Menu
▾
▴
devil-linux-develop — developer discussions
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(55) |
Oct
(44) |
Nov
(156) |
Dec
(123) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 |
Jan
(130) |
Feb
(156) |
Mar
(162) |
Apr
(171) |
May
(97) |
Jun
(127) |
Jul
(58) |
Aug
(81) |
Sep
(86) |
Oct
(45) |
Nov
(41) |
Dec
(84) |
| 2003 |
Jan
(71) |
Feb
(87) |
Mar
(133) |
Apr
(152) |
May
(151) |
Jun
(232) |
Jul
(320) |
Aug
(237) |
Sep
(271) |
Oct
(536) |
Nov
(301) |
Dec
(393) |
| 2004 |
Jan
(393) |
Feb
(184) |
Mar
(314) |
Apr
(225) |
May
(139) |
Jun
(77) |
Jul
(87) |
Aug
(75) |
Sep
(139) |
Oct
(50) |
Nov
(8) |
Dec
(28) |
| 2005 |
Jan
(66) |
Feb
(63) |
Mar
(14) |
Apr
(14) |
May
(8) |
Jun
(23) |
Jul
(21) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(29) |
Oct
(55) |
Nov
(38) |
Dec
(8) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(5) |
Feb
(10) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(15) |
May
(32) |
Jun
(44) |
Jul
(11) |
Aug
(8) |
Sep
(9) |
Oct
(14) |
Nov
(4) |
Dec
(3) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(2) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(35) |
Aug
(49) |
Sep
(8) |
Oct
(42) |
Nov
(44) |
Dec
(7) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
(7) |
Mar
(8) |
Apr
(80) |
May
(74) |
Jun
(29) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
(7) |
Sep
(6) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2009 |
Jan
(8) |
Feb
(19) |
Mar
(3) |
Apr
(24) |
May
(22) |
Jun
(23) |
Jul
(8) |
Aug
(23) |
Sep
(8) |
Oct
(27) |
Nov
(52) |
Dec
(27) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(36) |
Feb
(29) |
Mar
(17) |
Apr
(28) |
May
(21) |
Jun
(4) |
Jul
|
Aug
(28) |
Sep
(18) |
Oct
(6) |
Nov
(34) |
Dec
(16) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(18) |
Feb
(12) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(9) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
(5) |
Sep
(7) |
Oct
(16) |
Nov
(26) |
Dec
(17) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(34) |
Mar
(52) |
Apr
(10) |
May
(3) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(1) |
Sep
|
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
(4) |
| 2013 |
Jan
(5) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(5) |
May
(4) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(14) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2014 |
Jan
|
Feb
(2) |
Mar
(5) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(11) |
| 2015 |
Jan
(5) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2016 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(2) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2017 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2018 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@re...> - 2010-02-26 01:26:41
|
the ipcalc should return the broadcast address, so there appears to be something wrong with your setup fix. Try this instead (untested): BROADCAST=$(sipcalc $IP $NETMASK 2> /dev/null | grep Broadcast | cut -d'-' -f2) - BS On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 20:18, Serge Leschinsky <fi...@in...> wrote: > Bruce, > > sorry for my hasty decision. I need your help. I'm not sure that I've completely > understood how it works... > > Is it correct change? > - eval $(ipcalc -b $IP $NETMASK 2> /dev/null) > + eval $(sipcalc $IP $NETMASK 2> /dev/null | grep Broadcast | cut -d'-' -f2) > > If I configure NIC by setup I get the following config > ----------------------------- > DEVICE=eth0 > ONBOOT=yes > MODULE=autoselect > DHCP=no > IP="192.168.1.2" > NETMASK="255.255.255.224" > BROADCAST="" > ----------------------------- > > Broadcast is empty and I don't understand if it's improper sipcalc usage or not. > > Serge > > On 02/25/2010 05:00 AM, Bruce Smith wrote: >> Either way is fine with me. >> >> If you decide to delete ipcalc, please make the change to setup. >> >> - BS >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 23:07, Serge Leschinsky <fi...@in...> wrote: >>> Bruce, >>> >>> I see this line in setup >>> eval $(ipcalc -b $IP $NETMASK 2> /dev/null) >>> >>> Do we need to calculate broadcast? >>> >>> sipcalc 192.168.1.4 255.255.255.224 | grep Broadcast | cut -d'-' -f2 >>> >>> does the same. >>> >>> PS. We can have the both program of course if you prefer to use ipcalc >>> >>> Serge >>> >>> >>> On 02/24/2010 06:52 PM, Bruce Smith wrote: >>>> The main "setup" program uses ipcalc, so removing it will break setup. >>>> >>>> Is there any reason we can't have both programs? >>>> >>>> Or how much difference is there in the syntax (how much work to fix setup)? >>>> >>>> - BS >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 21:38, Heiko Zuerker <he...