donation If you don't want to (or can't) use PayPal please send a check directly to Gerard: Gerard Beekmans 911 Wilson Way Canmore, AB T1W 2Y8 Canada Thanks! -- Bruce Bruce, After speaking to Archaic, I understand your about $500 short of the new dell box. I think - through my business I maybe able to cover that, can you confirm how much you need. ta Matt (ikonia) -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Adding newer headers to llh (Was Re: merging udev_update branch)
Jim Gifford wrote: Another option here is to use the headers package I've been working with a lot of people. It compiles a base LFS and CLFS with no issues at all. http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/linux-headers-2.6.16.2.tar.bz2 I tried this and glibc failed to compile (in chapter 5) like this -o /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/inet/if_index.o -MD -MP -MF /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/inet/if_index.o.dt -MT /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/inet/if_index.o In file included from /tools/include/linux/netlink.h:4, from ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/netlinkaccess.h:23, from ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/if_index.c:32: /tools/include/linux/socket.h:3:72: error: sys//usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.16.2/include/linux/resource.h: No such file or directory make[2]: *** [/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/inet/if_index.o] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc/inet' make[1]: *** [inet/subdir_lib] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc' make: *** [all] Error 2 andy:/mnt/lfs/sources$ Looking at linux/socket.h in the tarball, it looks like this #ifndef LINUX_SOCKET_H #include #endif Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Build order rationale page
El Martes, 11 de Abril de 2006 16:55, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > 2) I think the page should be in the Appendix - not everyone will need > or want to read it. But we should definitely point to it within the main > text. Have a paragraph somewhere that stresses the importance of the > build order and the need to satisfy dependencies, then 'For more > details, see Appendix C' or something of the sort. Attached new POC patch with the dependencies file as Appendix C. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org dependencies.patch.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Server load on Belgarath
To all Editors: I've noticed that several Editors build one or more of the books on Belgarath. Since the performance of the system is marginal, I request that all builds be done on an external system. If you want to make the builds public, just tar the files and upload those. If you want to use an LFS server, accounts are available on anduin. It is not heavily loaded and has significantly better performance. If you don't already have an account on anduin, just drop me a line and I'll set you up right away. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
LFS needs a new server.
This is a request for donations. The LFS server is creaking along poorly. It is a 750MHz/512MB Ram/2 x 9G SCSI system. It frequently has high load factors and out of memory problems. Right now, Gerard is funding the server hosting fees from the meager PayPal donations he receives and supplementing it with his personal funds. I am paying for anduin's fees. I am soliciting donations to the LFS Server Fund. We only need $1000 US. Please consider giving whatever you can afford. You can donate via PayPal: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/contribute.html#donation If you don't want to (or can't) use PayPal please send a check directly to Gerard: Gerard Beekmans 911 Wilson Way Canmore, AB T1W 2Y8 Canada Thanks! -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Get richer than your neighbor
Quit your job and invest with us http://1and1.com/blackprofitshyip.com Call us: +1 16305575612 Fax: +1 16035145563 Call us: Phone: 1-800-561-2656 x 106 Call us: Phone: 1-800-561-2656 Visit us: 700 Commerce Drive 5th Floor Oak Brook, IL 60523 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Build order rationale page
El Martes, 11 de Abril de 2006 16:55, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > > 1) Manuel can you re-send that email? I can't seem to find it right now. > I might have deleted it accidentally... :/ Searching it ... > 2) I think the page should be in the Appendix - not everyone will need > or want to read it. But we should definitely point to it within the main > text. Have a paragraph somewhere that stresses the importance of the > build order and the need to satisfy dependencies, then 'For more > details, see Appendix C' or something of the sort. My first try was an Appendix C, but wasn't able to create a decent output look. Well, I will try again using a different tagging and XSL/CSS code. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Build order rationale page
M.Canales.es wrote: Some days ago I send to Jeremy a patch with XML templates to describe all that stuff and to add in each package file the testsuite dependencies. Maybe both you should to work on that together ;-) Sorry for not replying on this thread before. A few things: 1) Manuel can you re-send that email? I can't seem to find it right now. I might have deleted it accidentally... :/ 2) I think the page should be in the Appendix - not everyone will need or want to read it. But we should definitely point to it within the main text. Have a paragraph somewhere that stresses the importance of the build order and the need to satisfy dependencies, then 'For more details, see Appendix C' or something of the sort. 3) Besides getting the udev_update branch in, this info should be one of the next things to go in so we can finally close http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/684 Chris, what's the current status? What sort of help do you need to get this info in? -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Adding newer headers to llh (Was Re: merging udev_update branch)
Archaic wrote: On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 10:11:19AM +0100, Matt Darcy wrote: b.) multiple platforms to support - eg system built from 2.6.15 2.6.16 and 2.6.17-rc2 headers - then couple that with users deviating from the book's package versions, well, it will just become unsupportable and not help LFS's reputation as a usable stable platform I think this thread has wavered from its initial intent. The only aspect I was referring to is for the next release. I would be inclined to say leave this as one of the aspects to stick into trunk after we branch for testing. At this point, I'd personally rather not add anything else into it that would require of its own a good deal more testing. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Enscript Security Patch
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi Alexander,
Hello!
