World: r3wp

probably, it was the power supply. i didn't open it is there really 
was no point. the pc still works after replacing the power supply 
with one I had around, though i don't think it would last more than 
a couple months, and it's too old to be used for anything.

RIP

Syllable can probably raise it from the dead :-)

Those power supplies can make a rather loud bang with smoke etc :)

Kaj, possible, but I have no use for it at this point. The installed 
OS right now is Xubuntu, which is slow to boot etc. but once booted 
runs REBOL fine enough.

I normally don't install development tools on my production servers. 
I just install pre-compiled packages. This works good most of the 
time.

But how to handle source-only packages? I have an other system with 
everything on place. But how to do the install on the production 
server?

The makefiles won't run (because compiler versions etc. is checked) 
and deriving what to install where is not straight forward to derive 
from makefiles.

Any idea how to best do it?

What would be good to know is what new files are added during an 
installation. So maybe you could compile & install on your other 
system with development tools in place, then examine which files 
were added, then copy them to the production server.

To achieve the above you need to do 2 things:

1) Log files that were modified or added during the compile/installation 
(or otherwise find them after the installation).
2) Copy to the production server.

Well... yes, but that's quite heavy. But maybe the only way to handle 
it.

To do 1, it may help to use this console command after an install.

 alias recent='find . -type f -printf '\''%TY-%Tm-%Td/%TT %p\n'\'' 
 | sort'

We can't be the only ones wondering how to do this, so I will check 
google for a tool to monitor installs....

1)  inotify - Looks promising. Requires programming, but user-land 
tools have been created http://inotify-tools.sourceforge.net/

2)  kfsmd  -  Looks good too. The example output seems minimalistic 
- just what is needed for this job.

Anton, thanks, I'll take a look

What distribution is that? Both rpm and dpkg allow you to build a 
binary package from a source package automatically.

If both machines have the same distros, you can compile on one and 
install the binary package in the other.

if you have different distros/versions it can be a bit more complicated, 
depending on dependencies and so on.

I use debian. How can I create such a binary package from a source 
package? Any reference to this?

Is there a Debian-format source package? Then creating the binary 
version shouldn´t be hard, although I don´ t know the command

If you don´t have a Debian package, then it would be quite a lot 
of work to create one

check out dpkg-buildpackage

never did such a thing myself, though

Robert, here it mentions 'pbuilder (Personal Builder)'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_build_toolchain

Is it possible to run rebview without xserver? I have all required 
libs:
ldd rebview
        linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0xb7fd4000)
        libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib/libX11.so.6 (0xb7ee2000)
        libXext.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXext.so.6 (0xb7ed4000)
        libXt.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXt.so.6 (0xb7e84000)
        libXaw.so.7 => /usr/lib/libXaw.so.7 (0xb7e2a000)
        libXmu.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXmu.so.6 (0xb7e15000)
        libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0xb7d5b000)

        libfreetype.so.6 => /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6 (0xb7cf1000)
        libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0xb7ccc000)
        libdl.so.2 => /lib/tls/libdl.so.2 (0xb7cc7000)
        libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0xb7cbc000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0xb7b8a000)
        libXau.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXau.so.6 (0xb7b87000)
        libXdmcp.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXdmcp.so.6 (0xb7b82000)
        libSM.so.6 => /usr/lib/libSM.so.6 (0xb7b79000)
        libICE.so.6 => /usr/lib/libICE.so.6 (0xb7b60000)
        libXpm.so.4 => /usr/lib/libXpm.so.4 (0xb7b50000)
        libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0xb7b3c000)
        /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7fd5000)
but Rebol halts on error:
** User Error: Bad face in screen pane!
** Near: size-text self

You need part of Xlib installed to run View. For Debian-based linux, 
I use : 
apt-get install libx11-6 libxaw7 libstdc++5 libfreetype6

There must be something else.. the above I used to get the libs.

