Philip Hands wrote:
ppp is needed for doing an install from the internet via a dialup link. PAM
is not needed until you want people to log into the system, so libpam is a
waste of space on the install disks.
The only advantage I can see is a couple of kilobytes of space on the
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Adam P. Harris wrote:
Maybe I should submit this as a wishlist to the bug system, but I was
interested in getting some comments first.
I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use
'run-parts' against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/.
Sounds
Philip Hands wrote:
ppp is needed for doing an install from the internet via a dialup link.
PAM is not needed until you want people to log into the system, so libpam
is a waste of space on the install disks.
The only advantage I can see is a couple of kilobytes of space on the
Philip Hands wrote:
I thought that, until I noticed that libpam depends upon libpam-util, which
depends upon libpwdb0, which together come to about 180k compressed.
I think you should file a bug report against libpam so it doesn't depend on
libpam-util. I don't see why a library package
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Philip Hands wrote:
My first attempt at this was to add these lines to the scripts:
# These variables are for the use of the scripts run by run-parts
PPP_IFACE=$1
PPP_TTY=$2
PPP_SPEED=$3
PPP_LOCAL=$4
PPP_REMOTE=$5
export PPP_IFACE PPP_TTY
Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I thought that, until I noticed that libpam depends upon
libpam-util, which depends upon libpwdb0, which together come to
about 180k compressed.
I think you should file a bug report against libpam so it doesn't
depend on libpam-util. I don't see why
Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If people really think it is necesary I can add:
PPP_TTYNAME=`/usr/bin/basename $2`
I think this is a bad idea. Anyone who wants to do this, can, and
throwing away information in situations like this is usually a bad
idea.
Consider this (obviouly
Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note, that I'm not saying that I can come up with a good argument why
it would be important to be able to make this distinction (or to even
do what I'm depicting in the example), but I am saying that since I
can't prove to myself that the exact arguement
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note, that I'm not saying that I can come up with a good argument why
it would be important to be able to make this distinction (or to even
do what I'm depicting in the example), but I am saying that since I
Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If people really think it is necesary I can add:
PPP_TTYNAME=`/usr/bin/basename $2`
I think this is a bad idea. Anyone who wants to do this, can, and
throwing away information in situations like this is usually a bad
idea.
If I were
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
o By linking ppp with pam you are dragging libpam0g, libpam0g-util and
libpwdb0g into base.
This is fine, *as long as* it's been discussed and agreed first, I
don't like 3 shared library packages being silently dragged into
base. If we're going
Philip == Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My first attempt at this was to add these lines to the scripts:
# These variables are for the use of the scripts run by run-parts
PPP_IFACE=$1
PPP_TTY=$2
PPP_SPEED=$3
PPP_LOCAL=$4
PPP_REMOTE=$5
export PPP_IFACE PPP_TTY PPP_SPEED
And there is one thing
which I would qualify as a mistake in the above description: $2 is
actually in the form /dev/ttyS1 than just ttyS1.
Doh! I wish they wouldn't do that. I guess it's for some kinda
security?
...A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]URL:http://www.onShore.com/
Well, as it
And there is one thing
which I would qualify as a mistake in the above description: $2 is
actually in the form /dev/ttyS1 than just ttyS1.
Doh! I wish they wouldn't do that. I guess it's for some kinda
security?
...A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]URL:http://www.onShore.com/
Philip Hands writes:
If people really think it is necesary I can add:
PPP_TTYNAME=`/usr/bin/basename $2`
export PPP_TTYNAME
to the ip-{up,down} scripts.
Please do. The pppd man page is not at all clear on this point. This
addition could save a user trying to get a script working a
A. P. Harris writes:
I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use 'run-parts'
against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/.
This would allow, for instance, MTA packages to ship little scripts to
flush the mail queue when the link comes up, pop-deamons to start up,
Karl M. Hegbloom writes:
I think the main thing is that a person with very little experience
should be led through the initial setup by a script, at the very least.
