Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: 3) It is an optional dependency of Man-DB (to be used instead of Man in the UTF-8 branch of the LFS book) Hrm? Has there been some decision there I've missed? No decision yet, but a proposal :) UTF-8 branch of the book doesn't exist yet,

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: 3) It is an optional dependency of Man-DB (to be used instead of Man in the UTF-8 branch of the LFS book) Hrm? Has there been some decision there I've missed? -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ U

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Bruce Dubbs wrote: Personally, I would like to use the ping and perhaps ping6 programs from iputils and move ncftp from blfs to lfs. ncftp has no prereqs. Why ncftp? I vote for Lynx for the following reasons: 1) It would also allow the reader to read the BLFS book :) 2) It supports HTTP 3) It

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Still doesn't work on Sparc64 works on Sparc. Netkit has been tested on all so it shouldn't be a problem. -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] LFS User # 2577 Registered Linux User # 299986 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/fa

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

M.Canales.es wrote: IMHO, for LFS we need only "ping" for FHS compliance. It's possible to build (and use) just Inetutil's ping on all archs? Doesn't work on Sparc -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] LFS User # 2577 Registered Linux User # 299986 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Jim Gifford wrote: Matt, Which direction do we want to go in. At the moment, I'm seriously considering dropping inetutils and replacing it with just 'ping' from iputils. As you outlined, none of these packages are maintained (to the degree we require at least), so it's really picking the

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Jim Gifford wrote: > Matt, >Which direction do we want to go in. > > Removal of inetutils -> > Replace with netkit_base and netkit_combo? (Same as what > inetutils is) > Pros - Works with all architectures(cross-lfs, known > to be stable) > Cons - Needs heavy patching

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

El Martes, 23 de Agosto de 2005 20:56, Jim Gifford escribió: > M.Canales.es wrote: > >IMHO, for LFS we need only "ping" for FHS compliance. It's possible to > > build (and use) just Inetutil's ping on all archs? > > Doesn't work on Sparc Debian have an inetutils ping for Sparc: http://packages.de

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

El Martes, 23 de Agosto de 2005 20:09, Jim Gifford escribió: > Matt, > Which direction do we want to go in. IMHO, for LFS we need only "ping" for FHS compliance. It's possible to build (and use) just Inetutil's ping on all archs? About "ftp", actually isn't a requisite for LFS. We could poin

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Matt, Which direction do we want to go in. Removal of inetutils -> Replace with netkit_base and netkit_combo? (Same as what inetutils is) Pros - Works with all architectures(cross-lfs, known to be stable) Cons - Needs heavy patching to work (

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

On 8/22/2005 21:22, Archaic wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:33:37PM -0400, Jason Gurtz wrote: >> >> available network connections. Hey, wouldn't it be cool if root could >> arbitrate how many of each type (TCP, UDP, ICMP) of connection each >> user/group had in each of its instance's heap. >

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:33:37PM -0400, Jason Gurtz wrote: > > Certainly raw sockets would be a huge risk, but I don't see how echo_reply > at a 1 per second rate or something is a problem. I guess a non-root user > could flood a host just as easily with some standard TCP packet--HTTP GET > for

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

On Aug 22, 2005, at 12:33 PM, Jason Gurtz wrote: Certainly raw sockets would be a huge risk, but I don't see how echo_reply at a 1 per second rate or something is a problem. Except you'd have to add a kernel interface just to send ICMP echo requests, along with whatever options you want to

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

On 8/22/2005 13:25, Matthew Burgess wrote: > Unless of course it happens to be inetutils-ping > (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-inetutils/2005-07/msg00030.html) :-) Ouch! ~Jason -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubsc

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

On 8/22/2005 13:16, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I think it would be a much greater security problem if sending icmp or > opening raw sockets by non-root users was allowed. Certainly raw sockets would be a huge risk, but I don't see how echo_reply at a 1 per second rate or something is a problem. I guess

