Re: simultaneous apache 1.3x 2.x
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 00:20:04 +0100, Robin Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to install squirrelmail, but it seems that PHP + apache 2 + squirrelmail doesn't go. I tried and although the install proceeds I get crashes in PHP. I got apache2/courier-imap/php4/squirrelmail running ok on my FreeBSD 5.2.1 system. I did it all from ports and it seemed to work ok (just a test system that has no real load and gets destroyed every few days when I get an urge for something new - it's already gone as i write this). PHP appears to deprecate apache 2 at present and looking at the the lang/php4 port allowed me to set WITH_APACHE2=yes (I guess php5 would too ...) in make.conf and that made things happier. sorry if this is way off ... it worked for me but i may have bumbled into it ... august ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: uname -v shows no difference after buildkernel and installkernel etc
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:32:19 +1000, August Simonelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:11:47 -0500, Donald J. O'Neill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: August, I've been following this thread today. It's very interesting. It appears to me, you mentioned your mistake in your first post. did a mergemaster and didn't accept any changes (it was a fresh system) rebooted and logged in Without accepting those changes, you kept what you had. It wasn't a This is what is confusing me about mergemaster. Isn't it just for comparing and deciding which config files one wants kept? That is, if I have a modifed pkgtools.conf or rc.conf or whatever I should be able to merge it up with the newly rebuilt system (which would have fresh versions of such files). Or I could just tell it to keep my old config files cause they have all my modifications. I do get that the new conf files may have changes we need, so merging is better. Now, why am i babbling about this? Cause when doing the mergemaster on this system my fingers got really fat and I'm not sure how I answered. Maybe this lead to my problem. Would that cause a) the wrong kernel to be installed or just b) the wrong kernel to be reported (ie did i screw up the update of the file that stores the kernel details?). Also, just for clarification, it WAS a fresh system, so, in theory, mergemaster would not have had any changes to make (except if it updates some text string somwhere that is the basis for the uname -v, as in my and b options above). Sorry if this is painfully ignorant; I'm learning slowly! :-) fresh system and needed the information from mergemaster. If you didn't clear out /usr/obj, it might be possible to rerun mergemaster and accept the changes. I would keep MYCUSTOM somewhere other than /root/kernels. Personally, I use /home/save4rebuild, and keep a copy of everything else I think I might need. I've had to reinstall /, /var, /tmp, /usr, but I always manage to keep /home safe. This seems to be what most people are saying ... and i think it makes more sense. I have officially adopted save4rebuild for my systems! :-) back to me rebuild (celeron 433 is a bit slw). well, the rebuild has worked fine. i think my symlinking was indeed messed up. i followed everyone's advice and didn't use a symlink; I kept my custom config in the same location as GENERIC and just copied it elsewhere for backup purposes. one last question for those tracking the this thread: can i now delete the custom kernel config file i created in /usr/src/sys/i386/src/ ? or does the system need it there to boot? i would guess not, more that the file is only used in building and installing ... thanks again for all the good advice ... august ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
uname -v shows no difference after buildkernel and installkernel etc
Hi all, I recently did the following: installed FreeBSD 5.2.1 from the iso cvsup'd the source (using tag=RELENG_5_2) followed section 19 of the handbook followed section 8 for the kernel rebuild and did a custom kernel (placing in /root/kernels and linking it, as per section 8.3) everything went well did a mergmaster and didn't accept any changes (it was a fresh system) rebooted and logged in did uname -v and got the same output as before all the above (Feb build date (5.2.1, right?), reference to GENERIC kernel not my custom kernel - my search of the list archives tells me it should show the local machine and a recent date in this output) Do I need to update somewhere to tell the system to boot the new kernel? If so, I totally missed that in the handbook (whoops). This also leads me to ask how one best confirms the system has changed? Thanks in advance for any help, August ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SCP
