Shadow-4.0.11.1
Hi all, I would like to request that trunk be updated to the latest release of the Shadow package (4.0.11.1). There is an additional configure switch that needs to be added to enable shadowed groups, as you all are already aware. This would make it a bit simpler on the BLFS side, as a patch for PAM (that DJ submitted to the shadow folks and was accepted) would not be required in the instructions. Things just seem to work a bit better with PAM if we could update to the 4.0.11.1 version of Shadow. Thanks for considering my request. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 01:25:00 up 127 days, 58 min, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.28, 0.49 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
LFS Bootscripts
Hi all, I believe I've run across a bug in the LFS Bootscripts. It appears to me that if the concerned script (I've only tested BLFS scripts, but I suppose I could kill the sysklog stuff and try it) is not started, and you issue a /etc/rc.d/init.d/script status command, it will report that it is running, even though it is not. With a cursory glance at the function script, it appears to be some malfunction in the getpid section. I really didn't try to follow it, but it seems to me that it is doing a PS and reporting the PID of the PS process (which has the name in it, so I believe it *thinks* that the process is alive). It reports that the daemon is running with such-and-such PID, but that PID really doesn't exist except at the moment the status was checked. Can anyone else confirm this behavior? -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 14:30:00 up 127 days, 14:03, 2 users, load average: 0.67, 0.35, 0.48 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Inetutils FTP client and GCC4
Hi all, Some weird activity with the Inetutils FTP client when compiled with GCC-4.0.1. Note that a new patch has been introduced to the GCC-4 branch of LFS to correct GCC4 problems. This patch affects two files used to compile the ftp client program. If anybody can explain, or care to comment about the following screen output, I would appreciate it. Here's a summary of what is wrong: I can connect to any FTP server and successfully log in. However, upon issuing *any* command (pwd, ascii, get, cd, etc), it segfaults. Below is some screen output connecting to different FTP servers. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~ ftp rmlscsi Connected to rmlscsi.mcmurchy.prv. 220 rmlscsi.mcmurchy.prv FTP server (GNU inetutils 1.4.2) ready. Name (rmlscsi:randy): 331 Password required for randy. Password: 230 User randy logged in. Remote system type is UNIX. Using binary mode to transfer files. ftp pwd Segmentation fault [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~ ftp space.mit.edu Connected to space.mit.edu. 220-space.mit.edu NcFTPd Server (free educational license) ready. 220- 220-This server is operated by the MIT Center for Space Research. 220-Only anonymous FTP access is allowed to this server. Use the 220-login Name `ftp', and use your e-mail address for the password. 220- 220 Name (space.mit.edu:randy): ftp 331 Guest login ok, send your complete e-mail address as password. Password: 230 Logged in anonymously. Remote system type is UNIX. Using binary mode to transfer files. ftp pwd Segmentation fault [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~ ftp anduin.linuxfromscratch.org Connected to anduin.linuxfromscratch.org. 220 This is the LFS/BLFS package archive powered by ServerBeach. Name (anduin.linuxfromscratch.org:randy): anonymous 331 Please specify the password. Password: 230 Login successful. Remote system type is UNIX. Using binary mode to transfer files. ftp pwd Segmentation fault -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 15:38:00 up 127 days, 15:11, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.18 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Inetutils FTP client and GCC4
Some weird activity with the Inetutils FTP client when compiled with GCC-4.0.1. Note that a new patch has been introduced to the GCC-4 branch of LFS to correct GCC4 problems. This patch affects two files used to compile the ftp client program. If anybody can explain, or care to comment about the following screen output, I would appreciate it. Can you provide a backtrace from GDB for this? :) I'd be happy to take a look-see. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Inetutils FTP client and GCC4
David Fix wrote: Can you provide a backtrace from GDB for this? :) I'd be happy to take a look-see. :) ftp pwd Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x08051e47 in getcmd (name=0x80598a0 pwd) at main.c:393 393 for (q = name; *q == *p++; q++) (gdb) bt #0 0x08051e47 in getcmd (name=0x80598a0 pwd) at main.c:393 #1 0x080521b8 in cmdscanner (top=1) at main.c:355 #2 0x080525ad in main (argc=2, argv=0xbe24) at main.c:233 Reproduced here (thanks for the report Randy!) by connecting to ftp.gnu.org as anonymous then doing a 'pwd'. Cheers, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