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Bruce Dubbs wrote: Controlling access through a well audited executable with suid privs is a much more secure alternative. Unless of course it happens to be inetutils-ping (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-inetutils/2005-07/msg00030.html) :-) Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Jason Gurtz wrote: > On 8/22/2005 12:39, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > >>On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:03:49PM -0400, Jason Gurtz wrote: >> >> >>>That's crazy. Normal pings shouldn't require root. >> >>IIRC, the standard kernel socket interface simply has no way to send any >>kind of ICMP packet (echo-requ

RE: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

> Hmm, still think it's crazy. Maybe that's a missing feature in the > kernel? Somehow I think that'll never see the light of day. > > I looked and my ping is setuid. > > -rwsr-xr-x1 root root15876 Sep 4 2001 /bin/ping* Yep, it may be crazy, but that's how it is... Stops peo

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

On 8/22/2005 12:39, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:03:49PM -0400, Jason Gurtz wrote: > >> That's crazy. Normal pings shouldn't require root. > > IIRC, the standard kernel socket interface simply has no way to send any > kind of ICMP packet (echo-request included). Therefore, y

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Andrew Benton wrote: Jason Gurtz wrote: On 8/21/2005 10:54, Matthew Burgess wrote: ping.c:63 - "This program has to run SUID to ROOT to access the ICMP socket." That's crazy. Normal pings shouldn't require root. Only changing payload size or flooding or other such things should require

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Jason Gurtz wrote: On 8/21/2005 10:54, Matthew Burgess wrote: ping.c:63 - "This program has to run SUID to ROOT to access the ICMP socket." That's crazy. Normal pings shouldn't require root. Only changing payload size or flooding or other such things should require it. Netkit ping has this

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:03:49PM -0400, Jason Gurtz wrote: > On 8/21/2005 10:54, Matthew Burgess wrote: > > > ping.c:63 - "This program has to run SUID to ROOT to access the ICMP > > socket." > > That's crazy. Normal pings shouldn't require root. IIRC, the standard kernel socket interface si

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

On 8/21/2005 10:54, Matthew Burgess wrote: > ping.c:63 - "This program has to run SUID to ROOT to access the ICMP > socket." That's crazy. Normal pings shouldn't require root. Only changing payload size or flooding or other such things should require it. Netkit ping has this behavior. ...or

RE: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

> Yep, and I got a similar problem at work not so long ago! > the BUS ERROR > in that case was caused by free()ing an invalid pointer...no, > I know I'm > not too good at C! I'd imagine it's a similar problem in inetutils. > It's just a matter of tracking it down. I can't remember, > but d

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Chris Staub wrote: Just compiled, with GCC4. It compiles fine, and works as root, but not as a normal user. ping.c:63 - "This program has to run SUID to ROOT to access the ICMP socket." Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Matthew Burgess wrote: Matthew Burgess wrote: Regardless, I think there may well be some merit in getting iputils to compile on an LFS setup, given Bruce's argument of a better/more complete feature set. I may be in a position to do that later today, but of course, everyone else is more than

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Matthew Burgess wrote: Regardless, I think there may well be some merit in getting iputils to compile on an LFS setup, given Bruce's argument of a better/more complete feature set. I may be in a position to do that later today, but of course, everyone else is more than welcome to give it a go

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Jim Gifford wrote: Matthew Burgess wrote: Jim, do you know of any issues with inetutils' `ping' on your multi-arch/cross-lfs builds? I think I remember you mentioning a BUS ERROR you were getting on a Sparc box. Did you get that sorted? The author(inetutils) had no clue, he thinks it's a

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Matthew Burgess wrote: Jim, do you know of any issues with inetutils' `ping' on your multi-arch/cross-lfs builds? I think I remember you mentioning a BUS ERROR you were getting on a Sparc box. Did you get that sorted? Here is a link to my bug report with inetutils. http://savannah.gnu.or

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Matthew Burgess wrote: > iputils was mentioned by Ag > Hatzim, and is what my host (ubuntu) uses. Unfortunately, the very > first thing I see in the Makefile (and what caused my initial > compilation attempt to fail) is: > > KERNEL_INCLUDE=/usr/src/linux/include > > Ouch! It wants /usr/src/lin