Could you look at http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/1799
and review the report I put in it yesterday? Thanks.
When trying to recreate and reatach the patch, I got:
===
Trac detected an internal error:
SQL logic error or missing database
===
(manifestation of Ticket 1879?)
So please find the patch attached to this mail. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Origin: Debian, the descriptions of the vulnerabilities can be retrieved from
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/wiki/Enscript
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--- enscript-1.6.4/src/gsint.h 2003-03-05 08:37:06.0 +0100
+++ enscript-1.6.4/src/gsint.h 2005-01-20 19:54:57.0 +0100
@@ -701,4 +701,9 @@
*/
void printer_close ___P ((void *context));
+/*
+ * Escape filenames for shell usage
+ */
+char *shell_escape ___P ((const char *fn));
+
#endif /* not GSINT_H */
--- enscript-1.6.4/src/main.c 2005-01-20 19:54:40.0 +0100
+++ enscript-1.6.4/src/main.c 2005-01-20 19:54:57.0 +0100
@@ -1556,9 +1556,13 @@
buffer_append (&cmd, intbuf);
buffer_append (&cmd, " ");
- buffer_append (&cmd, "-Ddocument_title=\"");
- buffer_append (&cmd, title);
- buffer_append (&cmd, "\" ");
+ buffer_append (&cmd, "-Ddocument_title=\'");
+ if ((cp = shell_escape (title)) != NULL)
+ {
+ buffer_append (&cmd, cp);
+ free (cp);
+ }
+ buffer_append (&cmd, "\' ");
buffer_append (&cmd, "-Dtoc=");
buffer_append (&cmd, toc ? "1" : "0");
@@ -1575,8 +1579,14 @@
/* Append input files. */
for (i = optind; i < argc; i++)
{
- buffer_append (&cmd, " ");
- buffer_append (&cmd, argv[i]);
+ char *cp;
+ if ((cp = shell_escape (argv[i])) != NULL)
+ {
+ buffer_append (&cmd, " \'");
+ buffer_append (&cmd, cp);
+ buffer_append (&cmd, "\'");
+ free (cp);
+ }
}
/* And do the job. */
@@ -1637,7 +1647,7 @@
buffer_ptr (opts), buffer_len (opts));
}
- buffer_append (&buffer, " \"%s\"");
+ buffer_append (&buffer, " \'%s\'");
input_filter = buffer_copy (&buffer);
input_filter_stdin = "-";
--- enscript-1.6.4/src/util.c 2003-03-05 08:26:32.0 +0100
+++ enscript-1.6.4/src/util.c 2005-01-20 19:54:57.0 +0100
@@ -1239,6 +1239,8 @@
/* Create result. */
cp = xmalloc (len + 1);
+ if (cp == NULL)
+ return NULL;
for (i = 0, j = 0; string[i]; i++)
switch (string[i])
{
@@ -1879,6 +1881,7 @@
char *cmd = NULL;
int cmdlen;
int i, pos;
+ char *cp;
is->is_pipe = 1;
@@ -1902,12 +1905,16 @@
{
case 's':
/* Expand cmd-buffer. */
- cmdlen += strlen (fname);
- cmd = xrealloc (cmd, cmdlen);
+ if ((cp = shell_escape (fname)) != NULL)
+ {
+ cmdlen += strlen (cp);
+ cmd = xrealloc (cmd, cmdlen);
- /* Paste filename. */
- strcpy (cmd + pos, fname);
- pos += strlen (fname);
+ /* Paste filename. */
+ strcpy (cmd + pos, cp);
+ pos += strlen (cp);
+ free (cp);
+ }
i++;
break;
@@ -2116,3 +2123,36 @@
{
return buffer->len;
}
+
+/*
+ * Escapes the name of a file so that the shell groks it in 'single'
+ * quotation marks. The resulting pointer has to be free()ed when not
+ * longer used.