packaging/compiling your distro
Hi, Not quiet sure of the correct terminology, but does anyone know if it is possible o compile/package your distro (like make it into a file that can be easily installed) something similar to ALFS but will also add anything extra. For example, so I create my own LFS distro, and add a WM and some other things and configure it all to a specific look/feel/purpose, how would I go about putting it all into one file that can be installed on a blank system (a setup file?) I have been looking round, but I am new here, so I apologize if this has already been posted Thanks Dom -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Inetutils FTP client and GCC4
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x08051e47 in getcmd (name=0x80598a0 pwd) at main.c:393 393 for (q = name; *q == *p++; q++) (gdb) bt #0 0x08051e47 in getcmd (name=0x80598a0 pwd) at main.c:393 #1 0x080521b8 in cmdscanner (top=1) at main.c:355 #2 0x080525ad in main (argc=2, argv=0xbe24) at main.c:233 Reproduced here (thanks for the report Randy!) by connecting to ftp.gnu.org as anonymous then doing a 'pwd'. Thanks Matt. :) Hm... Can you do the following commands and show me the output? (Now you're making me want to build myself a 4.01 build! :P) ---Perform the following--- print q print p print name One of them is probably pointing somewhere it shouldn't, and that's the problem. :) Once I see these, I'll see if there's anything that I can find out. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Inetutils FTP client and GCC4
David Fix wrote: One of them is probably pointing somewhere it shouldn't, and that's the problem. :) Once I see these, I'll see if there's anything that I can find out. :) Looks like 'q' is the culprit: (gdb) print p $1 = 0x73550022 Address 0x73550022 out of bounds (gdb) print q $2 = 0x1 Address 0x1 out of bounds (gdb) print name $3 = 0x80598a0 pwd -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Inetutils FTP client and GCC4
Looks like 'q' is the culprit: (gdb) print q $2 = 0x1 Address 0x1 out of bounds Looks like it to me too. :) I'm taking a look right now to see if I can't find the problem. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Inetutils FTP client and GCC4
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:46:56 -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: Hi all, Some weird activity with the Inetutils FTP client when compiled with GCC-4.0.1. Note that a new patch has been introduced to the GCC-4 branch of LFS to correct GCC4 problems. This patch affects two files used to compile the ftp client program. If anybody can explain, or care to comment about the following screen output, I would appreciate it. Here's a summary of what is wrong: I can connect to any FTP server and successfully log in. However, upon issuing *any* command (pwd, ascii, get, cd, etc), it segfaults. Below is some screen output connecting to different FTP servers. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~ ftp rmlscsi Connected to rmlscsi.mcmurchy.prv. 220 rmlscsi.mcmurchy.prv FTP server (GNU inetutils 1.4.2) ready. Name (rmlscsi:randy): 331 Password required for randy. Password: 230 User randy logged in. Remote system type is UNIX. Using binary mode to transfer files. ftp pwd Segmentation fault [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~ ftp space.mit.edu Connected to space.mit.edu. 220-space.mit.edu NcFTPd Server (free educational license) ready. 220- 220-This server is operated by the MIT Center for Space Research. 220-Only anonymous FTP access is allowed to this server. Use the 220-login Name `ftp', and use your e-mail address for the password. 220- 220 Name (space.mit.edu:randy): ftp 331 Guest login ok, send your complete e-mail address as password. Password: 230 Logged in anonymously. Remote system type is UNIX. Using binary mode to transfer files. ftp pwd Segmentation fault [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~ ftp anduin.linuxfromscratch.org Connected to anduin.linuxfromscratch.org. 220 This is the LFS/BLFS package archive powered by ServerBeach. Name (anduin.linuxfromscratch.org:randy): anonymous 331 Please specify the password. Password: 230 Login successful. Remote system type is UNIX. Using binary mode to transfer files. ftp pwd Segmentation fault Hello, I discovered this problem way back when I did an SVN-20050428 build with gcc-4.0.0. I used netkit-ftp's code cause it seemed more proper than how inetutils ftp was doing it. Take a look and compare the code, you might see where inetutils is messing up. I kind of have a clue that it is in the termination of strings causing the out of bounds, I haven't the time to declare that true. William -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Shadow/CrackLib - A compromise?
