Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:23:42 +0300
From: Oleg Lukashin <phd@...a.ru>
To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: make buildworld troubles

* Solar Designer (solar@...nwall.com) wrote:

> Then the files under it aren't or the kernel hasn't been configured.
> In another message you said you didn't build it, but did you configure
> it?  The minimum that needs to be done is a "make menuconfig", you may
> leave everything at defaults, but you do need to run it and save the
> configuration.

Ohh, I see. so, path to kernel sources should be /usr/src/linux, yes ? 

> It is recommended that you do kernel configuration and builds as user
> "sources", too.

why then documentation says it should be done from "build" user ?

> > Also, why there is no packet named bind in 1.0 release ?
> 
> Because we didn't yet invest the time into making it match our
> requirements for an Owl package (and it's much more than just the
> packaging).  This clearly needs to be done.

I understand.

> > what is the best way to compile bind, can i find spec for bind somewhere ?
> 
> There're several alternatives to choose from:
> 
> 1. Pick and use binary packages from Red Hat Linux 6.2 updates.  Or
> rebuild them from SRPMs, but it doesn't make much of a difference.
> This is the easiest.

is there is any difference between RedHat's and Owl's
directory structure in case using packets such as bind or apache for example?

> 2. Use BIND 4.9.x-OW, setting up its chroot jail manually (there's an
> explanation of how this may be done).

You mean patch or tarball ? if tar, where it can be found ?

> -- 
> /sd
--
Best regards,
Oleg Lukashin
mailto:phd@...a.ru

Hosted by DataForce ISP - Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux