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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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/
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
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
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
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
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
--
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
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,
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 $$'. The -x should
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 11:05:01PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
Anyway, there is definately a bug if it's returning the PID of the
running script, but there is also a problem in your script as you should
be passing the full path of the binary to statusproc; Well, unless that
is a symlink in which
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/07/05 23:05 CST:
Randy what shell is linked to /bin/sh on your system?
/bin/bash
Should be easy enough to check out. Did it on a hand made script
I have for vixie-cron and it did it on the BLFS xinetd script as
well.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version
Archaic wrote these words on 08/07/05 22:55 CST:
How's this wording grab you?
I feel terrible. I have made a huge mistake. There is another
configuration that must be done for Shadow to use CrackLib. In the
command that creates the /etc/login.defs file, the following addition
to the existing
DJ Lucas wrote:
status)
echo PID of current script is $$
echo Parent PID is $PPID
echo This is the statusproc of sshd
statusproc sshd
echo This is the statusproc of /usr/sbin/sshd
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)
#
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
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
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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
