[gentoo-dev] ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers

[gentoo-dev] ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers

[Justin Vander Ziel]

Hello folks.

Some more questions for the eventual Gentoo/linux dev-newbies if nothing
else (and for myself, of course B)

1. I managed to revise the iptables-1.1.2.ebuild script to handle
iptables-1.2 -- and it worked! That is, except for one small problem: I
forgot to build a package list for ebuild and BTW, how do I do this?

2. the ebuild script chokes on versions such as in autofs-4.0.0-pre9.tar.bz2
(with accompanying ebuild file) -- when I do

    # ebuild autofs-4.0.0-pre9.ebuild merge

I get the message

    4.0.0pre9 doesn't appear to be a version or rev string
    !!! packagename is not a valid packagename
    Exiting

3. iptables
when I do

    # modprobe ip6table_filter
    # ip6tables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ppp0 -j MASQUERADE

(this is from from Rusty Russel's Linux 2.4 NAT HOWTO from
netfilter.kernelnotes.org) I get the error message

    iptables: v1.2: can't initialize iptables table 'nat': iptables who? (do
you need to insmod?)
    Perhaps iptables or your kernel needs to be upgraded

(Yes, I upgraded to v1.2 (see number 1 above) thinking perhaps something was
missed and then I did a portage-unmerge of the original sys-apps/iptables...
but I get the exact same error message as I did with 1.1.2 ).

4. kernel confusion
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:55:23 -0700, drobbins@gentoo.org wrote:
> To: achim@gentoo.org
> > Another question, what kernel do you use at the moment test12,
prerelease or
> > final ac1/2/3.?
>
> I'm using test12.
OK, could someone please clarify the *NEW* and bungled kernel naming system?
 - Is there a match between 2.3.X and the 2.4.0-testX kernels?
 - What does final ac1/2/3 refer to?
When all is said and done why not just go with 2.4.0 stable? My neophyte
logic says that if it's a final kernel release that has been blessed by
Linus than at the very least, it must be more stable than the 2.3.X series
or the 2.4.0-testX series (I don't know where the ac1/2/3 fit into this).

5. xinetd vs. tcpwrappers (a.k.a tcpd)
OK, xinetd already provides the services of tcpwrappers so why would you
want to install both by default as it is implied on the Gentoo home page?

6. app suggestions
I haven't seen a master plan/list regarding what get's included in the
production release -- although I do think that it should be limited to one
CD -- AT MOST. IMHO there is definitely such a thing as too many apps. The
whole idea of a distro (again IMHO) is that the developers take the best
that they can find which suit their target audience and put them on the CD
so the end-user consumer doesn't have to make all of those decisions. Now
there are distros out there that believe in the freedom of choice (which I
do as well -- in principle) such as Debian which include EVERYTHING. I'm
hoping that that is not the idea here.
Ok, so I'm sure you get/will get suggestions until the cows come home and
then some. However, I did notice that you have a bootscripts alternative in
the package list that I did not find particularly impressive (Though I seem
to recall that it was mostly because nothing was written for it, yet or else
I can't remember why). Here is my suggested alternative - Linux Boot
Scripts. In fact, it seems such a good idea to me that I think it should be
THE init script. A full description is available here
(http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/boot-scripts/) but here are the
highlights IMHO:
* There is no master script which orchestrates everything. The mini scripts
are kept in /sbin/init.d and init(8) runs all of them, in random order
except where there is a script dependent on another.
* Each script runs any other scripts it depends on, using the need(8)
programme which ensures that a script is only run once.
* runlevels can be supported in one of two ways. The traditional method
would require that the script specified be a directory in which case all the
scripts in the directory would be run. This uses rc1.d etc. with symlinks
back to init.d
R Gooch says that a "more elegant solution is to have a script for each
runlevel, which would look something like this:
    #! /bin/sh
    # /sbin/init.d/runlevel.3
    case "$1" in
      start)
        need runlevel.2
        need portmap
        mount -vat nfs
        ;;
      stop)
        umount -vat nfs
        ;;
    esac
    # End
which seems to be pretty elegant to me as well. Expert comments?