It would be good to tell them about `minicom', with some instructions on
how to use it to get the info they need to construct a
So do I. I first asked Christoph for this back in the spring, and I've since
asked Phil Hands about it when he took over the package and I've seen nothing
happen yet..
It's on my TODO list. I was intending to release a package including this
this evening, but I've just wasted a couple of
Yann Dirson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adam P. Harris writes:
I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use
'run-parts' against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/.
This would allow, for instance, MTA packages to ship little scripts to
flush the mail queue
Adam P. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use
'run-parts' against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/.
Stunningly good idea. Make it so :
--
Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94 53 2B 97
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How fast are isp's converting to pap? No point in putting a lot of
work into dealing with chatscripts if they are going away soon.
I believe that there will soon (if not already) be very few ISPs which
don't support PAP or CHAP. chat isn't going to be used for
Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I thought I'd call the PAM-free ppp package ppp-base, like perl-base.
I'm still not sure about the best way to do this though. It looks like the
only thing that needs to be different is the pppd binary, so:
Should I make ppp contain only the pppd
Brian == Brian Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yann Dirson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adam P. Harris writes:
I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use
'run-parts' against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/.
This would allow, for instance, MTA packages to ship
[ Brokenly-long lines wrapped ]
Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ppp is needed for doing an install from the internet via a dialup
link. PAM is not needed until you want people to log into the
system, so libpam is a waste of space on the install disks.
I'm not certain it's worth the
On Tue, Dec 16, 1997 at 11:35:23AM +0500, Adam P. Harris wrote:
...
For example, I have configured my ip-up script to start fetchmail
(in daemon mode) and grab articles for my local news spool unless
the file /etc/no_mail exists. Therefore, if I need to quickly dial
in, say to fetch a
[You ([EMAIL PROTECTED])]
FWIW I've been using run-parts in ip-up and ip-down for some time now,
the scripts reconfigure stuff based on my ip address (2 ISPs) etc.
and everything works like a charm. I dunno about packages placing
scripts in ip-[up|down].d/ -- I'd rather put them in
[You ([EMAIL PROTECTED])]
FWIW I've been using run-parts in ip-up and ip-down for some time now,
the scripts reconfigure stuff based on my ip address (2 ISPs) etc.
and everything works like a charm. I dunno about packages placing
scripts in ip-[up|down].d/ -- I'd rather put them in
Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any better suggestions ?
run-parts should pass arguments which follow the directory.
--
Raul
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
FWIW I've been using run-parts in ip-up and ip-down for some time now,
the scripts reconfigure stuff based on my ip address (2 ISPs) etc.
and everything works like a charm. I dunno about packages placing
scripts in ip-[up|down].d/ -- I'd rather put them in
/usr/doc/package/examples.
One
Adam P. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe I should submit this as a wishlist to the bug system, but I was
interested in getting some comments first.
I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use
'run-parts' against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/.
Maybe I should submit this as a wishlist to the bug system, but I was
interested in getting some comments first.
I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use
'run-parts' against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/.
This would allow, for instance, MTA packages to ship
I think this is a very good idea. I know that the ipmasq package would
greatly benefit from this kind of arangement.
Brian
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Adam P. Harris wrote:
Maybe I should submit this as a wishlist to the bug system, but I was
interested in getting some comments first.
I think
Adam P. Harris wrote:
Maybe I should submit this as a wishlist to the bug system, but I was
interested in getting some comments first.
I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use
'run-parts' against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/.
So do I. I first asked
This would be helpful for my new wvdial package as well -- from a user
interface standpoint, I would like to have a way for pppd to call me back
once we're properly connected.
Avery
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Adam P. Harris wrote:
Maybe I should submit this as a wishlist to the bug system, but I
Adam == Adam P Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adam Maybe I should submit this as a wishlist to the bug system,
Adam but I was interested in getting some comments first.
Red Hat 5.0 has a complex network configuration setup... I didn't
have time to look it over in detail, but think
Adam P. Harris writes:
I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use
'run-parts' against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/.
This would allow, for instance, MTA packages to ship little scripts to
flush the mail queue when the link comes up, pop-deamons to start
36 matches
Mail list logo