@zu...> wrote: >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Andrzej Odyniec [mailto:an...@ma...] >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:37 PM >>>>>> To: dev...@li... >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Devil-linux-develop] sipcalc? >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Serge Leschinsky wrote: >>>>>>> I'm very sorry for inconvenience with broken makefiles. >>>>>> Absolutely no problem. :) >>>>>> >>>>>>> So, if we are agree that sipcalc is better than ipcalc, I'll >>>>>> upload the package >>>>>>> and script (and remove ipcalc) >>>>>> >>>>>> As for me ipcalc is practically unusable. I found and I'm using >>>>>> perl script >>>>>> known as: >>>>>>> # IPv4 Calculator >>>>>>> # Copyright (C) Krischan Jodies 2000 - 2004 >>>>>>> # krischan()jodies.de, http://jodies.de/ipcalc >>>>>> >>>>>> But sipcalc has near this same functionality. This is nice. >>>>> >>>>> I'm good with it too. >>>>> >>>>> Heiko >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >>>>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >>>>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >>>>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Devil-linux-develop mailing list >>>>> Dev...@li... >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop >>>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >>>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >>>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >>>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Devil-linux-develop mailing list >>>> Dev...@li... >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop >>>> >>> >>> >> > > |
|
From: Serge L. <fi...@in...> - 2010-02-26 01:19:00
|
Bruce, sorry for my hasty decision. I need your help. I'm not sure that I've completely understood how it works... Is it correct change? - eval $(ipcalc -b $IP $NETMASK 2> /dev/null) + eval $(sipcalc $IP $NETMASK 2> /dev/null | grep Broadcast | cut -d'-' -f2) If I configure NIC by setup I get the following config ----------------------------- DEVICE=eth0 ONBOOT=yes MODULE=autoselect DHCP=no IP="192.168.1.2" NETMASK="255.255.255.224" BROADCAST="" ----------------------------- Broadcast is empty and I don't understand if it's improper sipcalc usage or not. Serge On 02/25/2010 05:00 AM, Bruce Smith wrote: > Either way is fine with me. > > If you decide to delete ipcalc, please make the change to setup. > > - BS > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 23:07, Serge Leschinsky <fi...@in...> wrote: >> Bruce, >> >> I see this line in setup >> eval $(ipcalc -b $IP $NETMASK 2> /dev/null) >> >> Do we need to calculate broadcast? >> >> sipcalc 192.168.1.4 255.255.255.224 | grep Broadcast | cut -d'-' -f2 >> >> does the same. >> >> PS. We can have the both program of course if you prefer to use ipcalc >> >> Serge >> >> >> On 02/24/2010 06:52 PM, Bruce Smith wrote: >>> The main "setup" program uses ipcalc, so removing it will break setup. >>> >>> Is there any reason we can't have both programs? >>> >>> Or how much difference is there in the syntax (how much work to fix setup)? >>> >>> - BS >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 21:38, Heiko Zuerker <he...@zu...> wrote: >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Andrzej Odyniec [mailto:an...@ma...] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:37 PM >>>>> To: dev...@li... >>>>> Subject: Re: [Devil-linux-develop] sipcalc? >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Serge Leschinsky wrote: >>>>>> I'm very sorry for inconvenience with broken makefiles. >>>>> Absolutely no problem. :) >>>>> >>>>>> So, if we are agree that sipcalc is better than ipcalc, I'll >>>>> upload the package >>>>>> and script (and remove ipcalc) >>>>> >>>>> As for me ipcalc is practically unusable. I found and I'm using >>>>> perl script >>>>> known as: >>>>>> # IPv4 Calculator >>>>>> # Copyright (C) Krischan Jodies 2000 - 2004 >>>>>> # krischan()jodies.de, http://jodies.de/ipcalc >>>>> >>>>> But sipcalc has near this same functionality. This is nice. >>>> >>>> I'm good with it too. >>>> >>>> Heiko >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >>>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >>>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >>>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Devil-linux-develop mailing list >>>> Dev...@li... >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop >>>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Devil-linux-develop mailing list >>> Dev...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop >>> >> >> > |
