On 1/20/2006 13:45, Chris Staub wrote:
> non-UTF-8 locales will work fine with UTF-8-enable LFS - it's that if
> the extra disk space and memory being taking up is not needed, then it
> shouldn't be there.
I think this is sort of like saying well my DNS box has/needs only a small
disk in it, why s
On 1/19/2006 13:04, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Back to topic, have any of you been monitoring the lfs-security list?
I've found this list to pretty much always be low noise/high signal. Also
various and useful patches appear from time to time.
Well worth monitoring. :)
~Jason
--
--
http://l
On 1/13/2006 00:27, Lennon Cook wrote:
> Jim Gifford wrote:
>> If you follow LKML and Greg KH's comments you will understand all the
>> current issues with uevent and sysfs.
>
> Can you please provide links for those of us who don't follow these lists?
In the meantime it might be worth a quick lo
On 1/10/2006 14:53, Jeremy Herbison wrote:
+1
I don't think I've ever run any machine except windows without this lib
> p.s. Alternatively, could a note similar to Shadow's Cracklib tip
> be added to Grep's instructions?
+1 to this if there is hate and discontent.
~Jason
--
--
http://linuxf
I also believe that this would be an instructive and positive addition
to the book.
~Jason
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 12/27/2005 01:50, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
That was very thorough, thank you.
While it would be nice to avoid another dependency the reality is that I
usually end up with both GDBM and BDB on my systems. Yea, I know that's
not really an argument... To me the most convincing argument is
So long, and thanks for all the fish! (or however that goes)
You live in NY? How about a bowl of noodles off times square sometime?
It'd be worth the trip from CT.
~Jason
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the
On 9/19/2005 10:54, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> http://www.gtkmm.org/jhbuild_dot_gnomemm.png
That's sick man!
~Jason
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 8/31/2005 22:56, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> After that, I will send a patch to the XML sources of the book if there
> are no objections.
Goodness I hope not! You work tirelessly on this important, but no doubt,
tedious task.
~Jason
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/
On 8/22/2005 21:22, Archaic wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:33:37PM -0400, Jason Gurtz wrote:
>>
>> available network connections. Hey, wouldn't it be cool if root could
>> arbitrate how many of each type (TCP, UDP, ICMP) of connection each
>> user/group ha
On 8/22/2005 13:25, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Unless of course it happens to be inetutils-ping
> (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-inetutils/2005-07/msg00030.html) :-)
Ouch!
~Jason
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubsc
On 8/22/2005 13:16, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I think it would be a much greater security problem if sending icmp or
> opening raw sockets by non-root users was allowed.
Certainly raw sockets would be a huge risk, but I don't see how echo_reply
at a 1 per second rate or something is a problem. I guess
On 8/22/2005 12:39, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:03:49PM -0400, Jason Gurtz wrote:
>
>> That's crazy. Normal pings shouldn't require root.
>
> IIRC, the standard kernel socket interface simply has no way to send any
> kind of ICMP packet (ech
On 8/21/2005 10:54, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> ping.c:63 - "This program has to run SUID to ROOT to access the ICMP
> socket."
That's crazy. Normal pings shouldn't require root. Only changing payload
size or flooding or other such things should require it.
Netkit ping has this behavior. ...or
On 7/18/2005 17:22, William Harrington wrote:
> If people know how to use the programming tools that are available they
> would be able to track problems down a lot easier and for themselves.
I thought about this for a bit and see that teaching C would probably be a
bit much. OTOH, it seems like
On 7/1/2005 17:21, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> 2) the server isn't dedicated to LFS only as the current one is.
Maybe it would be worthwhile to see what a call for donations can scratch
up so there can be a dedicated server?
Good to hear from you and congrats on the successful immigration!
~Jason
On 6/30/2005 18:28, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I finally got around to updating the SpamAssasin rulesets for the
> mailing lists today (thanks to Jim Gifford for giving me explicit
> instructions!).
A big Thank You to the both of ya! That's excellent news.
~Jason
--
--
http://linuxfromscratc
On 19-Mar-05 14:50, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> On March 18, 2005 03:37 pm, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>> traceroute and ping results for the following two IP addresses:
>> current server: 216.171.238.83
>> new server: 72.29.236.37
Here's a set of fairly interesting results. The first set from work--a
On 3/15/2005 16:10, Tyler Packer wrote:
> I've used LFS to create a LFS bootable CD. (with some changes of course..)
[...]
This would be more correctly posted to blfs-support or lfs-chat I think.
~Jason
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratc
On 2/24/2005 22:26, Archaic wrote:
> How could sed be extreme when you suggested ed? ;)
yea, I know... I know... *G*
~Jason
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 2/22/2005 18:22, Archaic wrote:
> not sure if the book should recommend that or install vim in /bin in the
> first place. A somewhat valid argument would be sed for emergency
> purposes.
I would think having ed around would be enough. Vim is kinda large
compared to the actual ex-vi package bu
21 matches
Mail list logo
