Linux-Misc Digest #534, Volume #27 Wed, 4 Apr 01 23:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: other editors? (Ivan Su)
Re: Using RPM with RH5.2 ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: mkisofs -graft-points / multisession syntax (Dances With Crows)
Re: commandline based article download tools ("Charlie Gibbs")
Re: Using RPM with RH5.2 (KCmaniac)
Re: other editors? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Hylafax and vgetty, Anyone got it working?? ("Anthony Childers")
Re: Secure File deletion (Frank Ranner)
Re: pgp not found although the binary is there ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: X with option vga=771 (Dances With Crows)
Re: pgp not found although the binary is there (Paul Kimoto)
Re: difference between ext2fs and reiserfs (Rod Smith)
Re: nslookup ok but can't ping (or net browse) (Grant Edwards)
Re: I would like to register a complaint ... (Grant Edwards)
Re: difference between ext2fs and reiserfs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Secure File deletion ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: other editors? (Grant Edwards)
Re: Using RPM with RH5.2 (Alex)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ivan Su)
Subject: Re: other editors?
Date: 5 Apr 2001 01:13:15 GMT
would I have to download most of these, if so where? because I can't find
most of them in my Linux package... the only one of i've been able to use
is vi
Peter T. Breuer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Ivan Su <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Just out of curiosity is for Redhat 6.2 is there any other editors you
: > can use in the Unix prompt besides pico? all the other editors such as
: > nedit and gedit can only be accessed in XWindows....
: vi, emacs, joe, ....
: bvedit (1) - visual display editor for binary files
: bvi (1) - visual display editor for binary files
: bview (1) - visual display editor for binary files
: ed (1) - text editor
: ex (1) - text editors
: hexedit (1) - view and edit files in hexadecimal or in ASCII
: jed (1) - programmers editor
: mcedit (1) - Full featured terminal text editor for Unix-like systems.
: nex (1) - text editors
: nvi (1) - text editors
: nview (1) - text editors
: red (1) - text editor
: sed (1) - a Stream EDitor
: sensible-editor (1) - sensible editing and paging
: sensible-pager (1) - sensible editing and paging
: vi (1) - text editors
: view (1) - text editors
: editor (1) - text editors
: elvis (1) - a clone of the ex/vi text editor
: jmacs (1) - Joe's Own Editor
: joe (1) - Joe's Own Editor
: jpico (1) - Joe's Own Editor
: jstar (1) - Joe's Own Editor
: pico (1) - simple text editor in the style of the Pine Composer
: rgview (1) - Vi IMproved, a programmers text editor
: rgvim (1) - Vi IMproved, a programmers text editor
: rjoe (1) - Joe's Own Editor
: rview (1) - Vi IMproved, a programmers text editor
: rvim (1) - Vi IMproved, a programmers text editor
: vche (1) - virtual console hex editor
: vim (1) - Vi IMproved, a programmers text editor
: zshzle (1) - zsh command line editor
: ....
: Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Using RPM with RH5.2
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 03:08:48 +0200
KCmaniac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>> Just interested, but why RH 5.2?
> Not sure what you mean. RH5.2 is the version I installed from a CD a
> year or so ago. It is what I am using. The RPM version 3.0.1 is what
> came with it. I am not being able to replace earlier versions of any(it
> appears) package on my system with newer versions. I am trying to
That's because they are not FOR you!
> upgrade packages to bring it up to the 7.0 version. But, I am always
You can't. 7.0 is not binary compatible with 6.2, let alone 5.2.
That's what a major number hike means, essentially (apart from when
teh marketing department gets in on the act ..): incompatible.
> "packages with major number <= 3 are not supported by this version of
> RPM." What is a major number?
What it says. Do you care? You are trying to install an rpm 4 format
package with an rpm 3 and that's what you need to know, not what it
means. You want to know the effect, and how to handle it, not the
semantics. No, Don't. You can't. And even if you could, you
couldn't, because the package contents are not FOR you.
Or do you think that people package upgrades for your distro in a
package format that your distro can't handle?
> Can you shed any light on this?
