[lug] Attempted hack from 126.96.36.199
Timothy C. Klein
teece at silverklein.net
Thu Apr 25 11:07:41 MDT 2002
* Daniel Webb (webb at robust.colorado.edu) wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Nate Duehr wrote:
> > > The problem was the exploit used on me had long ago been patched
> > > (the current Redhat wouldn't install on my machine due to bugs in the
> > > installer),
> > > so I wouldn't have seen it on any of the security watch mailing lists or
> > > web sites. I couldn't even find it on *Redhat's* website after
> > > the fact when I knew the exploit. Now that I have been using Linux a
> > > little longer, I know about the alternate ways of automating Redhat
> > > package updates, but it still doesn't beat the built-in power of apt-get.
> > Gotcha. And agreed on apt... wonderful tool. The fairly recent addition of
> > the attempt to download source dependencies when downloading source packages
> > for builds is REALLY nice.
> You mean auto-apt? I just used it the other day to build a source
> tree of a program that doesn't have a debian package. As the compile went
> along, it would barf with "can't find header <something>.h", at which
> point apt-get would go out and get whatever it needed. Sounds like it
> would be flakey, but in my case, it downloaded two needed libraries,
> restarted the compile and compiled correctly. Sweet!
I don't think he meant auto-apt (a cool sounding tool, though, I will have
to try it). I think he meant the recent addition to apt-get that allows
build-dependencies to be retrieved with one command. Thus:
apt-get build-dep libc
and all debs that are listed as build-depends for libc will be fetched.
It can be very convenient for building debs from source.
== Timothy Klein || teece at silverklein.net ==
== ---------------------------------------- ==
== "Hello, World" 17 Errors, 31 Warnings... ==
More information about the LUG