|
From: Serge L. <fi...@in...> - 2010-02-26 01:14:37
|
OK. I can. But it looks like a hasty decition to remove ipcalc without clear confirmation from all interested people. So, if Bruce confirms that he is ok with sipcalc I'll commit change with symlink creation, if he prefers original ipcalc - I commit a change to return script and binary back. I'm really sorry for troubling you, Serge On 02/25/2010 08:02 AM, Andrzej Odyniec wrote: > Bruce Smith wrote: >> Either way is fine with me. >> If you decide to delete ipcalc, please make the change to setup. > > Maybe, after removing ipcalc, in install phase of "sipcalc install", we should > create link to sipcalc for ipcalc? For those people, who use traditional > ipcalc everyday, ofcourse. > |
|
From: Serge L. <fi...@in...> - 2010-02-26 00:48:46
|
oops. Too many faults :( I disabled IMQ because it crashes kernels if I use traffic control mechanisms... and disabled it both for kernel and iptables. I can submit a patch for that (but it looks like very dangerous to use IMQ with recent kernels) or disable it. PS. I deleted ipcals script from cvs and I realize that it was premature. I'm ready to resubmit it back - just let me know. PPS. I've attached the patch for coreutils - actually only one test fails and it's a bug of coreutils. Serge On 02/25/2010 11:55 AM, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > Serge, > > my iptables compile keeps failing, do you have a patch for it? > > CC libxt_IMQ.oo > libxt_IMQ.c: In function 'IMQ_parse': > libxt_IMQ.c:42: error: too few arguments to function 'xtables_check_inverse' > make[2]: *** [libxt_IMQ.oo] Error 1 > make[2]: Leaving directory `/data/build/tmp/iptables-1.4.6/extensions' > make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 > make[1]: Leaving directory `/data/build/tmp/iptables-1.4.6' > |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2010-02-25 19:56:02
|
Serge, my iptables compile keeps failing, do you have a patch for it? CC libxt_IMQ.oo libxt_IMQ.c: In function 'IMQ_parse': libxt_IMQ.c:42: error: too few arguments to function 'xtables_check_inverse' make[2]: *** [libxt_IMQ.oo] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/data/build/tmp/iptables-1.4.6/extensions' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/data/build/tmp/iptables-1.4.6' -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
|
From: Andrzej O. <an...@ma...> - 2010-02-25 16:02:51
|
Bruce Smith wrote: > Either way is fine with me. > If you decide to delete ipcalc, please make the change to setup. Maybe, after removing ipcalc, in install phase of "sipcalc install", we should create link to sipcalc for ipcalc? For those people, who use traditional ipcalc everyday, ofcourse. -- Andrzej Odyniec |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@re...> - 2010-02-25 14:03:40
|
Either way is fine with me. If you decide to delete ipcalc, please make the change to setup. - BS On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 23:07, Serge Leschinsky <fi...@in...> wrote: > Bruce, > > I see this line in setup > eval $(ipcalc -b $IP $NETMASK 2> /dev/null) > > Do we need to calculate broadcast? > > sipcalc 192.168.1.4 255.255.255.224 | grep Broadcast | cut -d'-' -f2 > > does the same. > > PS. We can have the both program of course if you prefer to use ipcalc > > Serge > > > On 02/24/2010 06:52 PM, Bruce Smith wrote: >> The main "setup" program uses ipcalc, so removing it will break setup. >> >> Is there any reason we can't have both programs? >> >> Or how much difference is there in the syntax (how much work to fix setup)? >> >> - BS >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 21:38, Heiko Zuerker <he...@zu...> wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Andrzej Odyniec [mailto:an...@ma...] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:37 PM >>>> To: dev...@li... >>>> Subject: Re: [Devil-linux-develop] sipcalc? >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Serge Leschinsky wrote: >>>>> I'm very sorry for inconvenience with broken makefiles. >>>> Absolutely no problem. :) >>>> >>>>> So, if we are agree that sipcalc is better than ipcalc, I'll >>>> upload the package >>>>> and script (and remove ipcalc) >>>> >>>> As for me ipcalc is practically unusable. I found and I'm using >>>> perl script >>>> known as: >>>>> # IPv4 Calculator >>>>> # Copyright (C) Krischan Jodies 2000 - 2004 >>>>> # krischan()jodies.de, http://jodies.de/ipcalc >>>> >>>> But sipcalc has near this same functionality. This is nice. >>> >>> I'm good with it too. >>> >>> Heiko >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Devil-linux-develop mailing list >>> Dev...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Devil-linux-develop mailing list >> Dev...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop >> > > |
