> Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If people really think it is necesary I can add:
> >
> > PPP_TTYNAME=`/usr/bin/basename "$2"`
>
> I think this is a bad idea. Anyone who wants to do this, can, and
> throwing away information in situations like this is usually a bad
> idea.
If
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Note, that I'm not saying that I can come up with a good argument why
> > it would be important to be able to make this distinction (or to even
> > do what I'm depicting in the example), but I am saying that sinc
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note, that I'm not saying that I can come up with a good argument why
> it would be important to be able to make this distinction (or to even
> do what I'm depicting in the example), but I am saying that since I
> can't prove to myself that the exact arguem
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If people really think it is necesary I can add:
>
> PPP_TTYNAME=`/usr/bin/basename "$2"`
I think this is a bad idea. Anyone who wants to do this, can, and
throwing away information in situations like this is usually a bad
idea.
Consider this (obvio
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I thought that, until I noticed that libpam depends upon
> > libpam-util, which depends upon libpwdb0, which together come to
> > about 180k compressed.
>
> I think you should file a bug report against libpam so it doesn't
> depend on libpam-util. I don
> On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Philip Hands wrote:
>
> > My first attempt at this was to add these lines to the scripts:
> >
> > # These variables are for the use of the scripts run by run-parts
> > PPP_IFACE="$1"
> > PPP_TTY="$2"
> > PPP_SPEED="$3"
> > PPP_LOCAL="$4"
> > PPP_REMOTE="$5"
> >
Philip Hands wrote:
>
> I thought that, until I noticed that libpam depends upon libpam-util, which
> depends upon libpwdb0, which together come to about 180k compressed.
I think you should file a bug report against libpam so it doesn't depend on
libpam-util. I don't see why a library package s
> Philip Hands wrote:
> >
> > ppp is needed for doing an install from the internet via a dialup link.
> > PAM is not needed until you want people to log into the system, so libpam
> > is a waste of space on the install disks.
>
> The only advantage I can see is a couple of kilobytes of space o
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Philip Hands wrote:
> My first attempt at this was to add these lines to the scripts:
>
> # These variables are for the use of the scripts run by run-parts
> PPP_IFACE="$1"
> PPP_TTY="$2"
> PPP_SPEED="$3"
> PPP_LOCAL="$4"
> PPP_REMOTE="$5"
> export PPP_IFACE PPP
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> Maybe I should submit this as a wishlist to the bug system, but I was
> interested in getting some comments first.
>
> I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use
> 'run-parts' against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/.
So
Philip Hands wrote:
>
> ppp is needed for doing an install from the internet via a dialup link. PAM
> is not needed until you want people to log into the system, so libpam is a
> waste of space on the install disks.
The only advantage I can see is a couple of kilobytes of space on the
installa
Philip Hands writes:
> If people really think it is necesary I can add:
> PPP_TTYNAME=`/usr/bin/basename "$2"`
> export PPP_TTYNAME
> to the ip-{up,down} scripts.
Please do. The pppd man page is not at all clear on this point. This
addition could save a user trying to get a script working a
> > > And there is one thing
> > > which I would qualify as a mistake in the above description: $2 is
> > > actually in the form "/dev/ttyS1" than just "ttyS1".
> >
> > Doh! I wish they wouldn't do that. I guess it's for some kinda
> > security?
> >
> > ...A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.
> > And there is one thing
> > which I would qualify as a mistake in the above description: $2 is
> > actually in the form "/dev/ttyS1" than just "ttyS1".
>
> Doh! I wish they wouldn't do that. I guess it's for some kinda
> security?
>
> ...A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
W
"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My first attempt at this was to add these lines to the scripts:
>
> # These variables are for the use of the scripts run by run-parts
> PPP_IFACE="$1"
> PPP_TTY="$2"
> PPP_SPEED="$3"
> PPP_LOCAL="$4"
> PPP_REMOTE="$5"
> export PPP_IFACE
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> o By linking ppp with pam you are dragging libpam0g, libpam0g-util and
> libpwdb0g into base.
>
> This is fine, *as long as* it's been discussed and agreed first, I
> don't like 3 shared library packages being silently dragged into
> base. If we'r
"Adam P. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> Maybe I should submit this as a wishlist to the bug system, but I was
> interested in getting some comments first.
>
> I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use
> 'run-parts' against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}
> >FWIW I've been using run-parts in ip-up and ip-down for some time now,
> >the scripts reconfigure stuff based on my ip address (2 ISPs) etc.