8. cfengine (http://www.gnu.org/software/cfengine/cfengine.html)
This also seems to be the way to go from what I have heard (mostly from
Christopher Brown at http://vip.hpnc.com/~cbbrowne/linuxsysconfig.html.
However, the e-mail responses from him are all at work). Any thoughts on
this?

9. Nifty cd package label in ps if your interested.
I spent a little time in Photoshop LE (I don't have $600 smackers to pay for
the real thing!) and whipped this up. I think it's attractive but it's not
exactly 'production quality'. Anyways if you want a copy I'll send you a
postscript file with the cd label and jacket for gentoo 1.0 rc3

Justin (Just enough to be dangerous) Vander Ziel
mailto:zielot@thebestisp.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers

[Jerry A!]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:55:24AM -0600, Justin Vander Ziel wrote:
: Hello folks.
: 
: 1. I managed to revise the iptables-1.1.2.ebuild script to handle
: iptables-1.2 -- and it worked! That is, except for one small problem: I
: forgot to build a package list for ebuild and BTW, how do I do this?

That's the nifty thing about the portage system--it takes care of
creating the packing list.

: 2. the ebuild script chokes on versions such as in autofs-4.0.0-pre9.tar.bz2
: (with accompanying ebuild file) -- when I do
: 
:     # ebuild autofs-4.0.0-pre9.ebuild merge

That's not a valid name for an ebuild.  Try something like
"autofs-4.0.0_p9.ebuild".  Then in the ebuild, explicitly set $P to the
package name to use (eg "P=autofs-4.0.0-pre9")

: 4. kernel confusion
: When all is said and done why not just go with 2.4.0 stable? My neophyte
: logic says that if it's a final kernel release that has been blessed by
: Linus than at the very least, it must be more stable than the 2.3.X series
: or the 2.4.0-testX series (I don't know where the ac1/2/3 fit into this).

Ahh, grasshopper.  When many release cycles you've been through, trust a
point-oh release you will not.

: 5. xinetd vs. tcpwrappers (a.k.a tcpd)
: OK, xinetd already provides the services of tcpwrappers so why would you
: want to install both by default as it is implied on the Gentoo home page?

Choice.  Some applications (like exim and I think sudo) have intrinsic
support for tcpwrappers.  These are a few other services (that I can't
think of off the top of my head).  Anyway, lots of daemonizing services
have support for tcpwrappers.  Some people find the syntax of
/etc/hosts.allow for the one or two services they run, to be a lot
simplier than setting up firewall rules.


: 6. app suggestions
: I haven't seen a master plan/list regarding what get's included in the
: production release -- although I do think that it should be limited to one
: CD -- AT MOST. IMHO there is definitely such a thing as too many apps. The

I agree.  Just so long as the apps are the ones that I want.  8)

: 9. Nifty cd package label in ps if your interested.
: I spent a little time in Photoshop LE (I don't have $600 smackers to pay for
: the real thing!) and whipped this up. I think it's attractive but it's not
: exactly 'production quality'. Anyways if you want a copy I'll send you a
: postscript file with the cd label and jacket for gentoo 1.0 rc3

Hey, I'd dig a copy of that.

        --Jerry

name:  Jerry Alexandratos         ||  Open-Source software isn't a
phone: 703.599.6023               ||  matter of life or death...
email: jerry@akopia.com           ||  ...It's much more important
                                  ||  than that!

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers

[Thomas Flavel]

Hi,

> : 6. app suggestions
> : I haven't seen a master plan/list regarding what get's included in the
> : production release -- although I do think that it should be limited to one
> : CD -- AT MOST. IMHO there is definitely such a thing as too many apps. The
> 
> I agree.  Just so long as the apps are the ones that I want.  8)

Definatley only 1 cd.

