From lqin@sce.carleton.ca Thu Sep 2 15:00:14 2004 From: lqin@sce.carleton.ca (Liang Qin) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:00:14 -0400 Subject: [Xorp-hackers] cannot compiling in Fedora core 2 when adding module in XORP Message-ID: <4137276E.1070606@sce.carleton.ca> Hi XORP users, Thanks for help for my previous question. Now I add one module to XORP 1.0 and make some changes to the configure files, then I run (may should run aclocat first) automake ./configure gmake and I get this error message: Making all in libxorp gmake[2]: Entering directory `/home/lqin/xorp-1.0/libxorp' Makefile:575: *** missing separator. Stop. I changed LANG setting, and it didn't help. For the original xorp-1.0, if I run like this sequence, I still get the same error. Could anyone give me any suggestion? Thanks! Liang From atanu@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU Thu Sep 2 18:11:24 2004 From: atanu@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Atanu Ghosh) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:11:24 -0700 Subject: [Xorp-hackers] cannot compiling in Fedora core 2 when adding module in XORP In-Reply-To: Message from Liang Qin of "Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:00:14 EDT." <4137276E.1070606@sce.carleton.ca> Message-ID: <59621.1094145084@tigger.icir.org> Run "bootstrap" in the top level directory, it will run the auto* commands. You will still need to run configure. Atanu. >>>>> "Liang" == Liang Qin writes: Liang> Hi XORP users, Thanks for help for my previous question. Liang> Now I add one module to XORP 1.0 and make some changes to the Liang> configure files, then I run Liang> (may should run aclocat first) automake ./configure gmake Liang> and I get this error message: Liang> Making all in libxorp gmake[2]: Entering directory Liang> `/home/lqin/xorp-1.0/libxorp' Makefile:575: *** missing Liang> separator. Stop. Liang> I changed LANG setting, and it didn't help. Liang> For the original xorp-1.0, if I run like this sequence, I Liang> still get the same error. Liang> Could anyone give me any suggestion? Liang> Thanks! Liang> Liang _______________________________________________ Liang> Xorp-hackers mailing list Xorp-hackers@icir.org Liang> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers From pavlin@icir.org Thu Sep 2 18:47:45 2004 From: pavlin@icir.org (Pavlin Radoslavov) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:47:45 -0700 Subject: [Xorp-hackers] cannot compiling in Fedora core 2 when adding module in XORP In-Reply-To: Message from Atanu Ghosh of "Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:11:24 PDT." <59621.1094145084@tigger.icir.org> Message-ID: <200409021747.i82HljwK094701@possum.icir.org> > Run "bootstrap" in the top level directory, it will run the auto* > commands. You will still need to run configure. In addition, please make sure that you are using the same versions of autoconf and automake we use: pavlin@possum[85] autoconf --version autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.53 pavlin@possum[86] automake --version automake (GNU automake) 1.5 The reason is that it is very difficult to write configure.in file that works across all autoconf/automake versions. After you install the above versions, please make sure that they are not installed with a different name. Otherwise, the "bootstrap" script may still run the wrong version. In general, if you edit the configure.in file, or any of the Makefile.am files, then all you need to do is: ./bootstrap ./configure Regards, Pavlin > > Atanu. > > >>>>> "Liang" == Liang Qin writes: > > Liang> Hi XORP users, Thanks for help for my previous question. > > Liang> Now I add one module to XORP 1.0 and make some changes to the > Liang> configure files, then I run > > Liang> (may should run aclocat first) automake ./configure gmake > > Liang> and I get this error message: > > Liang> Making all in libxorp gmake[2]: Entering directory > Liang> `/home/lqin/xorp-1.0/libxorp' Makefile:575: *** missing > Liang> separator. Stop. > > Liang> I changed LANG setting, and it didn't help. > > Liang> For the original xorp-1.0, if I run like this sequence, I > Liang> still get the same error. > > Liang> Could anyone give me any suggestion? > > Liang> Thanks! > > Liang> Liang _______________________________________________ > Liang> Xorp-hackers mailing list Xorp-hackers@icir.org > Liang> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers > _______________________________________________ > Xorp-hackers mailing list > Xorp-hackers@icir.org > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers From lqin@sce.carleton.ca Thu Sep 2 19:03:27 2004 From: lqin@sce.carleton.ca (Liang Qin) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:03:27 -0400 Subject: [Xorp-hackers] cannot compiling in Fedora core 2 when adding module in XORP In-Reply-To: <200409021747.i82HljwK094701@possum.icir.org> References: <200409021747.i82HljwK094701@possum.icir.org> Message-ID: <4137606F.1010509@sce.carleton.ca> The version in Fedora Core 2 is: autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.59 automake (GNU automake) 1.8.3 Do I have to downgrade the version? gmake is working, I'll see the result. Thanks! Liang Pavlin Radoslavov wrote: >>Run "bootstrap" in the top level directory, it will run the auto* >>commands. You will still need to run configure. >> >> > >In