It means what it says. Man rpm .. or open a dictomoanary.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows)
Crossposted-To: alt.cd-rom
Subject: Re: mkisofs -graft-points / multisession syntax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05 Apr 2001 01:36:40 GMT
On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 10:06:01 -0500, Cindy Huyser staggered into the
Black Sun and said:
>I am setting up a script to automate multisession writes to CDR, based
>on information found in a particular directory. What I would like to
>do is to write each session to a separate directory under the root of
>the CD.
>
>My preference would be to create the directory names on the fly,
>grafting them into the existing iso and then filling them with the
>information from the directory I want to back up. I have not been
>successful in doing this. I have also tried creating the iso with a
>
>mkisofs -R -o [path]/isoimage.raw /backup
>cdrecord -v speed=2 dev=0,1,0 -eject -multi [path]/isoimage.raw
SO far so good.
>Next, I tried to graft the backup files into one of the subdirectories
>of /backup:
>
>mkisofs -v-o [path]/$isoname -r -C $session -M 0,1,0 -graft-points
>backup/$backname/*=/tmp/backup
>cdrecord -v speed=2 dev=0,1,0 -eject -multi [path]/isoname
>
>mkisofs -v -o [path]/$isoname -r -C $session -M 0,1,0 -graft-points
>backup/$backame=/tmp/backup
>
>mkisofs -v -o [path]/$isoname -r -C $session -M 0,1,0 -graft-points
>backup/$backname/*=/tmp/backup/*
>
>with the same result, and
>
>mkisofs -v -o [path]$isoname -r -C $session -M 0,1,0 /tmp/backup
>
>fails to dump the contents of /tmp/backup into the root directory of the
>CD. This failure occurs both when the original iso consists of an empty
>directory, and /tmp/backup contains a directory holding a data file, and
>when the original iso has multiple subdirectories, and when /tmp/backup
>has in it only a single file.
OK, here's what (partially) worked for me. SOrry about the lateness of
this message; I had to find a CD-RW that didn't have a recent backup on
it....
mkisofs -r -o temp1.iso /crud=~/crud
cdrecord -v -multi temp1.iso
did not do the expected thing, namely write the contents of ~/crud to a
directory on the CD-ROM called "crud". It dumped the contents of ~/crud
to the root dir. of the CD-ROM. Hmm. Anyway, then doing
SESSION=`cdrecord -msinfo`
mkisofs -r -C $SESSION -M /dev/scd0 -o temp2.iso -graft-points
/docs/doc1=~/docs
cdrecord -v -multi temp2.iso
...took the contents of ~/docs and did not put them into /docs/doc1/ on
the CD-ROM, but took the contents of ~/docs and put them into /docs/ on
the CD-ROM! Very strange, but this might shed some light on your
situation and provide a hackaround. Apparently the last dir. before the
= sign in -graft-points gets swallowed.
>1) what kind of iso should I initially make?
One with -r , since UIDs are mostly useless on CD-ROMs and Joliet
extensions apparently don't play well with multi-session discs.
>2) how can I get mkisofs to write the changed contents of the directory
>to the CD (multisession)?
>3) what is the syntax of -graft-points with regard to creation of
>directories? what is its syntax with regard to grafting directories
>onto the the initial iso?
If you specify a directory that does not exist within a -graft-points
option, that directory will be created. As above, mkisofs seems to
swallow the last directory you put into the graft-points option. I am
also using mkisofs 1.13 and cdrecord 1.9.
Also, the second session didn't get seen until I ejected and reinserted
the CD-RW. I think a fair number of CD-RWs have this problem; keep
that -eject line in cdrecord. HTH, bonne chance....
--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / Workin' in a code mine, hittin' Ctrl-Alt
http://www.brainbench.com / Workin' in a code mine, whoops!
=============================/ I hit a seg fault....
------------------------------
From: "Charlie Gibbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: commandline based article download tools
Date: 04 Apr 01 17:26:09 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Marcum)
writes:
>* Tong * wrote in message ...
>
>>> > But there is a problem for it to download articles like:
>>> >
>>> > http://www.informit.com/newsletter.asp?link=159
>>> >
>>>
>>> lynx -source http://www.informit.com/newsletter.asp?link=159 > 159.html
>>
>>Thanks Chris, but when a problem can't be solved by wget, it won't
>>be any easy as above lynx solution.