|
From: Serge L. <fi...@in...> - 2010-02-25 04:11:19
|
Yes. As for me I suppose I would never have guessed that sipcalc is an ip calculator, but not a SIP (VoIP) application. Symlink is a good idea. Serge On 02/24/2010 07:30 PM, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > Since it's useless, I'd vote yes. > Would it make sense creating a symlink sipcalc -> ipcalc ? > > Heiko > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Serge Leschinsky [mailto:fi...@in...] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 9:24 PM >> To: dev...@li... >> Cc: Heiko Zuerker >> Subject: Re: [Devil-linux-develop] sipcalc? >> >> I've uploaded the new code. Should I remove the original ipcalc? >> >> Serge >> >> On 02/24/2010 06:38 PM, Heiko Zuerker wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Andrzej Odyniec [mailto:an...@ma...] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:37 PM >>>> To: dev...@li... >>>> Subject: Re: [Devil-linux-develop] sipcalc? >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Serge Leschinsky wrote: >>>>> I'm very sorry for inconvenience with broken makefiles. >>>> Absolutely no problem. :) >>>> >>>>> So, if we are agree that sipcalc is better than ipcalc, I'll >>>> upload the package >>>>> and script (and remove ipcalc) >>>> >>>> As for me ipcalc is practically unusable. I found and I'm using >>>> perl script >>>> known as: >>>>> # IPv4 Calculator >>>>> # Copyright (C) Krischan Jodies 2000 - 2004 >>>>> # krischan()jodies.de, http://jodies.de/ipcalc >>>> >>>> But sipcalc has near this same functionality. This is nice. >>> >>> I'm good with it too. >>> >>> Heiko >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------------- >>> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find >> bugs >>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Devil-linux-develop mailing list >>> Dev...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ----------- >> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Devil-linux-develop mailing list >> Dev...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-develop mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop > |
|
From: Serge L. <fi...@in...> - 2010-02-25 04:07:52
|
Bruce, I see this line in setup eval $(ipcalc -b $IP $NETMASK 2> /dev/null) Do we need to calculate broadcast? sipcalc 192.168.1.4 255.255.255.224 | grep Broadcast | cut -d'-' -f2 does the same. PS. We can have the both program of course if you prefer to use ipcalc Serge On 02/24/2010 06:52 PM, Bruce Smith wrote: > The main "setup" program uses ipcalc, so removing it will break setup. > > Is there any reason we can't have both programs? > > Or how much difference is there in the syntax (how much work to fix setup)? > > - BS > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 21:38, Heiko Zuerker <he...@zu...> wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Andrzej Odyniec [mailto:an...@ma...] >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:37 PM >>> To: dev...@li... >>> Subject: Re: [Devil-linux-develop] sipcalc? >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Serge Leschinsky wrote: >>>> I'm very sorry for inconvenience with broken makefiles. >>> Absolutely no problem. :) >>> >>>> So, if we are agree that sipcalc is better than ipcalc, I'll >>> upload the package >>>> and script (and remove ipcalc) >>> >>> As for me ipcalc is practically unusable. I found and I'm using >>> perl script >>> known as: >>>> # IPv4 Calculator >>>> # Copyright (C) Krischan Jodies 2000 - 2004 >>>> # krischan()jodies.de, http://jodies.de/ipcalc >>> >>> But sipcalc has near this same functionality. This is nice. >> >> I'm good with it too. >> >> Heiko >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Devil-linux-develop mailing list >> Dev...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-develop mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop > |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@re...> - 2010-02-25 03:57:04
|