I guess it will be something with fonts as the error is in the size-text 
function.

What is the character encoding expected by View under Linux?

Well, in Rebol/View 2.7.6.4.2, I can paste the multiply sign (copied 
from ascii-math.r) straight into the console and it shows correctly. 
In a field, however, it shows incorrectly, eg. if I try to paste 
it in the field:
	view layout [f: field]
I get two characters,  'Ã' and a dotted box, displayed instead.

The binary information is correct, it's just not rendered correctly, 
for if back in the console I do:
	probe f/text
then I get the multiply symbol displayed correctly again.

So it looks like View face/text rendering is expecting 8-bit ascii 
of some encoding.
Probably ISO/IEC_8859-1

Yes, it will be an 8-bit single character encoding system. I believe 
on Windows, it is the system default CodePage and on Mac it is MacRoman. 


Your message shows the 'square-root' sign in AltME on a Mac and 'Capital 
A with a tilde on top: in Windows.


Perhaps you could describe the first of the two characters displayed.

On more close inspection, what I see here in a Rebol/View 2.7.6.4.2 
view face/text looks very much like ISO/IEC_8859-1.

The A with tilde on top is what I see here in Altme in wine on linux. 
(Makes sense.)

The utf-8 sequence for the multiply symbol is #{C397}. So you can 
look up character C3 in various code pages.

On Mac, you might be looking at Mac Roman  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac-Roman

Thanks. Mac is definitely Mac Roman

Oldes, as far as I remember, it was said that X Server had to be 
started and running, not simply having shared libraries available. 
I could be wrong. I tried to see what rebol asks for using strace 
and ltrace, but they don't seem to give information when size-text 
function is evaluated. Maybe the information used by size-text is 
obtained earlier, however...

I don´t think X needs to be running. In any case, this also happens 
on some Linuxes with X running. It´s one of a few errors that currently 
prevent R2 from running on a number of Linuxes

Oldes, in my experience, installing the X bitmap fonts fixes the 
problem

Does anybody know what must be the size of /usr/sbin/suexec with 
Apache 2.0.52 or where I could find this info ?

Actually, I have :

[[root-:-wpc3104] /]# find -name suexec -ls

7819049   20 -r-x--x---   1 root     root        18684 Mar 26 04:43 
./usr/sbin/suexec


A Web server of my client was hacked yesterday and I'm trying to 
find what could have been changed.

try the package manager, it can usually tell you what has been modified. 
if it can't or that has been hacked as well, you need another machine 
with the exact same distro/version and check the md5s.

(the same version of apache is not necessarily enough, as different 
distros may use different compile time options. i don't expect suexec 
to change much, but it could without meaning that it has been modified 
in your box)

For what is worth (this is apache 2.2.8-1ubuntu0.5):

[giesse-:-batou]:~$ ls -al /usr/lib/apache2/suexec

-rwsr-xr-- 1 root www-data 10276 2009-03-10 19:15 /usr/lib/apache2/suexec
[giesse-:-batou]:~$ md5sum /usr/lib/apache2/suexec
7f22e1861bf16016262be3c7ffc213ac  /usr/lib/apache2/suexec

Thanks. What I notice is the size : yours is smaller, near the half 
!

I'm an old unix user (student time) so linux is a cousin. I'm not 
totally lost, but don't know exactly where I'm.
So how can I make the package manager checking ?

I have a new Webserver to install.

I have the choice of the OS to install. Don't know wich one to choose. 
Any opinion of wich is best ?
- Debian 4.0 + Plesk 8.2
- Fedora core 7.0 + Plesk 8.2
- Ubuntu 8.04 LTS + Plesk 8.6

wich=witch

In the past, I used Fedora. But it seems to me, that few guys here 
are using Ubuntu server, and it was even considered few month back, 
when it seemed that RT might agree to have official public BBS ....

I give Ubuntu a go. I can reinstall Fedora if I'm not satisfied.