>>
>>The problem is to download the *whole article", not only the first
>>page. and the last paragraph of the full article is many clicks
>>away... As I said:
>>
>>,-----
>>| If you have experienced with any download tools, you will know that
>>| the above url is very tricky. there's no better way to download the
>>| whole article (only) without (potentially) download the whole site.
>>`-----
>>
>I'm afraid there isn't any easy way for a program to know that it
>should download the link that says "click here for next page". Try
>to persuade the site owner to provide a link to the whole document.
If I were in such a situation, I'd probably just browse the site
normally, then run the little utility I wrote to snarf it out of
the browser's cache. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Gibbs)
Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply.
------------------------------
From: KCmaniac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Using RPM with RH5.2
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 21:57:35 -0400
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> > Not sure what you mean. RH5.2 is the version I installed from a CD a
> > year or so ago. It is what I am using. The RPM version 3.0.1 is what
> > came with it. I am not being able to replace earlier versions of any(it
> > appears) package on my system with newer versions. I am trying to
>
> That's because they are not FOR you!
>
> > upgrade packages to bring it up to the 7.0 version. But, I am always
>
> You can't. 7.0 is not binary compatible with 6.2, let alone 5.2.
> That's what a major number hike means, essentially (apart from when
> teh marketing department gets in on the act ..): incompatible.
>
> > "packages with major number <= 3 are not supported by this version of
> > RPM." What is a major number?
>
> What it says. Do you care? You are trying to install an rpm 4 format
> package with an rpm 3 and that's what you need to know, not what it
> means. You want to know the effect, and how to handle it, not the
> semantics. No, Don't. You can't. And even if you could, you
> couldn't, because the package contents are not FOR you.
>
Well, who are they for? I'm not sure what you are talking about.
>
> Or do you think that people package upgrades for your distro in a
> package format that your distro can't handle?
>
What? What in the hell did I say to set YOU off? I am asking a very innocent
question looking for help with this matter and it seems I am being accosted by
you.
>
> > Can you shed any light on this?
>
> It means what it says. Man rpm .. or open a dictomoanary.
>
> Peter
FYI I have done all the reading I have felt necessary to get a good enough
grasp on what I needed to do before I tried it. It didn't work. I looked
around some more. I have never seen anything that has said that one can not
upgrade from 5.2 to 7.0 let alone 6.2 to 7.0. Is that what you are saying?
Why are all those packages at the mirror ftp sites available if you can't use
them? The RedHat site has a web page(with links) dedicated to providing
information on upgrading to 7.0. No where in this information says what you
are saying. This is the first time I heard anything like this.
What in all your wisdom do you suggest I do or is that too much to ask?
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: other editors?
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 03:45:30 +0200
Ivan Su <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> would I have to download most of these, if so where? because I can't find
This is a particularly gormless question .. if you don't have them, then
yes you have to get them, if you want them. They should be on your CD, so
no, you don't "have to" download them, though downloading them across
a fast ethernet always strikes me as a lot easier than grepping through
a slow cdrom .. mumble mumble mumble.
> most of them in my Linux package... the only one of i've been able to use
That you can't find them is not the same as you not having them! Please
say something else. Such as "the result of a 'locate joe' on my system
is a vacuously fatuously empty line".
> is vi
I've listed some of them, the rest is up to you. I just did a "man -k edit"
on my box, and removed from the list those obviously needing X.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Anthony Childers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Hylafax and vgetty, Anyone got it working??
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 02:13:51 GMT
I have spent days trying to set-up my linux machine to serve as a fax and
answering machine. I have been mostly successful but I am still having a
problem with vgetty.
Let me explain my set-up. My linux machine is running Red Hat 6.1. I have a
single telephone line with distinctive ring. The single ring (RING A) is for
voice calls and the double ring (RING B) is for fax calls.
I am using HylaFAX to handle the incomming calls and receive the faxes. I am
trying to setup vgetty to take care of the answering machine part.
Hylafax (actually faxgetty) is able to recognize RING A and RING B just
fine. In fact the fax part is working fine.