The main "setup" program uses ipcalc, so removing it will break setup. Is there any reason we can't have both programs? Or how much difference is there in the syntax (how much work to fix setup)? - BS On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 21:38, Heiko Zuerker <he...@zu...> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrzej Odyniec [mailto:an...@ma...] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:37 PM >> To: dev...@li... >> Subject: Re: [Devil-linux-develop] sipcalc? >> >> Hi, >> >> Serge Leschinsky wrote: >> > I'm very sorry for inconvenience with broken makefiles. >> Absolutely no problem. :) >> >> > So, if we are agree that sipcalc is better than ipcalc, I'll >> upload the package >> > and script (and remove ipcalc) >> >> As for me ipcalc is practically unusable. I found and I'm using >> perl script >> known as: >> > # IPv4 Calculator >> > # Copyright (C) Krischan Jodies 2000 - 2004 >> > # krischan()jodies.de, http://jodies.de/ipcalc >> >> But sipcalc has near this same functionality. This is nice. > > I'm good with it too. > > Heiko > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-develop mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop > |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2010-02-25 03:30:53
|
Since it's useless, I'd vote yes. Would it make sense creating a symlink sipcalc -> ipcalc ? Heiko > -----Original Message----- > From: Serge Leschinsky [mailto:fi...@in...] > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 9:24 PM > To: dev...@li... > Cc: Heiko Zuerker > Subject: Re: [Devil-linux-develop] sipcalc? > > I've uploaded the new code. Should I remove the original ipcalc? > > Serge > > On 02/24/2010 06:38 PM, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Andrzej Odyniec [mailto:an...@ma...] > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:37 PM > >> To: dev...@li... > >> Subject: Re: [Devil-linux-develop] sipcalc? > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Serge Leschinsky wrote: > >>> I'm very sorry for inconvenience with broken makefiles. > >> Absolutely no problem. :) > >> > >>> So, if we are agree that sipcalc is better than ipcalc, I'll > >> upload the package > >>> and script (and remove ipcalc) > >> > >> As for me ipcalc is practically unusable. I found and I'm using > >> perl script > >> known as: > >>> # IPv4 Calculator > >>> # Copyright (C) Krischan Jodies 2000 - 2004 > >>> # krischan()jodies.de, http://jodies.de/ipcalc > >> > >> But sipcalc has near this same functionality. This is nice. > > > > I'm good with it too. > > > > Heiko > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find > bugs > > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > > _______________________________________________ > > Devil-linux-develop mailing list > > Dev...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-develop mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop |
|
From: Serge L. <fi...@in...> - 2010-02-25 03:24:10
|
I've uploaded the new code. Should I remove the original ipcalc? Serge On 02/24/2010 06:38 PM, Heiko Zuerker wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrzej Odyniec [mailto:an...@ma...] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:37 PM >> To: dev...@li... >> Subject: Re: [Devil-linux-develop] sipcalc? >> >> Hi, >> >> Serge Leschinsky wrote: >>> I'm very sorry for inconvenience with broken makefiles. >> Absolutely no problem. :) >> >>> So, if we are agree that sipcalc is better than ipcalc, I'll >> upload the package >>> and script (and remove ipcalc) >> >> As for me ipcalc is practically unusable. I found and I'm using >> perl script >> known as: >>> # IPv4 Calculator >>> # Copyright (C) Krischan Jodies 2000 - 2004 >>> # krischan()jodies.de, http://jodies.de/ipcalc >> >> But sipcalc has near this same functionality. This is nice. > > I'm good with it too. > > Heiko > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-develop mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop > |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2010-02-25 02:38:59
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrzej Odyniec [mailto:an...@ma...] > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:37 PM > To: dev...@li... > Subject: Re: [Devil-linux-develop] sipcalc? > > Hi, > > Serge Leschinsky wrote: > > I'm very sorry for inconvenience with broken makefiles. > Absolutely no problem. :) > > > So, if we are agree that sipcalc is better than ipcalc, I'll > upload the package > > and script (and remove ipcalc) > > As for me ipcalc is practically unusable. I found and I'm using > perl script > known as: > > # IPv4 Calculator > > # Copyright (C) Krischan Jodies 2000 - 2004 > > # krischan()jodies.de, http://jodies.de/ipcalc > > But sipcalc has near this same functionality. This is nice. I'm good with it too. Heiko |