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:28:23 +0200, Spidey Knepscheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Guys I have to FreeBSD boxes next to each other and would like to copy a directory from the mail server to the firewall.I have root access to both the PC's.The directory on the mail server is /home/www/trafd and I would like to copy it to the fw to /usr/ports/net/ . Here is the command I tried : scp /home/www/trafd mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /usr/trafd I think it's more like this: scp [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/path/to/remote/dir/* /path/to/local/dir/ i'm still pretty new at this but if i'm not mistaken root can't login remotely by default, so unless you've allowed that it'll fail. hope this helps ... august Please if someone can help Spidey ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: uname -v shows no difference after buildkernel and installkernel etc
August What does your symlink look like? So you put the newly built kernel in /root/kernels, then did something like?: # ln -s /root/kernels/mykernel /boot/kernel/kernel I followed the example in 8.3: # cd /usr/src/sys/i386/conf # mkdir /root/kernels # cp GENERIC /root/kernels/MYKERNEL # ln -s /root/kernels/MYKERNEL so now I have the following symlink: /usr/src/sys/i386/conf/MYCUSTOM - /root/kernels/MYCUSTOM and I built and installed with that as my KERNCONF value. I do still have GENERIC sitting in that directory. Does it use GENERIC first by default? Thanks again, august ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: uname -v shows no difference after buildkernel and installkernel etc
I apologize, when you said: ... did a custom kernel (placing in /root/kernels ... I took it too literally, thinking that for some odd reason you had put the actual built (binary) kernel into /root/kernels and were symlinking from /boot/kernel to that directory, as opposed to simply putting the kernel config file there. However, is it just a typing mistake that you say you link to MYKERNEL, but you say the actual links points to Nah, just me being sloppy in my syntax; I got the names right (luckily) during the actual build (or did i ... interesting ...). MYCUSTOM? Also, what does an `ls -l /boot/kernel/kernel` reveal? Does the modification time coincide with the time you actually built your custom kernel? 94214 -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 5940286 Feb 24 2004 /boot/kernel/kernel So it's the old one ... now, this is good, because on my other test system the kernel date is correct and uname -v is correct ... so, i've done something wrong and am gonna try it again ... i'm doing it at work and probably too distracted by my annoying users! :-) thanks for you help ... wish me luck on my second attempt! august ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: uname -v shows no difference after buildkernel and installkernel etc
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:11:47 -0500, Donald J. O'Neill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: August, I've been following this thread today. It's very interesting. It appears to me, you mentioned your mistake in your first post. did a mergemaster and didn't accept any changes (it was a fresh system) rebooted and logged in Without accepting those changes, you kept what you had. It wasn't a This is what is confusing me about mergemaster. Isn't it just for comparing and deciding which config files one wants kept? That is, if I have a modifed pkgtools.conf or rc.conf or whatever I should be able to merge it up with the newly rebuilt system (which would have fresh versions of such files). Or I could just tell it to keep my old config files cause they have all my modifications. I do get that the new conf files may have changes we need, so merging is better. Now, why am i babbling about this? Cause when doing the mergemaster on this system my fingers got really fat and I'm not sure how I answered. Maybe this lead to my problem. Would that cause a) the wrong kernel to be installed or just b) the wrong kernel to be reported (ie did i screw up the update of the file that stores the kernel details?). Also, just for clarification, it WAS a fresh system, so, in theory, mergemaster would not have had any changes to make (except if it updates some text string somwhere that is the basis for the uname -v, as in my and b options above). Sorry if this is painfully ignorant; I'm learning slowly! :-) fresh system and needed the information from mergemaster. If you didn't clear out /usr/obj, it might be possible to rerun mergemaster and accept the changes. I would keep MYCUSTOM somewhere other than /root/kernels. Personally, I use /home/save4rebuild, and keep a copy of everything else I think I might need. I've had to reinstall /, /var, /tmp, /usr, but I always manage to keep /home safe. This seems to be what most people are saying ... and i think it makes more sense. I have officially adopted save4rebuild for my systems! :-) back to me rebuild (celeron 433 is a bit slw). august ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
named.conf question (controls statement being ignored)
Hi all,
I've just installed bind9 from ports. I've got everything set up and
the nameserver works except rndc. I've followed numerous instructions
(bind howto, freebsd ezine) and still keep getting a strange error in
my syslog. I won't post named.conf or rndc.conf yet as the error
doesn't seem to point to them as being the problem. When i run
/usr/sbin/named everything starts ok but i get:
/etc/namedb/named.conf:102: Ignoring BIND 9 inet control clause
in /var/log/messages
my controls statement in named.conf is:
controls {
inet 127.0.0.1 allow { localhost; } keys { mykey; };
};
any thoughts?