The problem is when I get RING A and try to execute vgetty. Vgetty is
executed with the command line arguments specified by VGettyArgs in the
config file. I have specified only the device (/dev/ttyS2). So vgetty gets
executed like this:
/bin/vgetty /dev/ttyS2
For some reason, it does not work. I suspect the problem is with the
arguments that I am passing (or need to pass) to vgetty.
Does anyone have this working?! If so, please share your config file with
us.
Thanks,
Anthony
------------------------------
From: Frank Ranner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure File deletion
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 12:16:31 +1000
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> It's really too bad. I don't know a good way to _shrink_ a file a little
> once you have it! You can only get rid of all its blocks with O_TRUNC.
>
TRUNCATE(2) Linux Programmer's Manual TRUNCATE(2)
NAME
truncate, ftruncate - truncate a file to a specified
length
SYNOPSIS
#include <unistd.h>
int truncate(const char *path, off_t length);
int ftruncate(int fd, off_t length);
DESCRIPTION
Truncate causes the file named by path or referenced by fd
to be truncated to at most length bytes in size. If the
file previously was larger than this size, the extra data
is lost. With ftruncate, the file must be open for writ-
ing.
RETURN VALUE
On success, zero is returned. On error, -1 is returned,
and errno is set appropriately.
=================
That would do it!
Regards, Frank Ranner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: pgp not found although the binary is there
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 02:23:43 GMT
"Joe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What Linux (kernel) and filesystem are you using?
> Got similar problems a while ago, not sure if it was because of
> Linux 2.4.0 and its ReiserFS bug.
FAR more likely than a "reiserfs bug" would be for the libraries on
the system to have been compiled with RHAT's
custom-and-somewhat-incompatible version of GCC, version 2.96, I
believe.
Compile it yourself and it ought to work...
--
(concatenate 'string "aa454" "@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://vip.hex.net/~cbbrowne/resume.html
"... And remember: Don't Eat The Yellow Snow..."
<http://www.globalia.net/donlope/fz/songs/Don't_Eat_The_Yellow_Snow.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows)
Subject: Re: X with option vga=771
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05 Apr 2001 02:26:46 GMT
On 5 Apr 2001 00:21:09 GMT, L.V.Gandhi staggered into the Black Sun and
said:
>I am having this option working in my RH6.2 box. For debian potato, I
>gave the option in command line. It didn't work in the same machine. i
>have fb support in kernel while installing. Any ideas how to make it
>work.
This is odd. Are you sure that VESA framebuffer support is in the
kernel you're using? "cat /proc/devices" should return a line with the
contents "29 fb" if framebuffer support is in the kernel. If that is
not there, you will have to recompile the kernel and make sure
framebuffer support and VESA framebuffer support are both set to YES.
Note that VESA framebuffer is still considered "experimental" as of
2.2.18, for reasons that I can't comprehend... make sure "prompt for
incomplete/experimental code" is set to YES. HTH,
--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / Workin' in a code mine, hittin' Ctrl-Alt
http://www.brainbench.com / Workin' in a code mine, whoops!
=============================/ I hit a seg fault....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Kimoto)
Subject: Re: pgp not found although the binary is there
Date: 4 Apr 2001 22:38:27 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <9agc6g$54d7g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stefan Kuhn wrote:
> I want to run pgp. If I ask which pgp, the answer is
> /usr/bin/pgp, but if I try pgp, the answer is
> bash: /usr/bin/pgp: File not found. The binary is actually
> there, in that directory.
Did this executable come with your distribution?!
Run "file /usr/bin/pgp" (or possibly "file -L /usr/bin/pgp"). If it's
some sort of "ELF executable, uses shared libs", then run
"strings /usr/bin/pgp | grep /lib/ld-linux". I suspect that you have
a libc5 binary (which uses /lib/ld-linux.so.1) on a libc6 system (these
use /lib/ld-linux.so.2), or vice versa.
--
Paul Kimoto
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text. Any images,
hyperlinks, or the like shown here have been added without my consent,
and may be a violation of international copyright law.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Smith)
Subject: Re: difference between ext2fs and reiserfs
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 02:45:56 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <UaJy6.124985$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Smith) writes:
>> In article <w3my6.122397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> >
>> >> Unfortunately, both ReiserFS and ext3fs suffer from the same file-
>> >> and partition-size limits as ext2fs. These are starting to become
>> >> issues for some people -- particularly the 4GB file-size
>> >> limit. Therefore, unless those limits are raised, neither of these
>> >> filesystems will really do as more than a stop-gap measure.