> >and everything works like a charm. I dunno about packages placing
> >scripts in ip-[up|down].d/ -- I'd rather put them in
> >/usr/doc//examples.
>
>
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any better suggestions ?
run-parts should pass arguments which follow the directory.
--
Raul
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
>
> [You ([EMAIL PROTECTED])]
> >FWIW I've been using run-parts in ip-up and ip-down for some time now,
> >the scripts reconfigure stuff based on my ip address (2 ISPs) etc.
> >and everything works like a charm. I dunno about packages placing
> >scripts in ip-[up|down].d/ -- I'd rather put them
[You ([EMAIL PROTECTED])]
>FWIW I've been using run-parts in ip-up and ip-down for some time now,
>the scripts reconfigure stuff based on my ip address (2 ISPs) etc.
>and everything works like a charm. I dunno about packages placing
>scripts in ip-[up|down].d/ -- I'd rather put them in
>/usr/do
On Tue, Dec 16, 1997 at 11:35:23AM +0500, Adam P. Harris wrote:
>
...
> > For example, I have configured my ip-up script to start fetchmail
> > (in daemon mode) and grab articles for my local news spool unless
> > the file /etc/no_mail exists. Therefore, if I need to quickly dial
> > in, say to f
[ Brokenly-long lines wrapped ]
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ppp is needed for doing an install from the internet via a dialup
> link. PAM is not needed until you want people to log into the
> system, so libpam is a waste of space on the install disks.
>
> I'm not certain it's wort
"Brian" == Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Adam P. Harris writes:
>>> I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use
>>> 'run-parts' against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/.
>>>
>>> This would allow, for instance, MT
> Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I thought I'd call the PAM-free ppp package ppp-base, like perl-base.
> > I'm still not sure about the best way to do this though. It looks like the
> > only thing that needs to be different is the pppd binary, so:
> >
> > Should I make ppp conta
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought I'd call the PAM-free ppp package ppp-base, like perl-base.
> I'm still not sure about the best way to do this though. It looks like the
> only thing that needs to be different is the pppd binary, so:
>
> Should I make ppp contain only the pp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> How fast are isp's converting to pap? No point in putting a lot of
> work into dealing with chatscripts if they are going away soon.
I believe that there will soon (if not already) be very few ISPs which
don't support PAP or CHAP. chat isn't going to be used for anyth
"Adam P. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use
> 'run-parts' against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/.
Stunningly good idea. Make it so :>
--
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94 53
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adam P. Harris writes:
> > I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use
> > 'run-parts' against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/.
> >
> > This would allow, for instance, MTA packages to ship little scripts to
> > flush th
> So do I. I first asked Christoph for this back in the spring, and I've since
> asked Phil Hands about it when he took over the package and I've seen nothing
> happen yet..
It's on my TODO list. I was intending to release a package including this
this evening, but I've just wasted a couple of
Karl M. Hegbloom writes:
> I think the main thing is that a person with very little experience
> should be led through the initial setup by a script, at the very least.
> It would be good to tell them about `minicom', with some instructions on
> how to use it to get the info they need to construct
A. P. Harris writes:
> I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use 'run-parts'
> against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/.
> This would allow, for instance, MTA packages to ship little scripts to
> flush the mail queue when the link comes up, pop-deamons to start up,
Adam P. Harris writes:
> I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use
> 'run-parts' against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/.
>
> This would allow, for instance, MTA packages to ship little scripts to
> flush the mail queue when the link comes up, pop-deamons to s
> "Adam" == Adam P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> Maybe I should submit this as a wishlist to the bug system,
Adam> but I was interested in getting some comments first.
Red Hat 5.0 has a complex network configuration setup... I didn't
have time to look it over in detail, b
This would be helpful for my new wvdial package as well -- from a user
interface standpoint, I would like to have a way for pppd to "call me back"
once we're properly connected.
Avery
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> Maybe I should submit this as a wishlist to the bug system, but I
Adam P. Harris wrote:
>
> Maybe I should submit this as a wishlist to the bug system, but I was
> interested in getting some comments first.
>
> I think that /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down should use
> 'run-parts' against, say, the directories /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/.
So do I. I first aske
I think this is a very good idea. I know that the ipmasq package would
greatly benefit from this kind of arangement.
Brian
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Adam P. Harris wrote:
>
> Maybe I should submit this as a wishlist to the bug system, but I was
> interested in getting some comments first.
>
> I th
37 matches
Mail list logo
