On Sat, Mar 27, 1999 at 10:25:02PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Dan, would you consider providing some way for the installation location
> to be different than the final run location?
The method I have used (successfully) is to set up conf-home for the run
location, do a make, and then set conf-h
"Mark" == Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But I'm sure djb knows his way is better, so this is all a
>> waste of breath now, isn't it.
Mark> So lemme get this right. Dan B. has written and made freely
Mark> available an MTA that many people like. Russell N. has set
On 27 Mar 1999, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jay Soffian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Russ" == Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Russ> make
> > Russ> make install
> > Russ> ./install /depot/col//bin < BIN
> > Russ> ./install /depot/col//man < MAN
> > For what is that sup
Jay Soffian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ> make
> Russ> make install
> Russ> ./install /depot/col//bin < BIN
> Russ> ./install /depot/col//man < MAN
> For what is that supposed to work? It doesn't work for ucspi-tcp-0.84
On 28-Mar-99 Jay Soffian wrote:
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Russ> make
> Russ> make install
> Russ> ./install /depot/col//bin < BIN
> Russ> ./install /depot/col//man < MAN
>
> For what is that supposed to work? It doesn't work for ucspi-tcp-0.84.
"Russ" == Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russ> make
Russ> make install
Russ> ./install /depot/col//bin < BIN
Russ> ./install /depot/col//man < MAN
For what is that supposed to work? It doesn't work for ucspi-tcp-0.84.
j.
--
Jay Soffian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jay Soffian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, none of djb's packages like the idea of compiling a program to
> look in one place and installing it in another. We use depot for all our
> package installes, so we compile packages to look in /usr/local, but
> install them in /depot/col/. All of dj
Mark Delany writes:
> Even more people have provided thousands of hours of free support
> on this list
Your modesty becomes you. Mark D. is one of the people who provides
that support, and an excellent job you do, too.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr sup
>But I'm sure djb knows his way is better, so this is all a waste of
>breath now, isn't it.
So lemme get this right. Dan B. has written and made freely available an MTA
that many people like. Russell N. has set up a web site to help distribute
information about that MTA. Numerous others are run
"Scott" == Scott D Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I've had tcpserver compile just fine even with HP's broken
>> compiler. It seems as if you're trying to find fault just to
>> try and prove your point. If you know/knew in advance of your
>> non-standard compiler setup yo
Cris Daniluk writes:
> I've adminned Solaris for years and I definitely don't have cc linked to gcc.
> It causes headaches often, but I typically grep cc * ahead of time if no
> autoconf is present... quickly replacing cc with gcc solves things but I must
> agree with you, this is NOT the users r
"Scott D. Yelich" wrote:
> On 23 Mar 1999, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > "Standard Solaris machine" is not the same thing as a "Standard UNIX
> > > machine". A standard UNIX machine comes with a functioning C compiler.
> > Solaris doesn't. HP-UX comes with someth
>Which might result in my dumbing it down too much, but that's another problem.
It's a risk worth taking. Think of the audience as reading at the
level of 5th-graders or so. That doesn't necessarily mean dumbing
it down. It does mean picking and using consistent terms for things,
writing clear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> No need to edit the Makefile to set the compiler option. As a feature of
> make you can pass the necessary parameters from the command line like
> so:- 'make CC=gcc' or whatever compiler is necessary. At no stage is it
> absolutely necessary to edit the make file.
Hav
On 24-Mar-99 Cris Daniluk wrote:
> Racer X wrote:
>
>> > Why not mention *this* in this INSTALL?
>> >
>> > How many people here had to ask or figure this out for
>> > themselves provided that they didn't have "cc" working?
>>
>> Uh, you're kidding, right?
>>
>> I think the assumption is that you
"Scott D. Yelich" wrote:
> This may not be the place to ask... and I'm not sure I'd like
> the answers -- but I'll ask anyway:
>
> (1) is it standard (practice) to link cc to gcc? (and who says it is
> standard practice?)
> and
> (2) how many people here have done this?
>
> As far as linking cc
> > Uh, you're kidding, right?
> >
> > I think the assumption is that you won't be messing around with
compiling a
> > new mail server (or anything else for that matter) from scratch if you
> > can't even figure out your compiler. I've yet to find a stock system
with
> > development tools install
Racer X wrote:
> > Why not mention *this* in this INSTALL?
> >
> > How many people here had to ask or figure this out for
> > themselves provided that they didn't have "cc" working?
>
> Uh, you're kidding, right?