|
From: Andrzej O. <an...@ma...> - 2010-02-25 02:37:08
|
Hi, Serge Leschinsky wrote: > I'm very sorry for inconvenience with broken makefiles. Absolutely no problem. :) > So, if we are agree that sipcalc is better than ipcalc, I'll upload the package > and script (and remove ipcalc) As for me ipcalc is practically unusable. I found and I'm using perl script known as: > # IPv4 Calculator > # Copyright (C) Krischan Jodies 2000 - 2004 > # krischan()jodies.de, http://jodies.de/ipcalc But sipcalc has near this same functionality. This is nice. Rgrds -- Andrzej Odyniec |
|
From: Serge L. <fi...@in...> - 2010-02-25 02:25:14
|
Guys, I'm very sorry for inconvenience with broken makefiles. So, if we are agree that sipcalc is better than ipcalc, I'll upload the package and script (and remove ipcalc) Serge On 02/24/2010 06:27 AM, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > Quoting Andrzej Odyniec <an...@ma...>: > >> Heiko Zuerker wrote: >>> Refresh from CVS, Serge already corrected the problem. >>> Not sure if it'll compile all the way through, my test is still running. >> :) >> BTW. I examined sipcalc --- it is convenient tool. I will install and use it. > > Serge already has the code for DL, we were just discussing replacing > ipcalc with sipcalc. > |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2010-02-24 15:27:33
|
Quoting Andrzej Odyniec <an...@ma...>: > Heiko Zuerker wrote: >> Refresh from CVS, Serge already corrected the problem. >> Not sure if it'll compile all the way through, my test is still running. > :) > BTW. I examined sipcalc --- it is convenient tool. I will install and use it. Serge already has the code for DL, we were just discussing replacing ipcalc with sipcalc. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
|
From: Andrzej O. <an...@ma...> - 2010-02-24 14:23:20
|
Heiko Zuerker wrote: > Refresh from CVS, Serge already corrected the problem. > Not sure if it'll compile all the way through, my test is still running. :) BTW. I examined sipcalc --- it is convenient tool. I will install and use it. Rgds -- Andrzej Odyniec |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2010-02-24 13:24:07
|
Quoting Andrzej Odyniec <an...@ma...>: > Small inconsistency. sipcalc is present in Makefiles but there is no script > sipcalc (as for now). Compilation stops. Refresh from CVS, Serge already corrected the problem. Not sure if it'll compile all the way through, my test is still running. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
|
From: Andrzej O. <an...@ma...> - 2010-02-24 13:13:22
|
Hi, Small inconsistency. sipcalc is present in Makefiles but there is no script sipcalc (as for now). Compilation stops. Rgds -- Andrzej Odyniec |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2010-01-31 17:01:27
|
I set the default goal for the makefiles to 'all', which should solve the main problem for now. I'll look at your other idea when I get a chance. Heiko > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrzej Odyniec [mailto:an...@ma...] > Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 5:43 AM > To: dev...@li... > Subject: Re: [Devil-linux-develop] no more insserv in build system > > Hi, > > Heiko Zuerker wrote: > > I don't think I understand your request, could you please try to > explain? > > I see, idea with including Makefile.*.custom as for now is unusable. > > In main Makefile.* is: > > > PHASE := build > > include Makefile.inc > > > > GROUP_nn := aa bb ... ... > > > > all : $(GROUP_mm) $(GROUP_nn) ... $(GROUP_CUSTOM_BEFORE_KERNEL) > $(GROUP_CUSTOM) > > > > ... > > > > # other place for include second level Makefile > > > > aa: | $(GROUP_mm) > > > > bb: | $(GROUP_nn) > > Makefile.inc includes Makefile.*.custom, where I should have: > > > GROUP_CUSTOM := my_aa my_bb > > > > GROUP_CUSTOM_BEFORE_KERNEL := > > > > my_bb: | my_aa > > ... > > but after declaring target "my_bb" as above, my_bb becomes DEFAULT > target of > make instead of "all" target in main Makefile.* because first declared > target > becomes default. > > After this "make build" from chrooted /build directory makes not "all" > target > but only "my_bb" target and it's dependences. > > Changing point of include (i.e. after "all" target declaration in main > Makefile.*) will give incomplete target "all" as result, because > GROUP_CUSTOM > variables before include are not defined yet. > > I suggested three solutions: > > First: repeating "all" target declaration in Makefile.