I was kind of surprised there was no ircd in rc3 - possibly not the most
important app to have, *but* - and speaking of mission critical changes, 
you know the little graphical tux you can have at boot time? How about
changing that to a little gentoo spaceship? :)

- Tom

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion,xinetd vs. tcpwrappers

[Achim Gottinger]

Thomas Flavel wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > : 6. app suggestions
> > : I haven't seen a master plan/list regarding what get's included in the
> > : production release -- although I do think that it should be limited to one
> > : CD -- AT MOST. IMHO there is definitely such a thing as too many apps. The
> >
> > I agree.  Just so long as the apps are the ones that I want.  8)
>
> Definatley only 1 cd.
>
> I was kind of surprised there was no ircd in rc3 - possibly not the most
> important app to have, *but* - and speaking of mission critical changes,
> you know the little graphical tux you can have at boot time? How about
> changing that to a little gentoo spaceship? :)

Hi Tom,

I did this once with a 2.2.16 kernel for rc1 or rc2, then we switched to 2.4 and
my
handmade include did not work with it.
But I found a nice kernel patch ( http://lpp.FreeLords.org ), that replaces the
whole boot-process witha graphic and a statusbar/line.
All output from star-scripts can be passed to the statusbar via /proc/progress.
You redirect all other output to another console so no info gets lost during
boot.
But that is something for 1.0 final or later.

Bye Achim


>
> - Tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] mission critical changes 8) (was: ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers)

[Morgan Christiansson]

Hello everyone *new on the list*

Thomas Flavel wrote:

> I was kind of surprised there was no ircd in rc3 - possibly not the most
> important app to have, *but* - and speaking of mission critical changes,
> you know the little graphical tux you can have at boot time? How about
> changing that to a little gentoo spaceship? :)

Nooo! Make it like this:

 * news:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/01/04/1336222&mode=nocomment <--
news (slashdot!)
http://linuxnews.pl/news.html?id=38964 <-- news and screenshot 1
screenshot

 * real thing:
http://lpp.freelords.org/ <-- THE patch
http://lpp.freelords.org/Themes.phtml <-- lot's of l33t screenshots

-- 
Morgan Christiansson

Re: [gentoo-dev] mission critical changes 8) (was: ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers)

[Thomas Flavel]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Morgan Christiansson wrote:

> Hello everyone *new on the list*
> 
> Thomas Flavel wrote:
> 
> > I was kind of surprised there was no ircd in rc3 - possibly not the most
> > important app to have, *but* - and speaking of mission critical changes,
> > you know the little graphical tux you can have at boot time? How about
> > changing that to a little gentoo spaceship? :)
> 
> Nooo! Make it like this:
> 
>  * news:
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/01/04/1336222&mode=nocomment <--
> news (slashdot!)
> http://linuxnews.pl/news.html?id=38964 <-- news and screenshot 1
> screenshot
> 
>  * real thing:
> http://lpp.freelords.org/ <-- THE patch
> http://lpp.freelords.org/Themes.phtml <-- lot's of l33t screenshots
> 

Thanks, but not to my personal taste :) I like to see what's going on,
though I wouldn't mind a small un obtrustive image I couldn't stand it
full screen. Still, for the people that would use it I think it would be
nice to have a lpp theme for gentoo, if only for the sake of completness
:)

On a similar note, will the the cd cover images be available from 
www.gentoo.org?

- Tom

Re: [gentoo-dev] mission critical changes 8) (was: ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers)

[Morgan Christiansson]

Thomas Flavel wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Morgan Christiansson wrote:
> 
> 
>> Hello everyone *new on the list*
>> 
>> Thomas Flavel wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> I was kind of surprised there was no ircd in rc3 - possibly not the most
>>> important app to have, *but* - and speaking of mission critical changes,
>>> you know the little graphical tux you can have at boot time? How about
>>> changing that to a little gentoo spaceship? :)
>> 
>> Nooo! Make it like this:
>> 
>>  * news:
>> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/01/04/1336222&mode=nocomment <--
>> news (slashdot!)
>> http://linuxnews.pl/news.html?id=38964 <-- news and screenshot 1
>> screenshot
>> 
>>  * real thing:
>> http://lpp.freelords.org/ <-- THE patch
>> http://lpp.freelords.org/Themes.phtml <-- lot's of l33t screenshots
>> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, but not to my personal taste :) I like to see what's going on,
> though I wouldn't mind a small un obtrustive image I couldn't stand it
> full screen. Still, for the people that would use it I think it would be
> nice to have a lpp theme for gentoo, if only for the sake of completness
> :)
> 
> On a similar note, will the the cd cover images be available from 
> www.gentoo.org?
> 
> - Tom
Well, of couse it should be optional!