>
> I think the assumption is that you won't be messing around with compiling a
> ne
"Scott D. Yelich" wrote:
>
> How many people here had to ask or figure this out for
> themselves provided that they didn't have "cc" working?
I did. It was a quite fix but it was one which could have been avoided.
That's what autoconf & automake are for.
--
Text written by Scott D. Yelich at 07:02 PM 3/23/99 -0700:
>
>Regarding the wrapper -- yes, the wrapper is a decent idea. Then
>everyone would have to be educated (ie: forced?) to use that command and
>not an alternative such as npasswd, etc. Of course, the only way to
>do this would probably be
On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Julian L.C. Brown wrote:
>
> >That's all (I'm trying to say).
>
> Whatever it is you are trying to say, take it to private message. I read
> the qmail list for qmail oriented messages not nonsense.
>
> Julian
>
>
No need to copy me, Julian, I'm on the list.
Vince.
-
>People miss my humor so much I sometimes think I'm not funny.
There might be a clue in there somewhere. :)
tq vm, (burley)
P.S. I'm at least half-kidding, as I often run into the same sort of thing.
>That's all (I'm trying to say).
Whatever it is you are trying to say, take it to private message. I read
the qmail list for qmail oriented messages not nonsense.
Julian
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
>
> Then comes qmail, et al., does it use Makefile with
> CC=gcc? no. Does it use ./Configure? no. It says
> "type make; make config check; # that's all!"
>
No need to edit the Makefile to set the compiler option. As a
feature of make you ca
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> So, this client owns their own isp. They have root access. They often
> type "passwd" without an account to change the password for one of
> their account -- yet they zap the root password. Ignore my solution --
> how would you prevent this provid
Regarding the wrapper -- yes, the wrapper is a decent idea. Then
everyone would have to be educated (ie: forced?) to use that command and
not an alternative such as npasswd, etc. Of course, the only way to
do this would probably be to disable the old passwd (and wonder
what that breaks). It's
Text written by Scott D. Yelich at 06:46 PM 3/23/99 -0700:
>
>> >the root command (since it's not a single person who does this).
>> Around "the root command"? Personally, I'd write a wrapper around the
>> _passwd_ command, partly _because_ more than one person keeps making this
>> mistake.
>
>god
> *sigh*
>
> You just don't get it... do you.
>
> I have a standard compiler set up. I have gcc. I do not have cc.
ahem. earlier you were complaining about "cc" being installed on solaris
but not working because hey, guess what, it WASN'T really installed. now
you are saying that you have a "
> >the root command (since it's not a single person who does this).
> Around "the root command"? Personally, I'd write a wrapper around the
> _passwd_ command, partly _because_ more than one person keeps making this
> mistake.
god damn, jump down my throat why don't you?
People miss my humor so
Text written by Scott D. Yelich at 05:44 PM 3/23/99 -0700:
>
>So, this client owns their own isp. They have root access. They often
>type "passwd" without an account to change the password for one of
>their account -- yet they zap the root password. Ignore my solution --
>how would you prevent
(If I sound upset, btw, I'm not. So don't read that into tone; it's not
meant.)
Scott D Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> hahah fine. I'll leave it at the code that I used to benchmark sun
> ultra code from sunpro-cc and gcc -- the sunpro-cc was 20% faster.
> That's how I base my opinio
On 23 Mar 1999, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Standard Solaris machine" is not the same thing as a "Standard UNIX
> > machine". A standard UNIX machine comes with a functioning C compiler.
> Solaris doesn't. HP-UX comes with something that's functioning only under
>
> Scott D Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Don't create multiple UID 0 accounts. You'll horribly regret it later.
> >> Been there, done that.
> > Why do people say this? What the hell does it matter?
> * Those extra accounts look like normal accounts but can't be dealt with
>via norm
Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 04:32 PM Tuesday 3/23/99, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Mark, that's a standard compiler setup for a Solaris machine. Seriously.
> What?! That the compiler is called gcc is a standard Solaris setup? Now
> I don't understand. None of the Solaris machines I h
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Standard Solaris machine" is not the same thing as a "Standard UNIX
> machine". A standard UNIX machine comes with a functioning C compiler.
Solaris doesn't. HP-UX comes with something that's functioning only under
the most general possible definition of the
> Scott D Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > bingo. Lets say I had your setup. Fine, I type make and it uses "cc"
> > .. which, if it's sunpro, is better than gcc anyway,
> That's a matter of opinion.
hahah fine. I'll leave it at the code that I used
to benchmark sun ultra code from s
At 04:32 PM Tuesday 3/23/99, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> At 05:10 PM Tuesday 3/23/99, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
>
>>> I have a standard compiler set up. I have gcc. I do not have cc.