august
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /etc/rc.conf vs /etc/defaults/rc.conf
On 13/01/2004, at 12:43 PM, Ted Suzman wrote: Stuff you put in rc.conf overrides settings in /etc/defaults/rc.conf Never modify /etc/defaults/rc.conf -Original Message- From: August Simonelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 5:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: /etc/rc.conf vs /etc/defaults/rc.conf Hi all, I've looked in the handbook (and probably missed the explanation) but am still a little confused. What's the difference between these two rc.conf files? Both affect things, but what is best practice for their use? Thank in advance, August PS I'm using 4.9 and realize some things may be differnet in 5.x ... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks all who helped me on this! I really do appreciate it! ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/etc/rc.conf vs /etc/defaults/rc.conf
Hi all, I've looked in the handbook (and probably missed the explanation) but am still a little confused. What's the difference between these two rc.conf files? Both affect things, but what is best practice for their use? Thank in advance, August PS I'm using 4.9 and realize some things may be differnet in 5.x ... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports confusion - are they configurable like I want?
hi, I build my apache from source and it runs wonderful on fbsd 5.1. Now I tried to do the same with the fbsd apache-port but I have no idea how to install the port with the same(exact) configuration arguments I used for my source build: ./configure --enable-layout=xyz --enable-file-cache --enable-cache --enable-deflate \ --enable-proxy --enable-bucketeer --enable-module=so --with-mpm=worker \ --enable-mods-shared=all --enable-logio --enable-ssl=shared --with-ssl-dir=/usr/local/ssl I realized the knobs an CONFIGURE_ARGS in Makefile but I still don't know how to proceed... I found many hints about this but nobody shows any samples. thanks for help. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Zoran, I've just asked a similar question on this list and got some great answers; have a look at the thread here: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2004-January/031152.html hope this helps, august ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
changing configure options when using a port
Hi all, I'm slowly getting used to FreeBSD from a Linux background so forgive the ignorant questions. I'm curious what the best way to add configure options are when installing from a port. For example, i'd like to add --enable-rewrite to apache2. Can I just put it in the Makefile in /usr/ports/www/apache2 ? Is this generally the best way to do this? Thanks in advance, August ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: changing configure options when using a port
Ok that makes sense. So something like make --enable-rewrite make install clean would do the trick? As well as make WITH_MODULES=include rewrite auth install clean as suggested by Gautam Gopalakrishnan? august On 06/01/2004, at 11:13 PM, Subhro wrote: Hi August, System wide make options are added to the /etc/make.conf. However for specific ports I prefer to put the required options on the command line while compiling. Regards Subhro Subhro Sankha Kar Indian Institute of Information Technology Block AQ-13/1, Sector V Salt Lake City PIN 700091 India -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of August Simonelli Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 5:04 PM To: FreeBSD-questions Subject: changing configure options when using a port Hi all, I'm slowly getting used to FreeBSD from a Linux background so forgive the ignorant questions. I'm curious what the best way to add configure options are when installing from a port. For example, i'd like to add --enable-rewrite to apache2. Can I just put it in the Makefile in /usr/ports/www/apache2 ? Is this generally the best way to do this? Thanks in advance, August ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: changing configure options when using a port
On 06/01/2004, at 11:52 PM, Matthew Seaman wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:33:49PM +1100, August Simonelli wrote: I'm slowly getting used to FreeBSD from a Linux background so forgive the ignorant questions. I'm curious what the best way to add configure options are when installing from a port. For example, i'd like to add --enable-rewrite to apache2. Can I just put it in the Makefile in /usr/ports/www/apache2 ? Is this generally the best way to do this? The apache2 port Makefile already comes with any number of hooks for enabling or disabling various configuration options -- probably too many in fact. In your case, to enable mod_rewrite you don't need to do anything, as it's already a standard part of the apache2 port, and enabled by default in the sample httpd-std.conf file. To get a list of what modules are available and what would be included when you build the port, use: # cd /usr/ports/www/apache2 # make show-modules However, for the sake of completelness, you can compile the port to include extra modules by: # make WITH_EXTRA_MODULES=rewrite or to statically link mod_rewrite into the apache binary: # make WITH_STATIC_MODULES=rewrite To apply these options without having to remember to type them in on the command line all the time, you can create a 'Makefile.inc' in the port directory which just contains the 'WITH_FOO=bar' variable assignments, or you can use portupgrade(1) and record these customizations in it's pkgtools.conf configuration file. Ok, I get it. And by having --enable-so in the apache port's Makefile and using the LoadModule directive in httpd.conf i can see how many modules are actually available from the port bt default. wow. httpd.conf has a lot of stuff enabled ... sounds like i've got the info i need here to understand adding additional configure options to the building of a port. now it sounds like i'd better do some reading on apache! thanks everyone! august ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: acessing ports from behind firewall