>> >
>> > Hum? "The same file-size limits as ext2fs" would indicate something
>> > slightly over 4TB.
>> >
>> > With 4KB blocks, the limit on filesize is 4TB + 4GB + 4MB + 12 * 4KB.
>>
>
> Nope. Check this out, from /usr/src/linux/include/linux/ext2_fs.h:
>
> Nope. Check this out.
>
> [cbbrowne@chvatal:testdeb] dd if=/dev/zero of=5g bs=1G count=5
> 5+0 records in
> 5+0 records out
> [cbbrowne@chvatal:testdeb] ls -l 5*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5368709120 Apr 4 11:59 5g
I've reproduced your demonstration with a 2.4.0 kernel; HOWEVER, when I
rebooted into a 2.2.17 kernel, the system reported the file size as
being 4,294,967,295 bytes -- one byte short of 4GB. (I didn't bother
trying to CREATE the file under the 2.2.17 kernel.) I therefore suspect
that one of two things is going on:
1) The 4GB limit I referred to was real in ext2fs as implemented by the
2.2.x kernel (with VFS imposing its own 2GB file size limit atop
that). Presumably ext2fs was extended in the 2.3.x tree.
2) Something about the 2.2.17 kernel caused buggy file size reporting.
As a practical matter, there's not much difference between the two; the
bottom line is that a "stock" 2.2.x kernel can't handle more than 2GB
because of VFS limits, but a 2.4.x kernel can handle more than 4GB on
ext2fs. In any event, there's still a *LOT* of obsolete documentation
floating around out there -- much of it (including a paper on the
official ext2fs SourceForge site,
http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/ext2intro.html) refers to a 2GB ext2fs
file size limit. I guess I'll have to start being careful about kernel
version numbers when referring to ext2fs file size limits....
--
Rod Smith, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux & multi-OS configuration
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: nslookup ok but can't ping (or net browse)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 02:54:16 GMT
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 22:02:52 GMT, Pumpkinhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>if i can resolve a host shouldn't i be able to ping it?
Yes -- if the host is up and connected to the network.
Resolving a host's name has nothing to do with whether that
host is even running or not.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! JAPAN is a WONDERFUL
at planet -- I wonder if we'll
visi.com ever reach their level of
COMPARATIVE SHOPPING...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: I would like to register a complaint ...
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 02:58:31 GMT
On 04 Apr 2001 06:49:40 -0400, Dan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I agree that this idiot does not know what he's talking about, but I
>think it is rooted at a misunderstanding of a lot more than just how
>to format a drive under linux.
Or, it's one of the more successful trolls I've seen in a long
time.
>Maybe he just needs to go back to DOS 3 and work his way back up :)
If he's not having us on, I think he's pretty much uneducable.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! TONY RANDALL! Is YOUR
at life a PATIO of FUN??
visi.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: difference between ext2fs and reiserfs
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 02:58:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Smith) writes:
> In article <UaJy6.124985$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Smith) writes:
> >> In article <w3my6.122397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >> >
> >> >> Unfortunately, both ReiserFS and ext3fs suffer from the same file-
> >> >> and partition-size limits as ext2fs. These are starting to become
> >> >> issues for some people -- particularly the 4GB file-size
> >> >> limit. Therefore, unless those limits are raised, neither of these
> >> >> filesystems will really do as more than a stop-gap measure.
> >> >
> >> > Hum? "The same file-size limits as ext2fs" would indicate something
> >> > slightly over 4TB.
> >> >
> >> > With 4KB blocks, the limit on filesize is 4TB + 4GB + 4MB + 12 * 4KB.
> >>
> >
> > Nope. Check this out, from /usr/src/linux/include/linux/ext2_fs.h:
> >
> > Nope. Check this out.