+*/
+char *
+shell_escape(const char *fn)
+{
+ size_t len = 0;
+ const char *inp;
+ char *retval, *outp;
+
+ for(inp = fn; *inp; ++inp)
+switch(*inp)
+{
+ case '\'': len += 4; break;
+ default: len += 1; break;
+}
+
+ outp = retval = malloc(len + 1);
+ if(!outp)
+return NULL; /* perhaps one should do better error handling here */
+ for(inp = fn; *inp; ++inp)
+switch(*inp)
+{
+ case '\'': *outp++ = '\''; *outp++ = '\\'; *outp++ = '\'', *outp++ =
'\''; break;
+ default: *outp++ = *inp; break;
+}
+ *outp = 0;
+
+ return retval;
+}
--- enscript-1.6.4/src/psgen.c 2005-01-20 19:56:16.0 +0100
+++ enscript-1.6.4/src/psgen.c 2005-01-20 19:56:28.0 +0100
@@ -2385,9 +2385,10 @@
MESSAGE (2, (stderr, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"%s\"\n", token->u.epsf.filename));
i = strlen (token->u.epsf.filename);
+ /*
if (i > 0 && token->u.epsf.filename[i - 1] == '|')
{
- /* Read EPS data from pipe. */
+ / * Read EPS data from pipe. * /
token->u.epsf.pipe = 1;
token->u.epsf.filename[i - 1] = '\0';
token->u.epsf.fp = popen (token->u.epsf.filename, "r");
@@ -2400,6 +2401,7 @@
Re: Adding newer headers to llh (Was Re: merging udev_update branch)
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 10:11:19AM +0100, Matt Darcy wrote: > > b.) multiple platforms to support - eg system built from 2.6.15 2.6.16 > and 2.6.17-rc2 headers - then couple that with users deviating from the > book's package versions, well, it will just become unsupportable and not > help LFS's reputation as a usable stable platform I think this thread has wavered from its initial intent. The only aspect I was referring to is for the next release. As udev_update will be merged to trunk this week, the time is upon us for preparing for a testing branch. Currently there are certain headers missing from llh that would be good to have in this release. I am only concerned with what headers should be added to llh (in the form of a patch). Once trunk branches to testing, then something else can be done. I'm not saying we should discuss that aspect until the testing branch is cut, but I think it more apropo to discuss what to do for the next release first. It needs to be a small enough change to not require extensive additional testing (e.g., no building of glibc with raw headers). Dan and others have provided various links. So far these seem to be for the inotify header and for additional syscalls. So the 2 questions for Jim, Ryan, Ikonia, Greg, and anyone else intimately familiar with this situation are: 1) Which additional headers *should* be added to llh now for a glibc-2.3.6 / kernel-2.6.16.x system, and 2) Can these be sanitizied and turned into a patch for llh quickly? -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS 6.2 toolchain versions
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 08:20:31AM +0100, Matt Darcy wrote: > > I'd be interested in seeing the problems http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/1879 -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Adding newer headers to llh (Was Re: merging udev_update branch)
Feldmeier Bernd wrote: Hi All, as for educational purpose I think I would be good to use an original kernel and then apply the header script. This shows that there is some magic around that stuff. Releasing "only" a package is only useful for advanced users I think. regards Bernd Surly thats back to front, building your own headers would be for advanced users who know and understand what they are doing - while a stock version for users getting to grips with the LFS project. This however highlights my point of support - with the availability of the headers script will come a.) users wanting to use their own headers because "its cool to use the latest headers" with no understanding of what they are doing b.) multiple platforms to support - eg system built from 2.6.15 2.6.16 and 2.6.17-rc2 headers - then couple that with users deviating from the book's package versions, well, it will just become unsupportable and not help LFS's reputation as a usable stable platform c.) people who contribute to LFS will be able to build headers earlier header versions and test earlier against packages for future release. With this in mind I feel it important to a.) Decide on a direction with the headers sooner rather than later b.) decide how to use this header work productivly and for the good of the project overall, not just inotify ;o) Matt -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Adding newer headers to llh (Was Re: merging udev_update branch)
Hi All, as for educational purpose I think I would be good to use an original kernel and then apply the header script. This shows that there is some magic around that stuff. Releasing "only" a package is only useful for advanced users I think. regards Bernd Jim Gifford wrote: > Another option here is to use the headers package I've been working with > a lot of people. It compiles a base LFS and CLFS with no issues at > all.http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/linux-headers-2.6.16.2.tar.bz2, or roll > your own by using http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/headers. For the sake of the book and supporting users, surly we must release a "package" rather than encouraging users to create their own ? -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Adding newer headers to llh (Was Re: merging udev_update branch)
Jim Gifford wrote: Another option here is to use the headers package I've been working with a lot of people. It compiles a base LFS and CLFS with no issues at all.http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/linux-headers-2.6.16.2.tar.bz2, or roll your own by using http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/headers. For the sake of the book and supporting users, surly we must release a "package" rather than encouraging users to create their own ? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Adding newer headers to llh (Was Re: merging udev_update branch)
Archaic wrote: I would like to hear from Jim and everyone working on the header project regarding this possibility: Find the headers that llh currently lacks that glibc-2.3.6 and linux-2.6.16.x both support and patch them into llh. The only thing that comes to mind is inotify support. Headers that have become drastically different are a concern, though, as that adds to the testing time. I've had excellent results with the headers produced by the headers script, really good, however bottom line is it still being developed (changes to the output headers are still happening), which as fast as it matures is still not really solid enough to start looking at a release. However as in your pervious message moving them into trunk could be a good idea. I've been using them for cross-builds for a while which it pretty much a constatnt trunk at the moment, and I've had few serious problems. Another issue is while these headers are progressing at an excellent speed - the direction / use of headers (what is LFS going to do for headers in the future) has not really been discussed properly yet. Matt -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS 6.2 toolchain versions
Archaic wrote:
Let me answer that with an example. gcc-4.0.x and mysql 5.0.{16,18,19}
produce problems.
I'd be interested in seeing the problems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.2/configure --prefix=/usr
--libexecdir=/usr/lib --en able-shared
--enable-threads=posix --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu --
enable-languages=c,c++,objc
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.0.2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ mysql -V
mysql Ver 14.12 Distrib 5.0.16, for pc-linux-gnu (i686) using readline 5.0
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
