From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Oct 16 21:18:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA17809 for stable-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 21:18:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable) Received: from bob.tri-lakes.net ([207.3.81.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA17803 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 21:18:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cdillon@tri-lakes.net) Received: from [207.3.81.149] by bob.tri-lakes.net (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id sa304036 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 23:18:08 -0500 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.1 [p0] on FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <24451.877061212@coconut.itojun.org> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 23:12:11 -0000 (GMT) From: Chris Dillon To: itojun@itojun.org Subject: Re: Problem with Hylafax Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On 17-Oct-97 itojun@itojun.org wrote: > >>This is correct, however, i don't have a DNS server setup on this >machine, >>nor does my ISP have any clue in hell about DNS, (try and reverse my >usual >>dialup address, 207.3.81.149, using any DNS server in the world... then >use >>one of theirs, such as 207.3.81.5... I've bugged them about this for >ages >>since it prevents me from connecting to sites who require reverse >lookups >>to work) I DO have a hostname set with /bin/hostname >(wyze.tri-lakes.net). >>This, however, was not a problem previously. Hylafax worked fine some >time >>ago even with my 'bogus' hostname. > > It should be fine if you have /etc/hosts properly set... > how about /etc/host.conf? is it properly set? In my /etc/hosts: 127.0.0.1 localhost wyze wyze.tri-lakes.net /etc/host.conf order is: bind hosts Tried reversing the order.. No help. >>Someone did suggest that bash was the >>culprit, and so I am reinstalling Hylafax (already removed it again.. >might >>as well test a patch while I'm at it) with its dependancy for bash1 >>changed to bash2. >>Hmmm.. no luck with bash2 there. Still does a SIGSEGV.. Now to see if >maybe >>I can fix that problem and supply a patch. :-) > > bash will only be used at the installation(more exactly, "configure") > time, so this won't change the behavior much. > >itojun I didn't think it would, but it was worth the try anyway. --- Chris Dillon --- cdillon@tri-lakes.net --- Powered by FreeBSD, the best free OS on the planet ---- (http://www.freebsd.org)