> >
> > [cbbrowne@chvatal:testdeb] dd if=/dev/zero of=5g bs=1G count=5
> > 5+0 records in
> > 5+0 records out
> > [cbbrowne@chvatal:testdeb] ls -l 5*
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5368709120 Apr 4 11:59 5g
>
> I've reproduced your demonstration with a 2.4.0 kernel; HOWEVER, when I
> rebooted into a 2.2.17 kernel, the system reported the file size as
> being 4,294,967,295 bytes -- one byte short of 4GB. (I didn't bother
> trying to CREATE the file under the 2.2.17 kernel.) I therefore suspect
> that one of two things is going on:
>
> 1) The 4GB limit I referred to was real in ext2fs as implemented by the
> 2.2.x kernel (with VFS imposing its own 2GB file size limit atop
> that). Presumably ext2fs was extended in the 2.3.x tree.
> 2) Something about the 2.2.17 kernel caused buggy file size reporting.
> As a practical matter, there's not much difference between the two;
> the bottom line is that a "stock" 2.2.x kernel can't handle more
> than 2GB because of VFS limits, but a 2.4.x kernel can handle more
> than 4GB on ext2fs. In any event, there's still a *LOT* of obsolete
> documentation floating around out there -- much of it (including a
> paper on the official ext2fs SourceForge site,
> http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/ext2intro.html) refers to a 2GB
> ext2fs file size limit. I guess I'll have to start being careful
> about kernel version numbers when referring to ext2fs file size
> limits....
This is likely to be something in flux over the next little while;
getting full support for big files requires:
a) That the filesystems support the big size;
b) That VFS support the big size [not true until late 2.2.x, _maybe_,
certainly late breaking 2.3.x and 2.4.x do...];
c) That GLIBC support the big size;
d) That applications be compiled with the GLIBC support for "big
size."
Note also that the dearth support for big files on ext2 was only true
for 32 bit architectures; it has worked on Alpha/UltraSPARC for a
while now.
The next time the major distributions "churn" through another version,
the 32 bit limitation will pretty likely evaporate away.
Mind you, NFS2 only supports exporting 32 bit file sizes, so NFS will
cause this limitation to still be visible here and there for a while
yet...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "ac.notelrac.teneerf@" "454aa"))
http://vip.hex.net/~cbbrowne/resume.html
"What this list needs is a good five-dollar plasma weapon."
--paraphrased from `/usr/bin/fortune`
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure File deletion
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 04:48:59 +0200
Frank Ranner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>>
>> It's really too bad. I don't know a good way to _shrink_ a file a little
>> once you have it! You can only get rid of all its blocks with O_TRUNC.
>>
> TRUNCATE(2) Linux Programmer's Manual TRUNCATE(2)
well well. Thanks!
> That would do it!
> Regards, Frank Ranner
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: other editors?
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 03:00:27 GMT
On 5 Apr 2001 00:28:50 GMT, Ivan Su <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just out of curiosity is for Redhat 6.2 is there any other editors you
>can use in the Unix prompt besides pico?
Off the top of my head:
ed, jed, emacs, vi, vim, ex, joe, sed
I prefer jed.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! CHUBBY CHECKER just
at had a CHICKEN SANDWICH in
visi.com downtown DULUTH!
------------------------------
From: Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Using RPM with RH5.2
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 23:17:54 -0400
hoffmyster wrote:
>
<snip>
> "only packages with major numbers <=3 are supported by this version of
> RPM
> package <rpm name> can not be installed"
>
> Does anyone know what this means?? How do you upgrade a version of
> RPM. I tried upgrading to the latest 4.0.2 but I continue to get this
> message.
<snip>
>From my understanding, you can't upgrade your rpm from 3.0.1 to 4.0.2
directly.
Try to upgrade your rpm to version 3.0.5-9 (if there are packages for
RH5.x). After that, you might be able to upgrade to 4.0.2. Other then
rpm, you also need to db3 package.
I am running 6.2; therefore, I can't say it will work for you for sure.
Hope this helps.
Alex.
> Thanks.
>
> RLH
--
============================================
The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
http://www.seti.org/
Registered with the Linux Counter. ID# 175126
http://counter.li.org/index.html
------------------------------
** 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 comp.os.linux.misc.
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-Misc Digest
******************************