*.custom as is in > main > makefile but before first custom target (this is not elegant). > > Second solution is split Makefile.*.custom into two parts, first > including on > begining and second just after "all" target. > > Third solution is calling in build.sh not "make" but explicite "make > all" or > maybe better "make $CUSTOM_TARGET" and setting this variable in main > (first > level) Makefile. Using this solution it is possible to build not always > all > scripts but only one, selected $CUSTOM_TARGET -- this can be sometime > usable. > > I use fourth method: patching main Makefiles via inserting additional > grups > and targets by scripts. > > In actual form Makefile.*.custom is hard to use. > > Best regards > > -- > Andrzej Odyniec > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------- > The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation > Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the > business > Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term > contracts > Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call > away. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-develop mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop |
|
From: Andrzej O. <an...@ma...> - 2010-01-26 11:43:48
|
Hi, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > I don't think I understand your request, could you please try to explain? I see, idea with including Makefile.*.custom as for now is unusable. In main Makefile.* is: > PHASE := build > include Makefile.inc > > GROUP_nn := aa bb ... ... > > all : $(GROUP_mm) $(GROUP_nn) ... $(GROUP_CUSTOM_BEFORE_KERNEL) $(GROUP_CUSTOM) > > ... > > # other place for include second level Makefile > > aa: | $(GROUP_mm) > > bb: | $(GROUP_nn) Makefile.inc includes Makefile.*.custom, where I should have: > GROUP_CUSTOM := my_aa my_bb > > GROUP_CUSTOM_BEFORE_KERNEL := > > my_bb: | my_aa > ... but after declaring target "my_bb" as above, my_bb becomes DEFAULT target of make instead of "all" target in main Makefile.* because first declared target becomes default. After this "make build" from chrooted /build directory makes not "all" target but only "my_bb" target and it's dependences. Changing point of include (i.e. after "all" target declaration in main Makefile.*) will give incomplete target "all" as result, because GROUP_CUSTOM variables before include are not defined yet. I suggested three solutions: First: repeating "all" target declaration in Makefile.*.custom as is in main makefile but before first custom target (this is not elegant). Second solution is split Makefile.*.custom into two parts, first including on begining and second just after "all" target. Third solution is calling in build.sh not "make" but explicite "make all" or maybe better "make $CUSTOM_TARGET" and setting this variable in main (first level) Makefile. Using this solution it is possible to build not always all scripts but only one, selected $CUSTOM_TARGET -- this can be sometime usable. I use fourth method: patching main Makefiles via inserting additional grups and targets by scripts. In actual form Makefile.*.custom is hard to use. Best regards -- Andrzej Odyniec |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2010-01-25 22:45:49
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrzej Odyniec [mailto:an...@ma...] > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 8:35 AM > To: dev...@li... > Subject: Re: [Devil-linux-develop] no more insserv in build system > > Heiko Zuerker wrote: > > Right now this would required patching the main makefiles, not sure > how we > > can do this better. > > Maybe we need to add some additional special groups, something like > > GROUP_CUSTOM_PRE_KERNEL. We won't need a post-kernel, since the > custom > > scripts are at the end anyway, > > What other places would we have where we may need to insert stuff? > > Hi, > > There is another problem now. > > We must include Makefile.*.custom (via Makefile.inc ofcourse) for two > tasks: > 1. for define variables GROUP_CUSTOM and GROUP_CUSTOM_BEFORE_KERNEL > 2. for define additional "custom" targets and dependences > > (1.) should be done before "all" target definition in main Makefile.* > (2.) should be done AFTER "all" target definition in mail Makefile.* or > first > target definition in Makefile.*.custom becomes DEFAULT target and will > build > only it and its dependencies... not more > > There is rule, that first defined target is default target. > > We can: > (a) define "all" target again on begin of Makefile.*.custom as is > defined in > Makefile.* > (b) divide Makefile.*.custom into two parts (with variable definitions > and > with targets definitions) and include this second part after "all" > target > definition in Makefile.* > (c) transfer explicite given target to second level make (i.e. via > variable); > this solution is possibility to explicite give particular target other > than > "all" in time of experimental build Sorry for the late response, I was out on vacation. I don't think I understand your request, could you please try to explain? Heiko |