Or maybe a kernel option such as "nogui" or something.

> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

[gentoo-dev] no more long subject lines! :)

[drobbins]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:17:47AM +0000, Thomas Flavel wrote:

> On a similar note, will the the cd cover images be available from 
> www.gentoo.org?

I'll post 'em if I actually get 'em (haven't yet seen'em) and I lik'em.
(That's "like them", not "lick them", BTW.)

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

[gentoo-dev] boot pretty

[drobbins]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:55:38AM +0100, Morgan Christiansson wrote:
> 
> Nooo! Make it like this:
> 

Hi 'Mog! :)

Does anyone want to look into hacking the bootscreen code and write a little 3d
code so that we can have a transparent glenzed 3d polgon rotating at 60fps
while the system boots? :)

Let's forget all this sissy bootscreen stuff and create the first megademo
install CD :)

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] boot pretty

[Morgan Christiansson]

drobbins@gentoo.org wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:55:38AM +0100, Morgan Christiansson wrote:
> 
>> Nooo! Make it like this:
>> 
> 
> 
> Hi 'Mog! :)
> 
> Does anyone want to look into hacking the bootscreen code and write a little 3d
> code so that we can have a transparent glenzed 3d polgon rotating at 60fps
> while the system boots? :)
> 
> Let's forget all this sissy bootscreen stuff and create the first megademo
> install CD :)
> 
> Best Regards,

Hmm, i remember how super l33t the Command & Conquer (first one, 
tiberian dawn) installation program was. I reinstalled it several times 
just to show my friend's how cool it was.

Now wouldn't it be cool to have such a thing for an O/S?

And why stop there, we could even have sound support for soundblaster 
cards! (or if we try different modules a wide range of sound cards).

I made enoch or if it was redhat/mandrake start mpg123 while booting 
once, very nice. :)


And about the 3D stuff, is there 3D support for fbdev? Maybe some Mesa3D 
software rendering or something?

At least there's GTK for fbdev.

-- 
Morgan Christiansson

[gentoo-dev] Installation frontend

[Thomas Flavel]

Hi,

> At least there's GTK for fbdev.

On a serious note, once an installation program appears, how about
considering this for the frontend? I'm not a big fan of guis but imo
it would be much nicer than X, plus it would be space saving, and I like
that :)

- Tom

Re: [gentoo-dev] Installation frontend

[drobbins]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:16:47PM +0000, Thomas Flavel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > At least there's GTK for fbdev.
> 
> On a serious note, once an installation program appears, how about
> considering this for the frontend? I'm not a big fan of guis but imo
> it would be much nicer than X, plus it would be space saving, and I like
> that :)

Yep, either that or Qt/Embedded.

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers

[drobbins]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 08:27:46AM +0000, Thomas Flavel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > : 6. app suggestions
> > : I haven't seen a master plan/list regarding what get's included in the
> > : production release -- although I do think that it should be limited to one
> > : CD -- AT MOST. IMHO there is definitely such a thing as too many apps. The
> > 
> > I agree.  Just so long as the apps are the ones that I want.  8)
> 
> Definatley only 1 cd.
> 
> I was kind of surprised there was no ircd in rc3 - possibly not the most
> important app to have, *but* - and speaking of mission critical changes, 
> you know the little graphical tux you can have at boot time? How about
> changing that to a little gentoo spaceship? :)

Achim has something like that in the works for the bootdisk :)  We also
had a boot logo for 2.2.

These are the little cute things that we add when we're a bit tired of
adding "important stuff" and want to have a bit of fun.  You can expect
things like this to trickle into the distribution over time.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers

[Bill Anderson]

Hello all, new soon-to-be-trying-gentoo person here.

