[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ethereal



(Fixed posting order, just because I'm anal)

> >2005/12/12, Joachim Schipper <j_(_dot_)_schipper_(_at_)_math_(_dot_)_uu_(_dot_)_nl>:
> >>
> >>On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 08:10:43AM -0200, Ricardo Lucas wrote:
> >>>Hello misc,
> >>>
> >>>Has someone compiled the ethereal? If so, you do can help me.
> >>>When I try to compile that source I get a message that I don't have the
> >>>GTK+2 and GLIB2 installed on my system, but I DO have they.
> >>>So if anyone passed through this problem, please, HELP ME!!! =]
> >>
> >>First, try to understand just *why* ethereal is not available as a port.
> >>See
> >>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-ports-cvs&m=108984209100775&w=2,
> >>for example.
> >>
> >>That being said, could you post pkg_info output and the actual error?
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Ricardo Lucas wrote:
> 
> >Thank's for the hint man. I will not install this pkg.
> >Thank's again.
> >
> >
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 05:02:05PM -0600, ober wrote:
> http://www.linbsd.org/ethereal_on_openbsd37.html
> 
> Feel free to ignore some of the more "so&so is insecure, mmmmkay...."
> as they are highly short on insight. :D
> 
> At one time Sendmail was considered to be the most insecure service.

Yes, Google turned that up for me, too. It's woefully out-of-date and
incorrect - for one, automake and autoconf are in ports and the
suggestion about linking automake-x-x to automake is misguided.

That's why I did not point to it. That being said, all this bickering
does not compile ethereal. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing -
you aren't suggesting that Sendmail never was a horrible security hole
on most *nixes?

Ethereal bombed for me too, while linking stuff in a weird way. I'd try
and figure it out, if I actually saw a point, but I'm afraid I don't.

		Joachim