DSM-G600, DNS-3xx and NSA-220 Hack Forum

Yes, I saw your svn link when I first started using funplug. Was mainly talking about

http://ffp.wolf-u.li/

and more than likely the OP who started this thread, tho we'll never know since the site is down.

I mainly had a problem with bison and shadow. I touch parse.y in the bash patch and the stock ffp bison bombed on me. Built bison 2.4 myself and bash compiled fine. Never bothered to track down the root of the issue. Ultimately easier to just rebuild it.

When I looked at my root passwd in /etc/shadow I noticed it was using crypt instead of MD5. Not too big of a deal but I'd like something stronger for my root passwd.

tcp_wrappers doesn't have NETGROUP support because of a missing uclibc libnss_nis...

Most of it could be considered trivial by some but I'm a control freak. That coupled with the severely crippled busybox binary links and I just started rebuilding crap for the extra functionality that I'm used to. Once I got your toolchain up to snuff I figured I'd just rebuild the whole damn thing in chroot to make it more sterile... Again, "up to snuff" and "sterile" are merely opinions/preferences and in no way are meant as derogatory. I just prefer to do things myself. I might even replace funpkg with pkgtool. Dunno.

My point was, that if build scripts are present under the same parent directory as binary packages, we would avoid posts like the above. Don't go hunting for a new binary package, grab the scripts, change the version and/or build rev and just build yourself a new proftpd that is linked against openssl-0.9.8g......

Not having the source readily available propagates "windows" behavior in people, making them solely dependent on binary packages, and I REALLY hate to see linux users do that...

Last edited by madpenguin (2009-01-09 18:15:51)

madpenguin wrote:

I just prefer to do things myself. I might even replace funpkg with pkgtool. Dunno.

Being a Slackware user myself, I can fully understand that stance. As you sure have noticed, funpkg is actually modelled on Slackware's pkgtools. I don't insist on tar-1.13, nor do I special-case symlinks, but the rest works very similar.  I've chosen to put stuff in a single script rather than three, because it made the implementation a lot simpler. Heck, there's even support for install/doinst.sh. Unless you want to use pkgtools verbatim, I'd be happy to collaberate on this project.

3) Compile flags:
./configure --prefix=/ffp --with-modules=mod_tls \
--with-includes=/ffp/includes/openssl --with-libraries=/ffp/lib

as found in the google cache. http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:ZBj … =firefox-a

I've tried compiling it myself, but have had problems with libcap.  I had similar errors when compiling knockd as well.  I'm going go try some more simple packages to see if i can get a PoC that i can infact compile a package successfully.

Although this thread is old, it still got myself a little angry.

I found several of his packages less than desirable

Perhaps you could elaborate a little on that, because until this post, i didn't see any problems... Edit: If you are the kind of community-gui, why are you not helping to improve these packages?

madpenguin wrote:

Was mainly talking about

http://ffp.wolf-u.li/

and more than likely the OP who started this thread, tho we'll never know since the site is down.

It is my website (as you probably already know) and the reason is very simple: Nobody ever asked. There is in fact a e-mail-adress in the README, but nobody (including madpenguin!) sent an email. Now that i've read that somebody actually wanted some scripts I've uploaded them to a directory in the repository (no big deal, but it took some time).

madpenguin wrote:

My point was, that if build scripts are present under the same parent directory as binary packages, we would avoid posts like the above.

You are right, this is a good option, although i'd prefer a seperate directory.

madpenguin wrote:

I REALLY hate to see linux users do that...

I think that at least 80% of funplug-users never have used linux before. Thus they are not interested in compiling packages on their own, but simply get the nas running.

Perhaps we build some centralized website for that stuff? So that we can collaborate a little on packages. Fonz can't keep an eye on all packages for updates, so other people could help out. After a review and user-feedback, the packages could be released into the "official" repositories. I didn't think through the hole idea, but i think this could be a way to go. What do you think about that?

Last edited by DeLaCroix (2009-03-10 18:07:29)