Jerry A! wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:55:24AM -0600, Justin Vander Ziel wrote:
> : Hello folks.
> : 
> : 1. I managed to revise the iptables-1.1.2.ebuild script to handle
> : iptables-1.2 -- and it worked! That is, except for one small problem: I
> : forgot to build a package list for ebuild and BTW, how do I do this?
> 
> That's the nifty thing about the portage system--it takes care of
> creating the packing list.

say, that is nifty.

 
> : 2. the ebuild script chokes on versions such as in autofs-4.0.0-pre9.tar.bz2
> : (with accompanying ebuild file) -- when I do
> : 
> :     # ebuild autofs-4.0.0-pre9.ebuild merge
> 
> That's not a valid name for an ebuild.  Try something like
> "autofs-4.0.0_p9.ebuild".  Then in the ebuild, explicitly set $P to the
> package name to use (eg "P=autofs-4.0.0-pre9")

Hmm, excuse my newness to gentoo (not installed until I get the drive 
backed up tomorrow or so (I hope)) ... but does this mean that hyphens 
are not valid in an ebuild name?

 
> : 4. kernel confusion
> : When all is said and done why not just go with 2.4.0 stable? My neophyte
> : logic says that if it's a final kernel release that has been blessed by
> : Linus than at the very least, it must be more stable than the 2.3.X series
> : or the 2.4.0-testX series (I don't know where the ac1/2/3 fit into this).
> 
> Ahh, grasshopper.  When many release cycles you've been through, trust a
> point-oh release you will not.
> 

As compared to a prerelease test kernel?
As someone who has been through many release cylces, I would have to 
dosagree, if that is your position.

Justin
As far as 'ac' those are Alan cox patched kernel. IME, they've been much 
better than the standard kernel. Alan Cox is basically the second in 
command in Linuxville, eventually the ac patches become merged (usually, 
but not always).


Bill Anderson

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers

[Jerry A!]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:57:38AM -0700, Bill Anderson wrote:
: Hello all, new soon-to-be-trying-gentoo person here.
: 
: Jerry A! wrote:
:  
: > : 4. kernel confusion
: > : When all is said and done why not just go with 2.4.0 stable? My neophyte
: > : logic says that if it's a final kernel release that has been blessed by
: > : Linus than at the very least, it must be more stable than the 2.3.X series
: > : or the 2.4.0-testX series (I don't know where the ac1/2/3 fit into this).
: > 
: > Ahh, grasshopper.  When many release cycles you've been through, trust a
: > point-oh release you will not.
: > 
: 
: As compared to a prerelease test kernel?
: As someone who has been through many release cylces, I would have to 
: dosagree, if that is your position.

Nah, just with Linux kernel.  8) It's like the limited testing that's
done shows everything as kosher.  Then you move into a .0 release
version that gets wider use and more new and interesting bugs seem to
crop up.  The funny thing about this release is that I've heard less
complaints about -test10 than I have about any version that followed it.

Certainly not empirical evidence--just observation...

        --Jerry

name:  Jerry Alexandratos         ||  Open-Source software isn't a
phone: 703.599.6023               ||  matter of life or death...
email: jerry@akopia.com           ||  ...It's much more important
                                  ||  than that!

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers

[drobbins]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:57:38AM -0700, Bill Anderson wrote:

> > That's the nifty thing about the portage system--it takes care of
> > creating the packing list.

> say, that is nifty.

We think so too :)

> Hmm, excuse my newness to gentoo (not installed until I get the drive 
> backed up tomorrow or so (I hope)) ... but does this mean that hyphens 
> are not valid in an ebuild name?

Hyphens are valid, but ebuild has a special "version syntax" so that it can
parse the version numbers of a package and compare them.  Here are the basic
rules:

package names can have any number of hyphen-separated words, like so:

foo-bar-oni-ville (this is a valid package name)

then, to tag the version on it, you add another hyphen and a version string.
The version strings have a special format:

4.0.0 valid
4.0.1 valid
4.01.1109235.12350923.329832932.3232983 valid
4.01_alpha valid
4.02_alpha17 valid
7.1.3_beta valid
7.1.3.5_beta5 valid
(we support the _pre tag in the same way)
4.0a is valid