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Tushar Teredesai([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 05:06:02PM -0500: > On 8/20/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tushar Teredesai wrote: > > > > > BTW, if there are no plans to remove inetutils, we might was well keep > > > the utils such as ftp and telnet that it current in

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

On 8/20/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote: > > > BTW, if there are no plans to remove inetutils, we might was well keep > > the utils such as ftp and telnet that it current installs. > > But that was one of the reasons I was proposing we remove it. 'ftp' > s

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Tushar Teredesai wrote: BTW, if there are no plans to remove inetutils, we might was well keep the utils such as ftp and telnet that it current installs. But that was one of the reasons I was proposing we remove it. 'ftp' simply doesn't compile out of the box on the gcc4 branch, and the only

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

On 8/20/05, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, I know. I guess my point was that this is old code and will not > compile as is. We don't know what other improvements have been made to > the program by other maintiners. My initial reaction is that it is not > really a viable candidat

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Bruce Dubbs wrote: My initial reaction is that it is not really a viable candidate for LFS. Understood and agreed. gcc-4.0.1 complains bitterly about it too, of course. I doubt it offers anything like the interface offered (and therefore probably expected) by more modern implementations, an

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Bruce Dubbs([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 03:56:00PM -0500: > > On 8/20/05, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>BTW, reexamining the subject line, if inetutils is removed, where is > >>ping installed? ping from iputils is compiled with gcc4 ftp://ftp.inr.ac.ru/ip-routing/iputils-

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Matthew Burgess wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> $ gcc -o ping ping.c >> ping.c: In function `main': >> ping.c:181: error: `SIGINT' undeclared (first use in this function) > > > Adding "#include " will fix that one, and the SIGALRM failure > too. Yes, I know. I guess my point was that this is

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Bruce Dubbs wrote: $ gcc -o ping ping.c ping.c: In function `main': ping.c:181: error: `SIGINT' undeclared (first use in this function) Adding "#include " will fix that one, and the SIGALRM failure too. As for the others, I'm not in a position to be able to analyse them at the moment (just

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Tushar Teredesai wrote: > On 8/20/05, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>BTW, reexamining the subject line, if inetutils is removed, where is >>ping installed? > > > How about the original ping ? :) > Hopefully it still compiles cleanly and works. >

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

On 8/20/05, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BTW, reexamining the subject line, if inetutils is removed, where is > ping installed? How about the original ping ? :) Hopefully it still compiles cleanly and works. -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PRO

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Matthew Burgess wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> Although not optimal, there should be *some* >> way of continuing from a successful reboot into LFS into BLFS or some >> other collection of packages via a network connection. >> >> There are other alternatives of course. Wget or a text based brows

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Bruce Dubbs wrote: Although not optimal, there should be *some* way of continuing from a successful reboot into LFS into BLFS or some other collection of packages via a network connection. There are other alternatives of course. Wget or a text based browser come to mind. That's why I mentione

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Matthew Burgess wrote: > The clients that inetutils installs either have more secure alternatives > (in the form of sftp, ssh, etc.) or are obscure enough (e.g. 'talk') to > be in the realm of hint material. The only exceptions to this I can > think of are the ftp client and ping binary. One cou

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/20/05 15:06 CST: > We actually have a situation in cross-lfs were we had to remove > inetutils since it work properly on Sparc builds. If it worked properly, why did you have to remove it? :-) (please don't answer, I know what you meant. I'm just making a joke

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

We actually have a situation in cross-lfs were we had to remove inetutils since it work properly on Sparc builds. http://documents.jg555.com/cross-lfs/sparc64-64/final-system/netkit_base.html -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] LFS User # 2577 Registered Linux User # 299986 -- http:

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/20/05 14:15 CST: > [snip all] I can go either way on this one. It will be something I install whether in LFS or not. However, if we remove it from LFS, does this mean we can move to GCC-4 as the default compiler? :-) -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.

Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Ag Hatzim wrote: > Should we drop the ftp client building from inetutils,for favor of > netkit-ftp. Funny you should mention that, we used to install netkit-base a few years ago. > And just for curiosity, may ask why inetutils belongs to LFS? See http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-arch