On 06/01/2004, at 2:00 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote: On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:06:30PM +1100, August Simonelli wrote: I'm trying to access the ports collection from my FreeBSD 4.9 server running behind my firewall (Astaro, www.astaro.org). Whenever I run the make install command (or even just try to fetch for ftp) it just times out. A netstat -an shows: 192.168.1.2.1074 208.209.50.18.21 SYN_SENT which means I know am i getting name resolution and to the server, but ... Does it always stick at SYN_SENT? You aren't even getting as far as the three-way handshake if not. You really should be able to establish the FTP command channel to port 21 the FTP server, as that's just an ordinary outgoing tcp connection. At the moment it appears that the first ACK from the server isn't making it back to your client box, or maybe that your outgoing SYN packet isn't even making it to I think you were right ... i tested access to same the ftp site from another machine on my network and bingo, went straight through. This made me review the rules on my firewall. And there it was ... my masquerading for my dmz was wrong. I was telling the remote server to respond to 192.168.1.1! Doh! Silly mistake, but look at the awesome responses i got from the list! I've learned more from my silly mistake than I thought! :-) the server. The active/passive stuff can't be the problem as that only kicks in later on, when you try and open the FTP data channel. I didn't realize that and sort of just assumed cause that's what I'd always heard about. oops. Can you run tcpdump(1) on the external interface of your firewall to see if the traffic actually gets out of your system, and if any sort of packet comes back? Can you connect onto other FTP servers elsewhere around the world? Is this a problem with passive ftp? does anybody have any suggestions on how to get around this behind a masq'ing firewall that uses NAT? I tried opening all access to the server thru the firewall but it still fails. I think the problem is occurring at the TCP level, well before anything that would make a difference depending on whether you're running active or passive FTP. However, in case it is actually a problem at the FTP protocol level: take a look at the -punch_fw option to natd(8) -- that's what you need in order to get a FTP session going across a NAT'ing firewall. That's assuming that your firewall is running FreeBSD/ipwf/natd. I wrote a piece describing what goes on during an FTP session that you might find useful for setting up firewall rules. See http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/2003-August/ 000574.html Yes! Yes! That's really good. Thanks for pointing me that way ... my firewall is a dedicated box called Astaro, which is a linux-y thing. It's great, but this is piqueing my interest to build my own firewall. I'm off to play with tcpdump ... should done that in the first place as well! So much to learn! Thanks again! august Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
acessing ports from behind firewall
Hi all, I'm trying to access the ports collection from my FreeBSD 4.9 server running behind my firewall (Astaro, www.astaro.org). Whenever I run the make install command (or even just try to fetch for ftp) it just times out. A netstat -an shows: 192.168.1.2.1074 208.209.50.18.21 SYN_SENT which means I know am i getting name resolution and to the server, but ... Is this a problem with passive ftp? does anybody have any suggestions on how to get around this behind a masq'ing firewall that uses NAT? I tried opening all access to the server thru the firewall but it still fails. Any thoughts? i'm new to all this so be nice! :-) Thanks, August ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5.2 ISO won't boot
Hi all, I've had some trouble with booting from the 5.2 ISO I downloaded. Some background (long-winded, but bear with me): I downloaded 5.2RC2 disk1 and 5.2RC2 disk2 with Firebird on Red Hat 9. All seemed well. I scp'd those files to my Mac (Panther) and created dmg's and burned them to a CD. All looked well. I then tried to boot from the CD but it didn't work. I made sure all BIOS settings were set to boot from CD first. I tested with a WinXP install CD and it could boot from cd. I tried the FreeBSD cd on another machine and it failed as well (windows worked). Assuming I had messed up the burning I tried burning on windows with Nero. All looked well, but same result. Finally, I downloaded the mini-5.2RC2 iso thingy with IE on WinXP and burned it with nero and voila I could boot off the cd rom. I then downloaded 4.9 on my Mac and created a working bootable disk from the ISO with no problem. So, my question is: did downloading the 5.2RC2 ISO on Linux mess it up (ascii vs binary maybe - would that give the behavior I described? I think i read that somewhere). Maybe the scp killed it? Is 4.9 different than 5.2? (i read something somewhere about emulated el torito vs real el toritos, or something like that, which I don't understand). Any insight would be greatly appreciated ...I'm good to go with 4.9 but still curious how I messed the 5.2 download up! thanks, august ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