7.1.3-pre8 is *not* valid (should be 7.1.3_pre8)
4.0aa is *not* valid (we support revisions "a" through "z" -- a single character)
2.4.0-test10 is *not* valid (we don't support "test" just yet, and if we did the correct
format would be 2.4.0_test10)

OK, so that's the basic intro to the version string.  Then, there's an optional 
package "rev" that defaults to zero if you leave it off.  However, if you want to 
specify a "rev", you add a -r<revnum>.  So, a final package/version/rev name could
be something like:

foo-bar-oni-ville-4.0.3.1.34.4.3.3_alpha76-r12

Amazingly, Portage can parse this and determine if it's newer or older than
foo-bar-oni-ville-4.012323420.9393.3.3.3.3.3.232.5.3_alpha73-r11

However, we normally don't get that complicated.

> As compared to a prerelease test kernel?
> As someone who has been through many release cylces, I would have to 
> dosagree, if that is your position.
> 
> Justin
> As far as 'ac' those are Alan cox patched kernel. IME, they've been much 
> better than the standard kernel. Alan Cox is basically the second in 
> command in Linuxville, eventually the ac patches become merged (usually, 
> but not always).

The most important thing to us is *ReiserFS filesystem stability*.  We wait
until we can ensure that ReiserFS works well and doesn't dice up everyone's
files.  Right now, Achim is testing 2.4.0-ac3 with patches and making sure
it's stable.

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers

[Achim Gottinger]

Justin Vander Ziel wrote:

> Hello folks.
>
> Some more questions for the eventual Gentoo/linux dev-newbies if nothing
> else (and for myself, of course B)
>
> 1. I managed to revise the iptables-1.1.2.ebuild script to handle
> iptables-1.2 -- and it worked! That is, except for one small problem: I
> forgot to build a package list for ebuild and BTW, how do I do this?
>
> 2. the ebuild script chokes on versions such as in autofs-4.0.0-pre9.tar.bz2
> (with accompanying ebuild file) -- when I do
>
>     # ebuild autofs-4.0.0-pre9.ebuild merge
>
> I get the message
>
>     4.0.0pre9 doesn't appear to be a version or rev string
>     !!! packagename is not a valid packagename
>     Exiting

autofs-4.0.0_pre9.ebuild should work. Maybe Daniel can document the naming
pattern
somewhere on the net.

>
>
> 3. iptables
> when I do
>
>     # modprobe ip6table_filter
>     # ip6tables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ppp0 -j MASQUERADE
>
> (this is from from Rusty Russel's Linux 2.4 NAT HOWTO from
> netfilter.kernelnotes.org) I get the error message
>
>     iptables: v1.2: can't initialize iptables table 'nat': iptables who? (do
> you need to insmod?)
>     Perhaps iptables or your kernel needs to be upgraded

I think that is just a kernel-configuration issue.

>
>
> (Yes, I upgraded to v1.2 (see number 1 above) thinking perhaps something was
> missed and then I did a portage-unmerge of the original sys-apps/iptables...
> but I get the exact same error message as I did with 1.1.2 ).
>
> 4. kernel confusion
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:55:23 -0700, drobbins@gentoo.org wrote:
> > To: achim@gentoo.org
> > > Another question, what kernel do you use at the moment test12,
> prerelease or
> > > final ac1/2/3.?
> >
> > I'm using test12.
> OK, could someone please clarify the *NEW* and bungled kernel naming system?
>  - Is there a match between 2.3.X and the 2.4.0-testX kernels?
>  - What does final ac1/2/3 refer to?
> When all is said and done why not just go with 2.4.0 stable?

2.4.0 does not work correct with reiserfs. Thats why I made packages for
ac2/3/4. (2.4.0.2, 2.4.0.3 ...).
I use 2.4.0.3-r1 at the moment here. 2.4.0.3 includes a buggy nfs-patch, this
patch gets
not applied in 2.4.0.3-r1. In 2.4.0.4 there where a few changes to LFS in the
kernel and
there is only a quick fix for that to work with reiserfs available at the
moment, so
2.4.0.3-r1 is the best choice at the moment but you can't use nfs with
reiserfs.


