Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: 320095285153-0001@... (Achim Gottinger)
Subject: Re: ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:06:54 +0100
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
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
> 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@g.o wrote:
> > To: achim@g.o
> > > 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. (, ...).
I use at the moment here. includes a buggy nfs-patch, this
patch gets
not applied in In 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 is the best choice at the moment but you can't use nfs with

> 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
> ( 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 (
> This also seems to be the way to go from what I have heard (mostly from
> Christopher Brown at
> 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@...
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@g.o

Re: ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers
-- drobbins
ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers
-- Justin Vander Ziel
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers
Next by thread:
Re: ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers
Previous by date:
Re: ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion,xinetd vs. tcpwrappers
Next by date:
Re: mission critical changes 8) (was: ebuild, ip6tables headaches, kernel confusion, xinetd vs. tcpwrappers)

Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.