|
From: Andrzej O. <an...@ma...> - 2010-01-15 14:34:50
|
Heiko Zuerker wrote: > Right now this would required patching the main makefiles, not sure how we > can do this better. > Maybe we need to add some additional special groups, something like > GROUP_CUSTOM_PRE_KERNEL. We won't need a post-kernel, since the custom > scripts are at the end anyway, > What other places would we have where we may need to insert stuff? Hi, There is another problem now. We must include Makefile.*.custom (via Makefile.inc ofcourse) for two tasks: 1. for define variables GROUP_CUSTOM and GROUP_CUSTOM_BEFORE_KERNEL 2. for define additional "custom" targets and dependences (1.) should be done before "all" target definition in main Makefile.* (2.) should be done AFTER "all" target definition in mail Makefile.* or first target definition in Makefile.*.custom becomes DEFAULT target and will build only it and its dependencies... not more There is rule, that first defined target is default target. We can: (a) define "all" target again on begin of Makefile.*.custom as is defined in Makefile.* (b) divide Makefile.*.custom into two parts (with variable definitions and with targets definitions) and include this second part after "all" target definition in Makefile.* (c) transfer explicite given target to second level make (i.e. via variable); this solution is possibility to explicite give particular target other than "all" in time of experimental build Regards -- Andrzej Odyniec |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2010-01-09 16:20:36
|
Should be all fixed now. >From the changelog: - dhcp client is now hardcoded to dhcpcd - dhcp client options are now in interface config file ifcfg-* as DHCP_OPTIONS= - removed the directory /etc/sysconfig/network/ Heiko > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrzej Odyniec [mailto:an...@ma...] > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:15 PM > To: dev...@li... > Subject: [Devil-linux-develop] Script init.d/network incompatible > > Dears, > > Old network starting script is incompatible with new dhcp client > daemon. > > This is very rare for routers to have DHCP=yes in interface settings > but if is > --- dhcpcd is not starting because of unknow option. Ofcourse one can > try to > change settings in /etc/sysconfig/dhcp or hardwire start dhcpcd without > options in network script. But probably there is need to accomodate new > hooks > architecture of this daemon. > > Regards > > Andrzej Odyniec > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community > Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support > A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and > easy > Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers > http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-develop mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2010-01-09 15:54:49
|
Patch committed to CVS. Thanks ! Heiko > -----Original Message----- > From: Roland Pabel [mailto:rp...@gm...] > Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 12:30 PM > To: dev...@li... > Subject: Re: [Devil-linux-develop] ipv6/postfix in 1.4RC2 > > On Friday 25 December 2009, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > > Can you create a bug report (well the postfix is a feature request) > in > > Mantis, so we don't lose track of it? > > http://www.devil-linux.org/support/bugs.php > ok, you now have two new feature requests and a bug report (ifconfig > not knowing about ipv6 is a bug independent of the networt scripts > using it or > not) > > > Please provide a patch for the postfix one. > See the attached files. I changed the init script and tested that on my > router, it ran fine. Now the database file has to be generated > somewhere, I patched the postfix build script to create it when > installing the package. > Somebody needs to test it, I cannot run a complete build today (or > probably this week), but it's just one line... > cu > Rolnad |
35 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
