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

Unfortunately no one can be told what fun_plug is - you have to see it for yourself.

You are not logged in.

Announcement

#1 2009-05-28 12:58:17

Smallstack
Member
From: New Zealand
Registered: 2009-04-05
Posts: 23
Website

Compiling newer packages

I was wondering if I compile newer version of packages, mainly autoconf, automake, m4, curl etc, is there a possibility I will break funplug or the os on the NAS?

I'm just wondering about how fonz picks the versions to release onto his site.

Offline

 

#2 2009-05-28 13:04:22

fonz
Member / Developer
From: Berlin
Registered: 2007-02-06
Posts: 1716
Website

Re: Compiling newer packages

Smallstack wrote:

I was wondering if I compile newer version of packages, mainly autoconf, automake, m4, curl etc, is there a possibility I will break funplug or the os on the NAS?

I'm just wondering about how fonz picks the versions to release onto his site.

I usually compile the latest (working) versions, but don't create new packages each time there's a new upstream release (unless it contains significant fixes).  For some packages, Uli has newer versions at http://ffp.wolf-u.li/

Offline

 

#3 2009-06-13 09:12:58

DasCrushinator
Member
Registered: 2009-05-09
Posts: 34

Re: Compiling newer packages

fonz wrote:

Smallstack wrote:

I was wondering if I compile newer version of packages, mainly autoconf, automake, m4, curl etc, is there a possibility I will break funplug or the os on the NAS?

I'm just wondering about how fonz picks the versions to release onto his site.

I usually compile the latest (working) versions, but don't create new packages each time there's a new upstream release (unless it contains significant fixes).  For some packages, Uli has newer versions at http://ffp.wolf-u.li/

Is it possible to get a newer version of wget? I would love the option to use --auth-no-certificate for example.

Offline

 

#4 2009-09-19 15:14:30

johnkeye
Member
Registered: 2009-06-11
Posts: 16

Re: Compiling newer packages

Uli has wget-1.11.4-2.

GNU's latest version is 1.11.4.

I think that the difference in the numbering is likely due to Uli's changes, in that it is probably the second version of 1.11.4 that he made.

In any event...

Code:

bash-3.2# cd /ffp/packages/
bash-3.2# wget http://ffp.wolf-u.li/additional/net-misc/wget-1.11.4-2.tgz
Connecting to ffp.wolf-u.li (85.114.137.65:80)
wget-1.11.4-2.tgz    100% |*************************************************************|   163k 00:00:00 ETA
bash-3.2# /ffp/sbin/funpkg -i wget-1.11.4-2.tgz 
Installing package wget-1.11.4-2 ...

Gets you the latest binary. The --auth-no-certificate option doesn't work on it, though.

A quick Googling about does not crop up any results regarding that switch, so I don't know if it's in wget source at all?


Best known for not understanding why D-Link chose the name "DNS" for a non-nameserver-product. Seriously, WTF?

Offline

 

#5 2009-09-19 15:23:10

johnkeye
Member
Registered: 2009-06-11
Posts: 16

Re: Compiling newer packages

From the the manual page about SSL/TLS option

Code:

--no-check-certificate

‘--no-check-certificate’
Don't check the server certificate against the available certificate authorities. Also don't require the URL host name to match the common name presented by the certificate.
As of Wget 1.10, the default is to verify the server's certificate against the recognized certificate authorities, breaking the SSL handshake and aborting the download if the verification fails. Although this provides more secure downloads, it does break interoperability with some sites that worked with previous Wget versions, particularly those using self-signed, expired, or otherwise invalid certificates. This option forces an “insecure” mode of operation that turns the certificate verification errors into warnings and allows you to proceed.

If you encounter “certificate verification” errors or ones saying that “common name doesn't match requested host name”, you can use this option to bypass the verification and proceed with the download. Only use this option if you are otherwise convinced of the site's authenticity, or if you really don't care about the validity of its certificate. It is almost always a bad idea not to check the certificates when transmitting confidential or important data.

Is that the option you want?

In any event here's some of the options that Uli's compiled version supports:

Code:

HTTPS (SSL/TLS) options:
       --secure-protocol=PR     choose secure protocol, one of auto, SSLv2,
                                SSLv3, and TLSv1.
       --no-check-certificate   don't validate the server's certificate.
       --certificate=FILE       client certificate file.
       --certificate-type=TYPE  client certificate type, PEM or DER.
       --private-key=FILE       private key file.
       --private-key-type=TYPE  private key type, PEM or DER.
       --ca-certificate=FILE    file with the bundle of CA's.
       --ca-directory=DIR       directory where hash list of CA's is stored.
       --random-file=FILE       file with random data for seeding the SSL PRNG.
       --egd-file=FILE          file naming the EGD socket with random data.

Best known for not understanding why D-Link chose the name "DNS" for a non-nameserver-product. Seriously, WTF?

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2010 PunBB