there is a sed in the RP-PPPoE instructions:
sed -i s%/usr/bin/logger%/bin/logger% \
scripts/pppoe-{connect,setup,stop}.in
logger is installed with util-linux and is in /usr/bin here.
If there is no feedback, I'll open a ticket.
---
David Jensen
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/ma
Looking at ticket 1753,
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/1753, the upgrade looks
pretty easy, but I do not have a PPPoE connection to test the program.
I can build and install the new version of the program, but does anyone
on the list have a way to test it?
-- Bruce
--
http://linu
david567 wrote these words on 08/14/07 17:03 CST:
> there is a sed in the RP-PPPoE instructions:
>
> sed -i s%/usr/bin/logger%/bin/logger% \
> scripts/pppoe-{connect,setup,stop}.in
>
> logger is installed with util-linux and is in /usr/bin here.
>
> If there is
El Miércoles, 15 de Agosto de 2007 00:37, Randy McMurchy escribió:
>
> My current installation it is /usr/bin/logger
>
> ?? (not sure what to think about it, Dave)
Now the LFS-Bootscripts don't use logger, thus logger is not moved anymore
to /bin in the LFS book.
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usu
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> david567 wrote these words on 08/14/07 17:03 CST:
>
>> there is a sed in the RP-PPPoE instructions:
>>
>> sed -i s%/usr/bin/logger%/bin/logger% \
>> scripts/pppoe-{connect,setup,stop}.in
>>
>> logger is installed with ut
david567 wrote these words on 08/14/07 17:54 CST:
> Likely, the sed should be deleted, it seems more likely people have >=
> 6.2. 6.2 is just over a year old. Or, more notes!
I think so as well. Manuel confirmed that the instruction to move
the program is no longer in LFS, so logger stays in /
david567 wrote these words on 08/14/07 17:54 CST:
> Likely, the sed should be deleted,
Done. The broken download URL was also fixed.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.26] [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]
18:47:00 up 12
, but I don't use rp-pppoe for my pppoe connection, just because it is an
overcomplication (aka: use of a third-party "wizard" where editing the
configuration file by hand works just as well). See details:
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/wiki/RP-PPPoE
http://wiki.linuxfroms
version of the program, but does anyone
>> on the list have a way to test it?
>
> Yes, but I don't use rp-pppoe for my pppoe connection, just because it
> is an overcomplication (aka: use of a third-party "wizard" where editing
> the configuration file by hand works
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Looking at the ppp wiki page, there is a reference to
# The plugin comes from the "ppp" package
# there's no need to install rp-pppoe
plugin rp-pppoe.so
If the plugin does indeed come from ppp, are you suggesting that we drop
the rp-pppoe page?
Maybe,
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Looking at ticket 1753,
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/1753, the upgrade looks
pretty easy, but I do not have a PPPoE connection to test the program.
I can build and install the new version of the program, but does anyone
on the list have a way to test it?
rp
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Looking at the ppp wiki page, there is a reference to
>>
>> # The plugin comes from the "ppp" package
>> # there's no need to install rp-pppoe
>> plugin rp-pppoe.so
>>
>> If the plugi
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I agree with your comment about explaining the pppoe connection setup by
hand. I don't think I'm qualified to do that though because I have
never used it. Are you saying to use the explanation in the ppp wiki
page or something else?
Yes. This also applies to dialup connecti
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I agree with your comment about explaining the pppoe connection setup by
>> hand. I don't think I'm qualified to do that though because I have
>> never used it. Are you saying to use the explanation in the ppp wiki
>> page or something else?
>
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
From what I have read, an ISP may want it to integrate with their
dial-up or is a (cumbersome) way to account for connection time. You
have a user id and password. Why? Because someone might splice into
your line? How silly.
Yes, because such typs of crime are common he
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>>> From what I have read, an ISP may want it to integrate with their
>> dial-up or is a (cumbersome) way to account for connection time. You
>> have a user id and password. Why? Because someone might splice into
>> your line? How silly.
>
>
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
From what I have read, an ISP may want it to integrate with their
dial-up or is a (cumbersome) way to account for connection time. You
have a user id and password. Why? Because someone might splice into
yo
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> The traffic costs seem to be quite a rip-off. What is that cost again?
>> What you have above is 10 cents per MB. If that's the cost, then there
>> is quite an incentive to steal.
>>
>>
> Yes, that's approximately the price. 2.50 RUR per meg
> BTW, my cost is about $1 per day for unlimited downloads and uploads. I
get ~ 140 KBytes/second or more on most downloads. Uploads are ~25
KBytes/second. There are other services available that are faster for
slightly more, but I prefer the unrestrictive policies of my current ISP.
-- Br
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 11:33:50PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>
> I see absolutely no reason for the pppoe protocol. You have an ethernet
> connection--this is not dialup. A simple dhcp is all that is needed.
> pppoe adds complication and overhead. Its a solution to a non problem.
Agreed. MA
Archaic wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 11:33:50PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I see absolutely no reason for the pppoe protocol. You have an ethernet
connection--this is not dialup. A simple dhcp is all that is needed.
pppoe adds complication and overhead. Its a solution to a non problem.
Ag
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 08:38:34AM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>
> No, this is not the same thing. You can change your password when the old
> one is leaked. With the MAC address, this is harder.
But the only purpose of pppoe is authentication. Password changes are
unneeded unless the IS
Side Note: I see Iptables-1.4.0 is out.
I think Iptables should be recommended or even required for RP-PPPoE. I
should know 'real soon now' if it will establish a connection if you
choose a firewall and Iptables is not installed. If someone already
knows, chime in!
Tickets should
2007/12/30, david567 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think Iptables should be recommended or even required for RP-PPPoE.
On the contrary, I think that RP-PPPoE should be dropped from the book. See
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/wiki/PPP to learn how to
establish a PPPoE connection w
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> 2007/12/30, david567 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I think Iptables should be recommended or even required for RP-PPPoE.
I did check this. You do not get a usable network choosing firewall
when you have not installed Iptables.
>
> On the contrary,
25 matches
Mail list logo