addition, please make sure that you are using the same versions >of autoconf and automake we use: > >pavlin@possum[85] autoconf --version >autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.53 > >pavlin@possum[86] automake --version >automake (GNU automake) 1.5 > >The reason is that it is very difficult to write configure.in file >that works across all autoconf/automake versions. > >After you install the above versions, please make sure that they are >not installed with a different name. Otherwise, the "bootstrap" >script may still run the wrong version. > >In general, if you edit the configure.in file, or any of the >Makefile.am files, then all you need to do is: > >./bootstrap >./configure > >Regards, >Pavlin > > > From pavlin@icir.org Thu Sep 2 19:03:32 2004 From: pavlin@icir.org (Pavlin Radoslavov) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:03:32 -0700 Subject: [Xorp-hackers] cannot compiling in Fedora core 2 when adding module in XORP In-Reply-To: Message from Liang Qin of "Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:03:27 EDT." <4137606F.1010509@sce.carleton.ca> Message-ID: <200409021803.i82I3WwK095255@possum.icir.org> > The version in Fedora Core 2 is: > > autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.59 > > automake (GNU automake) 1.8.3 > > Do I have to downgrade the version? gmake is working, I'll see the result. If you followed Atanu's instructions, and if things seem to work, then probably you don't need to downgrade. Only if something about the building process is broken, then you can try to downgrade. Regards, Pavlin > Pavlin Radoslavov wrote: > > >>Run "bootstrap" in the top level directory, it will run the auto* > >>commands. You will still need to run configure. > >> > >> > > > >In addition, please make sure that you are using the same versions > >of autoconf and automake we use: > > > >pavlin@possum[85] autoconf --version > >autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.53 > > > >pavlin@possum[86] automake --version > >automake (GNU automake) 1.5 > > > >The reason is that it is very difficult to write configure.in file > >that works across all autoconf/automake versions. > > > >After you install the above versions, please make sure that they are > >not installed with a different name. Otherwise, the "bootstrap" > >script may still run the wrong version. > > > >In general, if you edit the configure.in file, or any of the > >Makefile.am files, then all you need to do is: > > > >./bootstrap > >./configure > > > >Regards, > >Pavlin > > > > > > > From bms@spc.org Fri Sep 3 00:16:48 2004 From: bms@spc.org (Bruce M Simpson) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 16:16:48 -0700 Subject: [Xorp-hackers] Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/ifconfig ifconfig.c src/sys/net if.c if.h In-Reply-To: <200409021136.44582.peter@wemm.org> References: <200409011822.i81IMERb017602@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040902092916.GA61915@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <20040902152546.GA3801@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <200409021136.44582.peter@wemm.org> Message-ID: <20040902231648.GE807@empiric.icir.org> --t0UkRYy7tHLRMCai Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I have to admit to a certain amount of culpability here, as I wasn't really thinking through all of the implications of Brooks' change when I agreed 'y= es, having an epoch timer which makes us less susceptible to roll-over where struct ifnet and SNMP are concerned, is a good idea'. Refactoring the PF_ROUTE ABI is probably a task for the 6-CURRENT lifetime. If done right, we could MT5 it as we go along. On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:36:44AM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote: > BTW, in case nobody noticed.. nothing sets the routing socket abi=20 > version number, and nothing checks it. No versions are even defined. =20 > Well.. version 0 is implicit I guess. :-) Yeah. This is a pain. There are a number of sticky things about routing socket messages as they are right now. This probably needs to happen using a different protocol family to begin with, with the old PF_ROUTE kept on board as a shim; notice that PF_KEY_V2 is explicitly numbered as such, and has much in common with how routing sockets and messages are dealt with. A Tag/Length/Value scheme might be more appropriate; things like dealing with netmasks are very hairy indeed. This is not so much on my TODO list as my WISHLIST right now, XORP could certainly benefit. BMS --t0UkRYy7tHLRMCai Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: '' iD8DBQFBN6ngueUpAYYNtTsRAjoOAKCAOsWTZ+fJys/KmI0Wq0Ph6cWKXgCglEk9 4guFiLpaM0kDtjN4NFozeHA= =HxPU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --t0UkRYy7tHLRMCai-- From vjardin@free.fr Mon Sep 13 21:56:46 2004 From: vjardin@free.fr (Vincent Jardin) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:56:46 +0200 Subject: [Xorp-hackers] Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/ifconfig ifconfig.c src/sys/net if.c if.h In-Reply-To: <20040902231648.GE807@empiric.icir.org> References: <200409011822.i81IMERb017602@repoman.freebsd.org> <200409021136.44582.peter@wemm.org> <20040902231648.GE807@empiric.icir.org> Message-ID: <200409132256.50028.vjardin@free.fr> My 2 cents: FreeBSD 6 could support Netlink