Linux-Development-Sys Digest #348, Volume #8 Thu, 14 Dec 00 12:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: changing BASH's path searching (Josef Moellers)
Re: Problem with LVM and LILO (David Vidal Rodriguez)
Problems of DHCP setting ("Michael")
Re: How to make a BIOS call in Linux (Kasper Dupont)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (jbs)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Pete Becker)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (jbs)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Pete Becker)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (jbs)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Pete Becker)
Concurrency - driver driver (Richard Kolb)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (jbs)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Pete Becker)
Re: Problem with LVM and LILO (Bruce Stephens)
LVM incompatibilities among kernel versions? (David Vidal Rodriguez)
Configure IPv6 address on network driver interface ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josef Moellers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: changing BASH's path searching
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:51:14 +0100
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
> =
> OK, I'll bite ...
> =
> Josef Moellers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's more to rpm and friends than just injecting files here and th=
ere
> > into a directory tree, checking dependencies for one and the most
> > important thing: documenting what's installed.
> =
> I dump a list of the tar file into /var/log/packages.
Hmm, exactly which version/patchlevel of that binary did you install?
> > Rather than doing a "find / -name command -print" (and going to lunch=
)
> =
> updatedb takes less than 2 mins on my P450.
You haven't seen what I've seen ... I'm not talking tens of gigabytes
=2E..
> > to see if a command is installed ("Rats, did I install the help files=
> > with them?" followed by another "find" and another lunch break),
> > searching the rpm database to decide whether the package is installed=
> > and if it's the right version is a lot easier.
> =
> Uh, no. I never have the least difficulty. Why should I not know if I
> don't have something that's needed? I wouldn't get a binary by choice,
> and if I did I'd read its README notes too and run ldd over its
> executables. That tells me all I need to know.
Well, my job involves helping customers, i just KNOW they don't read
READMEs!
And there is more than just dynamically linked libraries that some
programs need. There is other packages with executables that may be
needed.
> > Also, removing a package is a lot easier: No leftovers (err ... not f=
rom
> > lunch), no broken dependencies, documented removal.
> =
> I move the list into /var/log/removed_packages. Removing the installed
> files is of course a matetr of xargs rm -f < /var/log/packages/foo.
No it's not. It's also reversing all modifications made to some
configuration files of other packages. Example: Installing a networked
server might modify /etc/inetd.conf. Neither is this entry made by "tar
xvzf foo.tgz" nor is this entry removed by "xargs rm -f <
/var/log/packages/foo". Also, removing a package might break
dependencies (suddenly a binary needed by package bar is missing).
> >> put what where, and who depends on what. Beats me why everyone insi=
sts
> =
> > This is exactly what rpm and friends are doing.
> =
> No, it's not. They are doing one thing very wrong: keeping the info in
> an unreadable format that nobody else can read or manage. At least rpm
> does that. Dpkg (and installpkg) does not. Their databases are ascii.
That is a point I can agree with. I just _hate_ binary files if the
information can be stored in ASCII. If only they had used some other
format, e.g. a db file so one could examine it with Perl or the like.
-- =
Josef M=F6llers (Pinguinpfleger bei FSC)
If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize (T. Pratchett)
------------------------------
From: David Vidal Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Problem with LVM and LILO
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:53:08 +0100
OK, I give up. I have moved my root and boot volumes to a single partition and
everything works fine now. LVs are still a great idea.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Vidal R. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Problems of DHCP setting
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:37:02 +0800
I try to use Linux for my server which install two Lan card, eth0 is
connecting to cable modem and eth1 connect to my win98. I want to share the
eth0 for win98 to surf internet, so I install the DHCP to Linux. I've
followed book's instructions to set up, even though I can surf internet by
linux, but win98 fail... I found that when I ran the /usr/sbin/dhcpd in
console, it show following message in the last few lines:
No subnet declaration for the eth0 (my ip address here)
Please write a subnet declaration for the network segment to which interface
eth0 is attached.
exiting.
Another, when I run "ifconfig", I also found that on eth0 shown "Tx
packets:3233 errors:3 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:3", is it normal in
"errors:3"?
Sorry that I still don't know the configuration, here I pasted some files
content, please help me and show me how to configurate these files,
thanks...
