Richard Melville wrote:
On 21 August 2015 at 16:43, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Richard Melville wrote:
Is there any reason why we use ping from inetutils rather than the
version from iputils. I realise that we don't install iputils,
but why?
Why not? There is no need to change.
Even though most of inetutils is useless by way of insecurity?
What is insecure about the portions of the package we install?
Besides, iputils does not install ifconfig, ftp, or telnet which can be
used in a base LFS system.
I'm asking this because it would appear that the former won't
tolerate
the same alias (hostname) being entered in /etc/hosts for both
IPv4 and
IPv6, but the latter does.
The hostnames in /etc/hosts must be unique. Rename the entry to
create a unique name:
a.b.c.d hostname
BBBB:BBBB:BBBB:BBBB:BBBB:BBBB::BBBB hostname6
The iputils version of ping appears not to require a unique hostname:-
I'm not worried about ping. I'm more concerned about the resolver in
glibc.
You are, of course free to substitute any package you wish.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Do not top post on this list.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