too ;-) I know that Linux could have supported PF_ROUTE, but it did not ;-( So why not FreeBSD could support Netlink ;-) Regards, Vincent On Friday 03 September 2004 01:16, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > Hi, > > I have to admit to a certain amount of culpability here, as I wasn't really > thinking through all of the implications of Brooks' change when I agreed > 'yes, having an epoch timer which makes us less susceptible to roll-over > where struct ifnet and SNMP are concerned, is a good idea'. > > Refactoring the PF_ROUTE ABI is probably a task for the 6-CURRENT lifetime. > If done right, we could MT5 it as we go along. > > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:36:44AM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote: > > BTW, in case nobody noticed.. nothing sets the routing socket abi > > version number, and nothing checks it. No versions are even defined. > > Well.. version 0 is implicit I guess. :-) > > Yeah. This is a pain. There are a number of sticky things about routing > socket messages as they are right now. > > This probably needs to happen using a different protocol family to begin > with, with the old PF_ROUTE kept on board as a shim; notice that PF_KEY_V2 > is explicitly numbered as such, and has much in common with how routing > sockets and messages are dealt with. > > A Tag/Length/Value scheme might be more appropriate; things like dealing > with netmasks are very hairy indeed. > > This is not so much on my TODO list as my WISHLIST right now, XORP could > certainly benefit. > > BMS From lqin@sce.carleton.ca Fri Sep 24 17:28:20 2004 From: lqin@sce.carleton.ca (Liang Qin) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:28:20 -0400 Subject: [Xorp-hackers] "Interrupted system call" message Message-ID: <41544B24.5030901@sce.carleton.ca> Hi XORP users, I added one routing module to XORP-1.0, when this module adds or deletes route to RIB, "Interrupted system call" message will appear right before the callback. What could be the problem? Thanks! Liang Qin From pavlin@icir.org Tue Sep 28 05:23:06 2004 From: pavlin@icir.org (Pavlin Radoslavov) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:23:06 -0700 Subject: [Xorp-hackers] "Interrupted system call" message In-Reply-To: Message from Liang Qin of "Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:28:20 EDT." <41544B24.5030901@sce.carleton.ca> Message-ID: <200409280423.i8S4N6wK082149@possum.icir.org> > Hi XORP users, > > I added one routing module to XORP-1.0, when this module adds or deletes > route to RIB, > "Interrupted system call" message will appear right before the callback. > > What could be the problem? Liang, Does this message come from your routing module or from RIB or from somewhere else? In either case, could you use ktrace or strace and try to figure-out which is the particular system call that is interrupted. Eventually, by observing the system calls log you may be able to point the particular piece of code in your routing module/RIB/etc which contains the interrupted system call (and apply a fix as appropriate). Regards, Pavlin From bms@spc.org Fri Sep 3 00:16:48 2004 From: bms@spc.org (Bruce M Simpson) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 16:16:48 -0700 Subject: [Xorp-hackers] Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/ifconfig ifconfig.c src/sys/net if.c if.h In-Reply-To: <200409021136.44582.peter@wemm.org> References: <200409011822.i81IMERb017602@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040902092916.GA61915@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <20040902152546.GA3801@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <200409021136.44582.peter@wemm.org> Message-ID: <20040902231648.GE807@empiric.icir.org> --t0UkRYy7tHLRMCai Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I have to admit to a certain amount of culpability here, as I wasn't really thinking through all of the implications of Brooks' change when I agreed 'y= es, having an epoch timer which makes us less susceptible to roll-over where struct ifnet and SNMP are concerned, is a good idea'. Refactoring the PF_ROUTE ABI is probably a task for the 6-CURRENT lifetime. If done right, we could MT5 it as we go along. On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:36:44AM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote: > BTW, in case nobody noticed.. nothing sets the routing socket abi=20 > version number, and nothing checks it. No versions are even defined. =20 > Well.. version 0 is implicit I guess. :-) Yeah. This is a pain. There are a number of sticky things about routing socket messages as they are right now. This probably needs to happen using a different protocol family to begin with, with the old PF_ROUTE kept on board as a shim; notice that PF_KEY_V2 is explicitly numbered as such, and has much in common with how routing sockets and messages are dealt with. A Tag/Length/Value scheme might be more appropriate; things like dealing with netmasks are very hairy indeed. This is not so much on my TODO list as my WISHLIST right now, XORP could certainly benefit. BMS --t0UkRYy7tHLRMCai Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: '' iD8DBQFBN6ngueUpAYYNtTsRAjoOAKCAOsWTZ+fJys/KmI0Wq0Ph6cWKXgCglEk9 4guFiLpaM0kDtjN4NFozeHA= =HxPU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --t0UkRYy7tHLRMCai--