>
>> Ahh. You mean you have a NON-standard compiler setup. Now I understand.
>
>
Scott D. Yelich writes:
>
> > > chmod 755 compile
> > > ./compile tcpclient.c
> > > ./compile: cc: not found
> > > *** Error code 1
> > Bad example.
>
> not a bad example. get a standard solaris machine (without
> paying for sun's sunpro cc) and install gcc.
"Standard Solaris machine" is not
Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 05:10 PM Tuesday 3/23/99, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
>> I have a standard compiler set up. I have gcc. I do not have cc.
> Ahh. You mean you have a NON-standard compiler setup. Now I understand.
Mark, that's a standard compiler setup for a Solaris mach
At 05:10 PM Tuesday 3/23/99, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
>> I've had tcpserver compile just fine even with HP's broken compiler. It
>> seems as if you're trying to find fault just to try and prove your point.
>> If you know/knew in advance of your non-standard compiler setup you'd be
>> prepared for i
Scott D. Yelich wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> ./Configure is nice... but it's not the only way. Dan's way works --
> once you've dug through the source. Gee, one line in the install/readme
> would prevent this.
stefanp@horatio[qmail-1.03]$ head -1 Makefile
# Don't edit Makefile! Use conf-* for co
Scott D Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why does one have to read the qmail FAQ just to be able to install qmail
> Can you answer that?
Please name a fully-functional Internet MTA for which you do not have to
read the documentation to install it.
RPMs don't count.
(Yes, I agree with you t
Scott D Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> bingo. Lets say I had your setup. Fine, I type make and it uses "cc"
> .. which, if it's sunpro, is better than gcc anyway,
That's a matter of opinion.
> but *if* I wanted to compile using gcc? How would I do that? I'd have to
> dig through the so
> > chmod 755 compile
> > ./compile tcpclient.c
> > ./compile: cc: not found
> > *** Error code 1
> Bad example.
not a bad example. get a standard solaris machine (without
paying for sun's sunpro cc) and install gcc.
try to compile anything of dans for the first time
(ie; first time compile,
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> > I've had tcpserver compile just fine even with HP's broken compiler. It
> > seems as if you're trying to find fault just to try and prove your point.
> > If you know/knew in advance of your non-standard compiler setup you'd be
> > prepared for it.
Scott D. Yelich writes:
[ snip ]
> chmod 755 compile
> ./compile tcpclient.c
> ./compile: cc: not found
> *** Error code 1
Bad example.
If you do not have a functioning C compiler installed on your system, you
have no business compiling or installing any software, not just Qmail.
[ snip ]
>
> Everything that you have to compile depends on the name of the C compiler.
> I edited conf-cc and conf-ld once when I was first building qmail, saved
> it as a local patch, and problem was forever solved. One gets very used
> to doing that on Solaris to get things to compile with gcc instead,
>
> I've had tcpserver compile just fine even with HP's broken compiler. It
> seems as if you're trying to find fault just to try and prove your point.
> If you know/knew in advance of your non-standard compiler setup you'd be
> prepared for it.
*sigh*
You just don't get it... do you.
I have a s
Scott D Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Fine. Be hostile -- you're not hurting me. Try any solaris system.
> security [4258]> /usr/ucb/cc
> /usr/ucb/cc: language optional software package not installed
windlord:~> ls /usr/ucb/cc
ls: /usr/ucb/cc: No such file or directory
windlord:~> una
On 23-Mar-99 Scott D. Yelich wrote:
>> > Why not mention *this* in this INSTALL?
>> > How many people here had to ask or figure this out for
>> > themselves provided that they didn't have "cc" working?
>> Uh, you're kidding, right?
>> I think the assumption is that you won't be messing around wit
> > Why not mention *this* in this INSTALL?
> > How many people here had to ask or figure this out for
> > themselves provided that they didn't have "cc" working?
> Uh, you're kidding, right?
> I think the assumption is that you won't be messing around with compiling a
> new mail server (or anythi
> Why not mention *this* in this INSTALL?
>
> How many people here had to ask or figure this out for
> themselves provided that they didn't have "cc" working?
Uh, you're kidding, right?
I think the assumption is that you won't be messing around with compiling a
new mail server (or anything else
> Perhaps tcpserver or the docs are just intimidating. I know I was a bit
> reluctant to use it at first, now I find myself using it for just about
> everything - including backups, passing encrypted data between hosts, etc.
> It's really handy! Thanks Dan!!
Example:
ucwhatever INSTALL instr
53 matches
Mail list logo