_____________________________________
/etc/sysconfig/network :
HOSTNAME="MyServer"
DOMAINNAME="hkcable.com"
NETWORKING=YES
ONBOOT=YES
GATEWAY=""
GATEWAYDEV="eth0"
FORWARD_IPV4="yes"
============================================================
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 :
DEVICE="eth0"
BOOTPROTO="dhcp"
HOSTNAME=45kh933.hkcable.com.hk
DOMAIN=i-cable.com
IPADDR=""
NETMASK="255.255.255.0"
ONBOOT="yes"
IPXNETNUM_802_2=""
IPXPRIMARY_802_2="no"
IPXACTIVE_802_2="no"
IPXNETNUM_802_3=""
IPXPRIMARY_802_3="no"
IPXACTIVE_802_3="no"
IPXNETNUM_ETHERII=""
IPXPRIMARY_ETHERII="no"
IPXACTIVE_ETHERII="no"
IPXNETNUM_SNAP=""
IPXPRIMARY_SNAP="no"
IPXACTIVE_SNAP="no"
==========================================================
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth1 :
DEVICE="eth1"
IPADDR="192.168.1.1"
NETMASK="255.255.255.0"
ONBOOT="yes"
BOOTPROTO="none"
IPXNETNUM_802_2=""
IPXPRIMARY_802_2="no"
IPXACTIVE_802_2="no"
IPXNETNUM_802_3=""
IPXPRIMARY_802_3="no"
IPXACTIVE_802_3="no"
IPXNETNUM_ETHERII=""
IPXPRIMARY_ETHERII="no"
IPXACTIVE_ETHERII="no"
IPXNETNUM_SNAP=""
IPXPRIMARY_SNAP="no"
IPXACTIVE_SNAP="no"
============================================================================
In "dhcpd" file :
#!/bin/sh
#
# dhcpd This shell script takes care of starting and stopping dhcpd.
#
# chkconfig: 2345 65 35
# description: dhcpd provide access to Dynamic Host Control Protocol.
# Source function library.
. /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions
# Source networking configuration.
. /etc/sysconfig/network
# Check that networking is up.
[ ${NETWORKING} = "no" ] && exit 0
[ -f /usr/sbin/dhcpd ] || exit 0
[ -f /etc/dhcpd.conf ] || exit 0
# See how we were called.
case "$1" in
start)
# Start daemons.
echo -n "Starting dhcpd: "
route add -host 255.255.255.255 dev eth1
daemon /usr/sbin/dhcpd eth1
echo
touch /var/lock/subsys/dhcpd
;;
stop)
# Stop daemons.
echo -n "Shutting down dhcpd: "
route del -host 255.255.255.255 dev eth1
killproc dhcpd
echo
rm -f /var/lock/subsys/dhcpd
;;
restart)
$0 stop
$0 start
;;
status)
status dhcpd
;;
*)
=========================================================================
In "dhcpd.conf" file :
##
## dhcpd.conf -- Dekiru Linux, July 1999
##
server-identifier server;
shared-network DHCP{
option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0;
subnet 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
range 192.168.1.10 192.168.1.250;
option broadcast-address 192.168.1.255;
option routers 192.168.1.1;
option domain-name "hkcable.com";
option domain-name-servers 192.168.1.1;
default-lease-time 21600;
max-lease-time 43200;
}
}
============================================================================
When I run /usr/sbin/dhcpd shown :
Listening on LPF/eth1/00:a0:0c:c6:9d:9d/DHCP
Sending on LPF/eth1/00:a0:0c:c6:9d:9d/DHCP
No subnet declaration for eth0(61.10.28.167).
Please write a subnet declaration for the network segment to
which interface eth0 is attached.
exiting.
Help me please ~~~ :(
------------------------------
From: Kasper Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to make a BIOS call in Linux
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:26:17 +0100
Joshua Schaeffer wrote:
>
> Why does the boot loader or APM even need to bother with BIOS in the first
> place?
>
The boot loader needs to use the BIOS to do
disk access as it is the only driver around.
Otherwise you would have to put the driver
in the boot record, and writing a portable
harddisk driver in just 512 bytes would
probably not be posible.
--
Kasper Dupont
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:39:24 -0500
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, jbs wrote:
> "E. Robert Tisdale" wrote:
>> All I can tell you -- all Pete Becker can tell you
>> is that you need to consult a competent lawyer
>> before you make any business decisions
>> that depend upon GPL'd or LGPL'd software.
> No more so than any other software. Possibly less, given that the GPL
> licenses, unlike commercial licenses, are standardized and have been
> extensively scrutinized and studied.
The biggest difference is that the GPL licences -- indeed, all open
source licences -- have not been tested in court. Most commercial
licences haven't, either, but some have.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
------------------------------
From: jbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 05:51:16 -0800
Austin Ziegler wrote:
> The biggest difference is that the GPL licences -- indeed, all open
> source licences -- have not been tested in court.
That's probably not the biggest difference. The biggest difference is
that open source licenses are enforced largely by community consensus
and peer pressure.
Of course, this would mean that informed opinions on a newsgroup might
well be *more valuable* than the "sound legal advice" god that Tisdale
worships, or the "anybody can sue you" bogeyman that Becker dreads.
As I said before, legalities and court cases are not all that matter.
People who fixate on them have lost sight of the big picture. That's
true for business decisions made in the context of commercial software
licenses, but even more so for open source licenses.
> Most commercial licences haven't, either, but some have.
Right. Between changing licenses, changing law, different
jurisdictions, and different facts, it would be *very* unusual for a
commercial license having "been to court" to be worth much of anything.
------------------------------
From: Pete Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:52:22 -0500
Mike Stump wrote:
>
> Also, let me state that relying upon legal advice is shakey to the
> exclusion of our advice, is risky. Ponder that for a little while.
I have. It is so muddled that I have no idea what it means.
> This is why, asking and discussing these topics here, is in fact can
> be more beneficial than merely talking it over with lawyer types.
