Eric Wolzak wrote:
> Hello Ewald, Charles
>
> Is anyone working on this already? If not I will have a start this
> weekend, or perhaps when I return from work tonight. If you prefer
> someone else's work please tell me so; it will save me some superfluous
> work.
> yep, sor
> I think that should be the first goal. It would of course be very
> interesting to create a truly linux 2.4 based distribution, but it will
> hardly be eigerstein I think (though rather cool)
The special part of eigerstein is in effect the script to setup the
firewall. This is based on ipchai
Eric Wolzak wrote:
> > > Greetings to all of you.
> > > Ook ewald de groeten :)
> >
> > Greetings to all, and to Eric:
> >
> > Gruesse aus Holland (hmm, where did you read that before :-)
> in my schoolbooks ;) ,I am dutch but live in Germany since 1984.
>
> Ewald
> > P.S. Eric; I live only 5
George Metz, 2001-04-20 21:23 -0400
>On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > In case of emergency, Eric and I already worked out a way to backup
> > individual CVS trees.
>
>Excellent idea all around. We should probably have the CVS tree backed
>up on a semi-regular basis; if it's necessary, I
Eric Wolzak wrote:
> okay time for CVS :)
Hmm, and hwo are we going te set this up? Currently there are lots of
binaries in my eigerstein2beta tree for which I don't have (yet) the
source code. Should there be seperate source and binaries trees? It
would be really nice to do a "cvs co" and t
Ewald Wasscher, 2001-04-21 16:38 +0200
>Eric Wolzak wrote:
>
>>okay time for CVS :)
>
>Hmm, and hwo are we going te set this up? Currently there are lots of
>binaries in my eigerstein2beta tree for which I don't have (yet) the
>source code. Should there be seperate source and binaries trees? It
I don't think it's going to work, then. "On the fly" reconfiguration
would mean downing the interface everytime a new machine joined the
wireless LAN, which would get really annoying to the users. But if you
treat the LAN like the Internet (0.0.0.0/0) then you can't route to it.
Actually, that co
[EMAIL PROTECTED], 2001-04-20 18:03 -0700
>On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > This still doesn't explain why Debian is
> > trying to do the following for their boot floppies.
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot-0102/msg00435.html
> > ~ Build in crams and ramfs. We're going to boot
actually, better depiction and idea improvements:
wireless area Internet
| |
LRP LRP
| |
---LAN-
Both LRP's masq, both LRP's treat the top interface as default network.
Wireless LRP forwards ev
ext2fs would be handy, but it makes things harder on the Windows users.
I think vfat is the best thing to do. I use vfat in my kernel -- it's
15K in 2.2, 16K in 2.4. UPX would turn that into .003 bytes, right :-)
--
Jack Coates
Monkeynoodle: It's what's for dinner!
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noy
Jack Coates, 2001-04-21 08:31 -0700
>ext2fs would be handy, but it makes things harder on the Windows users.
>I think vfat is the best thing to do. I use vfat in my kernel -- it's
>15K in 2.2, 16K in 2.4. UPX would turn that into .003 bytes, right :-)
Jack,
It may make things a tad harder, but I
Jack:
That's an interesting picture...
> wireless areaInternet
> | |
> LRP LRP
> | |
> ---LAN---
If the LAN side interface on the right LRP box thought
that its subnet was 0.0.0.
> > It'd be interesting to see how much each option affected size, but
overall a
> > 411K 2.4 kernel is VERY COOL, and should be quite usable for floppy
> > firewalls. While I'd like to see a 'one size fits all' kernel, perhaps
> > there could be a floppy only, minimal kernel, and a larger kernel
Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> Well, I generall think almost EVERYTHING should be modules. You can regain
> IDE support for booting by adding the modules to the initial ramdisk (the
> linuxrc mods I posted a while ago for my SCSI-RAID support do this).
When I first compiled kernels for LRP, I us
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2001-04-20 18:03 -0700
> >On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > > This still doesn't explain why Debian is
> > > trying to do the following for their boot floppies.
> > >
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot-0102/msg00435.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED], 2001-04-21 12:51 -0700
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > You have a better grasp of the details than I do. :)
> > If I have this right, cramfs isn't flexible enough for our needs. That
> > means that Midori isn't useful for a base, and we're back to vfat or
> > minix f
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> George,
> SourceForge tarballs our repository nightly. I added a "Tarball" link to
> our phpWS "Development" lblock. Anyone can download it now.
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cvstarballs/leaf-cvsroot.tar.gz
That's useful, to say the least. Maybe I'll set u
Everyone,
I created a new list that receives our CVS commit messages. I hope this
will allow everyone to keep track of release development.
I installed syncmail by following the SourceForge instructions below. If
you have time, please test it by committing a change to our repository. Thanks.
G
this was my experience as well -- I don't have numbers on hand, but I
definitely reduced the size of my kernel by moving unused goodies from
'modular' to 'no.'
--
Jack Coates
Monkeynoodle: It's what's for dinner!
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
>
> > We
I just hunted through my module archives and I've never built it as a
module...
I also did a google search, but the only ones I turned up in reasonable
timeframe were compiled for NetBSD. Those are 51K (!).
--
Jack Coates
Monkeynoodle: It's what's for dinner!
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wro
Jack Coates, 2001-04-21 16:08 -0700
>I just hunted through my module archives and I've never built it as a
>module...
>
>I also did a google search, but the only ones I turned up in reasonable
>timeframe were compiled for NetBSD. Those are 51K (!).
Jack,
That's huge. How big is minix? We can subt
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> Jack Coates, 2001-04-21 16:08 -0700
> >I just hunted through my module archives and I've never built it as a
> >module...
> >
> >I also did a google search, but the only ones I turned up in reasonable
> >timeframe were compiled for NetBSD. Those are 51K (!
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> When I first compiled kernels for LRP, I used the EigerStein kernel as
> my base. I later found that by NOT compiling modules, I could save
> space let me explain.
Okay. Not that I can stop you in an e-mail. =)
> If there is an item in the kerne
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> Well, I generall think almost EVERYTHING should be modules. You can regain
> IDE support for booting by adding the modules to the initial ramdisk (the
> linuxrc mods I posted a while ago for my SCSI-RAID support do this).
Yeah, Oxygen does the
George Metz, 2001-04-21 21:34 -0400
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > That's huge. How big is minix? We can subtract the minix size from the
> > ext2 total. Is that correct, or am I out in left field still?
>
>Not sure what you mean. If you mean from kernel size for the total size
>chang
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, George Metz wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
>
> > Jack Coates, 2001-04-21 16:08 -0700
> > >I just hunted through my module archives and I've never built it as a
> > >module...
> > >
> > >I also did a google search, but the only ones I turned up in reasonable
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think the concept is to raise the bar by putting vfat into the
> kernel. If vfat doesn't depend on the msdos code, then omit msdos
> to reduce size and risk of manipulating vfat filenames as msdos
> filenames (which can strand LFN data in the FAT).
27 matches
Mail list logo
