Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue? (fwd)

Jeff Johnson wrote: ;-) Actually the whiplash is mostly just a crick in the neck these days, mostly that the current implementation http implementation does not support redirects. I'll likely replace the "r.ufdio" with a macro for each Fopen so that users/distros can control whether, say, queri

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue? (fwd)

In regard to: Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build...: I'll likely replace the "r.ufdio" with a macro for each Fopen so that users/distros can control whether, say, queries should be network aware, but installs should not be permitted network access. That's what I was going

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue? (fwd)

On Nov 7, 2007, at 11:29 PM, David Halik wrote: Jeff Johnson wrote: Looks like rpm-4.4.9 was busted wrto network downloads, but perhaps I deliberately changed. The issue of rpm accessing a networks is somehow controversial even 7+ years later. Adding an explicit "r.ufdio" is as good as the ot

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue? (fwd)

Jeff Johnson wrote: Looks like rpm-4.4.9 was busted wrto network downloads, but perhaps I deliberately changed. The issue of rpm accessing a networks is somehow controversial even 7+ years later. Adding an explicit "r.ufdio" is as good as the other fix, changing the default to make rpmio always

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue? (fwd)

Looks like rpm-4.4.9 was busted wrto network downloads, but perhaps I deliberately changed. The issue of rpm accessing a networks is somehow controversial even 7+ years later. Adding an explicit "r.ufdio" is as good as the other fix, changing the default to make rpmio always network aware. I stil

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue? (fwd)

lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue? On Nov 6, 2007, at 11:03 AM, David Halik wrote: All depends on how the URL is opened, and there have been flip-flop's in rpm code about whether rpm should be network aware or not. Find the ope

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue? (fwd)

EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue? On Nov 5, 2007, at 10:42 PM, David Halik wrote: BTW, adding --ftpdebug should show the wire protocol, adding --rpmiodebug pretty much pins down where in rpmio a problem lies. 73 de Jeff A

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue?

In regard to: Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build...: On Nov 6, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Tim Mooney wrote: I was using our own, which was connecting to a Red Hat Linux 4 server running vsftpd 2.0.1. The same issue was happening for me there. Hmm, then perhaps there is some i

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue?

On Nov 6, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Tim Mooney wrote: I was using our own, which was connecting to a Red Hat Linux 4 server running vsftpd 2.0.1. The same issue was happening for me there. Hmm, then perhaps there is some issue wrto the getpeername(2) or getnameinfo(3) lookup. The code certainly l

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue?

In regard to: Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build...: If start this command in another wndow (within a short interval): wget ftp://rpm.rutgers.edu/solaris/solaris9-sparc64/hydrogen/RPMS.main/openssl-0.9.8g-1.solaris2.9-sparc64.rpm then the first command wakes up and cont

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue?

BTW, adding --ftpdebug should show the wire protocol, adding --rpmiodebug pretty much pins down where in rpmio a problem lies. 73 de Jeff Actually, I've never been able to --ftpdebug display any extra info. That was one of the first things that originaly gave me the idea that somehow ftp f

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue?

On Nov 5, 2007, at 6:34 PM, David Halik wrote: Are there any real advantages in using EPSV? My understanding is that the only difference is the lack of a server IP response to the client which happens in PASV. Maybe have it default to PASV unless EPSV is specifically requested? It looks

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue?

Hmmm, the issue appears to be with EPSV vs PASV modes on the rpm.rutgers.edu server. I ran this command: + /usr/bin/rpm -qp --ftpdebug ftp://rpm.rutgers.edu/solaris/solaris9-sparc64/hydrogen/RPMS.main/openssl-0.9.8g-1.solaris2.9-sparc64.rpm ++ connect [128.6.68.181]:21 on fdno 3 <- 220

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue?

On Nov 5, 2007, at 11:21 AM, David Halik wrote: Consider yourself poked ;-) Hmmm, the issue appears to be with EPSV vs PASV modes on the rpm.rutgers.edu server. I ran this command: + /usr/bin/rpm -qp --ftpdebug ftp://rpm.rutgers.edu/solaris/solaris9-sparc64/hydrogen/RPMS.main/openssl-

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue?

On Nov 5, 2007, at 11:21 AM, David Halik wrote: Jeff Johnson wrote: On 10/5/07, *David Halik* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Jeff Johnson wrote: > > On Sep 18, 2007, at 10:39 AM, David Halik wrote: > >> >> Retrieving ftp://rpm.rutgers.edu/foo.rpm

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue?

Jeff Johnson wrote: On 10/5/07, *David Halik* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Jeff Johnson wrote: > > On Sep 18, 2007, at 10:39 AM, David Halik wrote: > >> >> Retrieving ftp://rpm.rutgers.edu/foo.rpm >> D: ... as /var/local/tmp/rpm- xfer.C4a

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue?

On 10/5/07, David Halik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jeff Johnson wrote: > > > > On Sep 18, 2007, at 10:39 AM, David Halik wrote: > > > >> > >> Retrieving ftp://rpm.rutgers.edu/foo.rpm > >> D: ... as /var/local/tmp/rpm-xfer.C4aa9f > >> *** Fopen fdio path ftp://rpm.rutgers.edu/foo.rpm fmode r >