Thanks Ken Bel for your challenge to solve the error in rpmbuid of
httpd-2.4.23, I reported. I am glad to hear the error is reproduced at
the CentOS6.8 platform.
However, I have no way to check the integrity of the whole system made
by the modifications. I hope people involved in HTTPD proje
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Christopher Schultz
wrote:
>
> On 8/11/16 11:10 PM, Marat Khalili wrote:
>> From what I saw, this behavior of /dev/random is totally normal on
>> an idle Linux system.
>
> There seems to be some confusion about /dev/random on Linux systems.
> Yes, the behavior desc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
All,
On 8/11/16 11:10 PM, Marat Khalili wrote:
> From what I saw, this behavior of /dev/random is totally normal on
> an idle Linux system.
There seems to be some confusion about /dev/random on Linux systems.
Yes, the behavior described here is nor
With RPM, you don't ever want to modify the upstream source archive (instead
you use patches or an external SPEC). Rather than rebuilding the tarball and
putting your SPEC inside it, you should be keeping the SPEC separate and using
-bb or -ba (for a source RPM) argument to rpmbuild.
Rick Hou
This is on CentOS 6.8, but the error you show was the same.
To try to build the package I edited the httpd.spec file to add:
"--enable-proxy" and "--enable-proxy-fdpass" to the "%configure"
stanza. That got rid of the error you show but turned up a different
one: "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s
>From what I saw, this behavior of /dev/random is totally normal on an idle
>Linux system. Just do not ever use /dev/random.
--
With Best Regards,
Marat Khalili
On July 30, 2016 6:04:42 AM GMT+03:00, Nick Williams
wrote:
>It took me a while to get back to this (it’s not a mission-critical
>se