>
> Ok, so I'm sure you get/will get suggestions until the cows come home and
> then some. However, I did notice that you have a bootscripts alternative in
> the package list that I did not find particularly impressive (Though I seem
> to recall that it was mostly because nothing was written for it, yet or else
> I can't remember why). Here is my suggested alternative - Linux Boot
> Scripts. In fact, it seems such a good idea to me that I think it should be
> THE init script. A full description is available here
> (http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/boot-scripts/) but here are the
> highlights IMHO:
> * There is no master script which orchestrates everything. The mini scripts
> are kept in /sbin/init.d and init(8) runs all of them, in random order
> except where there is a script dependent on another.
> * Each script runs any other scripts it depends on, using the need(8)
> programme which ensures that a script is only run once.
> * runlevels can be supported in one of two ways. The traditional method
> would require that the script specified be a directory in which case all the
> scripts in the directory would be run. This uses rc1.d etc. with symlinks
> back to init.d
> R Gooch says that a "more elegant solution is to have a script for each
> runlevel, which would look something like this:
>     #! /bin/sh
>     # /sbin/init.d/runlevel.3
>     case "$1" in
>       start)
>         need runlevel.2
>         need portmap
>         mount -vat nfs
>         ;;
>       stop)
>         umount -vat nfs
>         ;;
>     esac
>     # End
> which seems to be pretty elegant to me as well. Expert comments?

Sounds interesting, more comments later. :-)

>
>
> 8. cfengine (http://www.gnu.org/software/cfengine/cfengine.html)
> This also seems to be the way to go from what I have heard (mostly from
> Christopher Brown at http://vip.hpnc.com/~cbbrowne/linuxsysconfig.html.
> However, the e-mail responses from him are all at work). Any thoughts on
> this?
>
> 9. Nifty cd package label in ps if your interested.
> I spent a little time in Photoshop LE (I don't have $600 smackers to pay for
> the real thing!) and whipped this up. I think it's attractive but it's not
> exactly 'production quality'. Anyways if you want a copy I'll send you a
> postscript file with the cd label and jacket for gentoo 1.0 rc3
>
> Justin (Just enough to be dangerous) Vander Ziel
> mailto:zielot@thebestisp.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers

[drobbins]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:06:54AM +0100, Achim Gottinger wrote:

> autofs-4.0.0_pre9.ebuild should work. Maybe Daniel can document the naming
> pattern somewhere on the net.

There's some (old but mostly correct) documentation at the beginning of
/usr/lib/python/portage.py that covers how the version numbers work.

> >     iptables: v1.2: can't initialize iptables table 'nat': iptables who? (do
> > you need to insmod?)
> >     Perhaps iptables or your kernel needs to be upgraded
> 
> I think that is just a kernel-configuration issue.

It could be because you need to use the iptables-1.2 kernel patch-o-matic to
get ipv6 nat to work -- included with the iptables sources.  Rusty says that
most of these patches are in some way *buggy*, so be careful.  I'm happily
using ipv4 nat without any patches.

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers

[Bill Anderson]

drobbins@gentoo.org wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:06:54AM +0100, Achim Gottinger wrote:
> 
> 
>> autofs-4.0.0_pre9.ebuild should work. Maybe Daniel can document the naming
>> pattern somewhere on the net.
> 
> 
> There's some (old but mostly correct) documentation at the beginning of
> /usr/lib/python/portage.py that covers how the version numbers work.


Oooh, so Portage has python libraries to work with it, or is it done 
using python?

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers

[drobbins]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 10:40:42AM -0700, Bill Anderson wrote:

> Oooh, so Portage has python libraries to work with it, or is it done 
> using python?

Yes, nearly all the complex, important stuff (as well as some not so complex
and not so important stuff) is implemented in Python.  I feel that python is an
ideal language for something growing as quickly as Portage.  

We also have some legacy bash code as well, and in the future it's very likely
that we'll move a lot of the package management and package database parts (as
they become more stable and defined) to C++ for better performance.

When Portage is at around version 2.5, it's likely that we'll have some python,
some C++ and some bash as well.

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.