I think you've just demonstrated the opposite. I can guess at what
you're trying to say, but I would never base a business decision on
guessing the meaning of such muddled sentences.
--
Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)
Contributing Editor, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com)
------------------------------
From: jbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 05:57:05 -0800
jbs wrote:
> Of course, this would mean that informed opinions on a newsgroup might
> well be *more valuable* than the "sound legal advice" god that Tisdale
> worships, or the "anybody can sue you" bogeyman that Becker dreads.
Oops. I got Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum's names reversed. That should
be:
Of course, this would mean that informed opinions on a newsgroup might
well be *more valuable* than the "sound legal advice" god that Becker
worships, or the "anybody can sue you" bogeyman that Tisdale dreads.
------------------------------
From: Pete Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:53:40 -0500
jbs wrote:
>
> the "anybody can sue you" bogeyman that Becker dreads.
>
Watch your attributions. I have made no such statement.
--
Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)
Contributing Editor, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com)
------------------------------
From: jbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 06:55:59 -0800
Pete Becker wrote:
> jbs wrote:
> >
> > the "anybody can sue you" bogeyman that Becker dreads.
> >
>
> Watch your attributions. I have made no such statement.
Corrected shortly after original post.
------------------------------
From: Pete Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:56:04 -0500
jbs wrote:
>
> Of course, this would mean that informed opinions on a newsgroup might
> well be *more valuable* than the "sound legal advice" god that Becker
> worships, or the "anybody can sue you" bogeyman that Tisdale dreads.
If you get into court, your "informed opinions on a newsgroup" are
worthless. Of course, you are free to ignore that risk, but a fair
discussion ought to at least acknowledge that it exists.
--
Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)
Contributing Editor, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com)
------------------------------
From: Richard Kolb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Concurrency - driver driver
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:03:13 +0200
Hi All,
Can someone with knowledge in block drivers please help.
I've written a device driver that works quite well and stable when using
one minor device.
When I use two minors and I some times get a system hang, which seems
like all interrupts disabled.
Is there something special my device driver must do/have for this,
like must my request block be reentrant etc...
( My device driver is as atomic as possible )
The bug occurs when both minors are being used very soon after each
other,
like if I call sync.....
Any clues ?
Thanks,
Richard
------------------------------
From: jbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:07:20 -0800
Pete Becker wrote:
> If you get into court, your "informed opinions on a newsgroup" are
> worthless.
Please tell us how many users of open source software have gotten into
court.
> Of course, you are free to ignore that risk
I never said I would ignore it, nor did I suggest doing so.
> but a fair discussion ought to at least acknowledge that it exists.
Proportionate with its significance.
------------------------------
From: Pete Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:43:43 -0500
jbs wrote:
>
> Pete Becker wrote:
> > If you get into court, your "informed opinions on a newsgroup" are
> > worthless.
>
> Please tell us how many users of open source software have gotten into
> court.
I have no idea. That doesn't mean that the risk doesn't exist.
--
Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)
Contributing Editor, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com)
------------------------------
From: Bruce Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Problem with LVM and LILO
Date: 14 Dec 2000 15:41:44 +0000
David Vidal Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, I give up. I have moved my root and boot volumes to a single
> partition and everything works fine now. LVs are still a great idea.
Oh, they are. Combined with filesystems that can be resized, they're
wonderful, even for home users. However, there's no need to put
everything on them---just things you expect to mess about with.
------------------------------
From: David Vidal Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LVM incompatibilities among kernel versions?
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:07:35 +0100
OK, I'll give a short description of my problem. I have created my LVs
using the LVM of kernel 2.2.14 (modular version). I have recently
compiled the new 2.4.0_test11-version, but now with LVM compiled in. The
problem is that this version doesn't recognize my VG saying that no VGs
were found. With 2.2.14 everything works fine.
My system has a root _partition_ (/boot directory inside!), and the rest
are LVs.
Is the format of the 2.2.14-LVM incompatible with the one of 2.4.0?? Can
anybody give me a hint?
Thanks in advance.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Vidal R. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Configure IPv6 address on network driver interface
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:59:30 GMT
Hi all,
configuration : kernel 2.2.14 with double stack IPv4+IPv6 ; net-tools
1.57
Is it possible to configure a network driver interface with only an IPv6
address (i.e. no IPv4 address) ? According to ifconfig manpage, it
should work with : ifconfig <ifname> inet6 <IPv6 address>
But, when we try ifconfig wal inet6 fe80::210:5aff:0102:030A/10
we get the error : -5 no address associated to the name
At the moment, we use
ifconfig wal 10.2.3.10 netmask 255.255.255.0 add
fe80::210:5aff:0102:030A/10
It could be ok if we find a way to call a driver function when the IPv6
address is set. But what happens is : when the open method of the
"struct device" is called, only the IPv4 address is known ; the IPv6
address seems to be set later.
When ifconfig <ifname> add <IPv6 addr> is called, is it a way to force
the kernel to call a driver method ?
Thanks for all,
Sylvie
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to the
comp.os.linux.development.system newsgroup.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