Hi all, Well, I must say I thoroughly enjoyed the debate about adding CrackLib to LFS. There was a bunch of ideas thrown around. It seemed healthy for the list. Anyway, some of the folks who provided arguments why CrackLib should not be added had very good ideas about LFS, goals, etc. I tend to agree with those that said they didn't like the idea that CrackLib be forced into the build. Hey, if you don't want it, don't install it! There is merit in those words. However, to me, it is negligent on our part to completely omit a mention of CrackLib in LFS. That said, how about this for a compromise: In the Shadow instructions, a little note at the beginning of the package instructions saying that if you would like the system configured to support strong passwords, install CrackLib and add --with-libcrack to the configure script. It could probably be done in one sentence, two max, with a link to the BLFS CrackLib instructions. This informs folks that there is a mechanism available by installing one simple package to enforce strong passwords, and keeps the BLFS guys from having to modify the BLFS Shadow instructions to include a way to re-install Shadow without PAM and still have CrackLib available. What say the group? -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 20:40:00 up 127 days, 20:13, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.17 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Shadow/CrackLib - A compromise?
Randy McMurchy wrote: In the Shadow instructions, a little note at the beginning of the package instructions saying that if you would like the system configured to support strong passwords, install CrackLib and add --with-libcrack to the configure script. It could probably be done in one sentence, two max, with a link to the BLFS CrackLib instructions. Maybe change support to either enforce or require (cracklib doesn't actually change the way passwords are hashed or anything; it just checks them against a dictionary). But yeah, this sounds like a good idea to me. :-) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS Bootscripts
S. Anthony Sequeira wrote: Since then I have always used the following when searching for a string in a ps listing, assuming that the search string is sys: $ ps -eadf | grep [s]ys root 1604 1 0 12:08 ?00:00:00 syslog-ng here is one that doesn't work: $ ps -eadf | grep sys root 1604 1 0 12:08 ?00:00:00 syslog-ng sherwin 14316 14297 0 20:53 pts/100:00:00 grep --color=auto sys HTH I usually just use ps -C syslog-ng, since I normally know the binary that I'm searching for. I think -C is a Linux extension; I don't think it works everywhere. But given that the bootscripts are *for* a Linux system, I don't think there's much harm in using it. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Shadow/CrackLib - A compromise?
Randy McMurchy wrote: In the Shadow instructions, a little note at the beginning of the package instructions saying that if you would like the system configured to support strong passwords, install CrackLib and add --with-libcrack to the configure script. +1 Justin -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: packaging/compiling your distro
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 10:08:24PM +0100, Dom wrote: Not quiet sure of the correct terminology, but does anyone know if it is possible o compile/package your distro (like make it into a file that can be easily installed) something similar to ALFS but will also add anything extra. You should post this to blfs-support. This list is for development of the LFS book. Check out http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/mail.html -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Shadow/CrackLib - A compromise?
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 08:50:59PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: It could probably be done in one sentence, two max, with a link to the BLFS CrackLib instructions. How's this wording grab you? http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~archaic/lfs-trunk/chapter06/shadow.html -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS Bootscripts
Randy McMurchy wrote: It reports that the daemon is running with such-and-such PID, but that PID really doesn't exist except at the moment the status was checked. IIRC, in the past, we had used the -x switch to pidof and that was removed in favor of '-o $PPID -o $$'. The -x should definately be removed as this would be broken with backround scripts (popbeforesmtp is the only example I can come up with right off the top of my head. It's written in perl and would fail to show with -x). Now both are used with the LSB style pidofproc function. Will test with all shells and get back in a few moments regarding $$ and $PPID to see if that is possibly the issue. Randy what shell is linked to /bin/sh on your system? Anyway, there is definately a bug if it's returning the PID of the running script, but there is also a problem in your script as you should be passing the full path of the binary to statusproc; Well, unless that is a symlink in which case pidof will find the PIDs of the target. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS Bootscripts
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 11:05:01PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: Anyway, there is definately a bug if it's returning the PID of the running script, but there is also a problem in your script as you should be passing the full path of the binary to statusproc; Well, unless that is a symlink in which case pidof will find the PIDs of the target. This is even in the case of the script calling the full path daemon. -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS Bootscripts
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/07/05 23:05 CST: Randy what shell is linked to /bin/sh on your system? /bin/bash Should be easy enough to check out. Did it on a hand made script I have for vixie-cron and it did it on the BLFS xinetd script as well. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 23:10:00 up 127 days, 22:43, 5 users, load average: 1.52, 1.04, 0.57 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Shadow/CrackLib - A compromise?
Archaic wrote these words on 08/07/05 22:55 CST: How's this wording grab you? I feel terrible. I have made a huge mistake. There is another configuration that must be done for Shadow to use CrackLib. In the command that creates the /etc/login.defs file, the following addition to the existing sed command is necessary: -e s|CRACKLIB_DICTPATH\t/var/cache/cracklib/cracklib_dict|CRACKLIB_DICTPATH\t/lib/cracklib/pw_dict| I'm sorry about the late notice, however, I'm glad I went back and looked at my build notes. Is there any way you can work this into the instructions, without them becoming too difficult for folks to understand? -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 23:17:00 up 127 days, 22:50, 5 users, load average: 1.13, 1.12, 0.77 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS Bootscripts
DJ Lucas wrote: status) echo PID of current script is $$ echo Parent PID is $PPID echo This is the statusproc of sshd statusproc sshd echo This is the statusproc of /usr/sbin/sshd statusproc sshd ;; All of that and there was an error in my script! Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, the results were the same. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS Bootscripts
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/07/05 23:22 CST: Randy, my functions are heavily modified ATM. To make sure that this is not a different issue, can you run the same test and post back? It doesn't matter which script, just use one that is running. Here is what I inserted: status) # statusproc /usr/sbin/xinetd echo PID of current script is $$ echo Parent PID is $PPID echo This is the statusproc of xinetd statusproc xinetd echo This is the statusproc of /usr/sbin/xinetd statusproc /usr/sbin/xinetd ;; And here is what is returned: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /etc/rc.d/init.d ./xinetd status PID of current script is 19030 Parent PID is 18990 This is the statusproc of xinetd xinetd is running with Process ID(s) 19033 10799. This is the statusproc of /usr/sbin/xinetd xinetd is running with Process ID(s) 10799. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /etc/rc.d/init.d ./xinetd status PID of current script is 19037 Parent PID is 18990 This is the statusproc of xinetd xinetd is running with Process ID(s) 19040 10799. This is the statusproc of /usr/sbin/xinetd xinetd is running with Process ID(s) 10799. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 23:36:01 up 127 days, 23:09, 5 users, load average: 0.01, 0.13, 0.36 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Shadow/CrackLib - A compromise?
Archaic wrote these words on 08/07/05 23:51 CST: I'm wondering if perhaps another note just prior to the original sed would be apropo, or if it should all be placed in the main note. The latter seems rather disconnected to me. I'm thinking it would be best inside the beginning note. 2 reasons. 1) The disconnection you mention 2) The command is long. It prolly won't fit on a PDF page so it needs to be split with a backslash and then *no* spaces before the rest of the command. This would look much better inside the note box than if it were just on the page not inside a box. A short sentence after what you already have saying the following additional script is necessary to the command below that creates the /etc/login.defs file is necessary. Please reword, but you know what I'm driving at. (sed considers any -e data to be a script, phrase it as you feel necessary) -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 23:51:01 up 127 days, 23:24, 5 users, load average: 0.08, 0.08, 0.18 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Shadow/CrackLib - A compromise?
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/07/05 23:55 CST: I'm thinking it would be best inside the beginning note. 2 reasons. 1) The disconnection you mention 2) The command is long. It prolly won't fit on a PDF page so it needs to be split with a backslash and then *no* spaces before the rest of the command. This would look much better inside the note box than if it were just on the page not inside a box. Sorry for the confusion. I am tired and not thinking good this evening. Of course, the disconnection you mentioned means we need the command before the sed later in the instructions when /etc/login.defs is created. Perhaps a note there as well? It does now make the instructions rather disjointed though, with two different notes about CrackLib in there. Opinions from others are welcome. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 00:01:00 up 127 days, 23:34, 5 users, load average: 0.60, 0.21, 0.17 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS Bootscripts
DJ Lucas wrote:
Archaic wrote:
Of course it increments.
$$ increments 3 times while running the script only once. Maybe I've
just lost myself again.
BTW. My recolection of -x was incorrect. After reading the manpage of
pidof, I realized my error. :-) Reverse what I said. -x is required to
pick up the scripts, it was removed at one time and found to be broken
so then '-o $$ -o $PPID' was added to getpids().
-- DJ Lucas
Never mind. $$ is not actually incrementing, but I don't know what
processes pidof is finding when running that script. Creating a second
functions script with only statusproc and getpids using the same 'pidof
-o $$ -o $PPID -x ${1}' gives the proper result. It looks as if pidof
it's finding it's own PID but that can't be either because it does not
find itself in the second example. I'm at a loss. Will revisit after
some sleep.
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Shadow/CrackLib - A compromise?
Archaic wrote these words on 08/08/05 00:44 CST: As soon as the render is done, you can find the 2 notes example here: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~archaic/lfs-trunk/chapter06/shadow.html This would work. I would use [command] tags for the word 'sed' and I would for sure make the '-e ...' stuff in a [literal] tag so that it is all on one line though. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 00:53:00 up 128 days, 26 min, 5 users, load average: 0.28, 0.48, 0.68 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
