Request for old 3.1 package - BSD

This is a discussion on Request for old 3.1 package - BSD ; I managed to break a package on my old OBSD 3.1 box, and this release has fallen off most of the mirrors I can find. Does anyone have access to the 3.1 release of the imap-uw package or the ports ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Request for old 3.1 package

  1. Request for old 3.1 package

    I managed to break a package on my old OBSD 3.1 box, and this release
    has fallen off most of the mirrors I can find. Does anyone have access
    to the 3.1 release of the imap-uw package or the ports tree from that
    release?

  2. Re: Request for old 3.1 package

    On 2006-03-17, void * clvrmnky() wrote:
    > I managed to break a package on my old OBSD 3.1 box, and this release
    > has fallen off most of the mirrors I can find. Does anyone have access
    > to the 3.1 release of the imap-uw package or the ports tree from that
    > release?


    You really should upgrade as OpenBSD 3.1 is really old and not
    supported anymore.

    Having said that, I have the OpenBSD 3.1 CDs available with the following
    imap-uw packages;
    OpenBSD/3.1/packages/i386/imap-uw-2001.315.tgz
    OpenBSD/3.1/packages/i386/imap-uw-2002.334.tgz
    OpenBSD/3.1/packages/i386/imaputils-uw-20001219.tgz

    As you can see, I assume that your architecture is i386.
    If this is what you want I'll put them up on a web-server.

    --
    "YOU, with the C++ compiler and no knowledge of how computers work!
    Back away from the keyboard with your hands up, NOW!"
    - Dave McGuire on the rescue list

  3. Re: Request for old 3.1 package

    "void * clvrmnky()" wrote:
    > I managed to break a package on my old OBSD 3.1 box, and this release
    > has fallen off most of the mirrors I can find. Does anyone have access
    > to the 3.1 release of the imap-uw package or the ports tree from that
    > release?


    Shouldn't you be able to just do a CVS checkout?

    However, as pointed out, you're past due for an upgrade.

    Joachim

  4. Re: Request for old 3.1 package

    jKILLSPAM.schipper@math.uu.nl writes:

    > Shouldn't you be able to just do a CVS checkout?


    He possibly could, but it wouldn't give him the actual package, just the
    port. Which would then need to fetch the four year old source archive
    from somewhere and build the thing locally. That is, assuming the
    machine has the compiler bits installed.

    > However, as pointed out, you're past due for an upgrade.


    Also very true. You will probably be surprised how easy upgrading
    OpenBSD is. Going from 3.1 to 3.8 should be a reinstall with a touch of
    editing (merging) your config files.

    You would really only need to merge the files you have actually changed,
    so if you steer clear of the times of day where the system in question
    is most in demand, the experience probably won't be very stressful.

    --
    Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
    http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/ http://www.datadok.no/ http://www.nuug.no/
    "First, we kill all the spammers" The Usenet Bard, "Twice-forwarded tales"
    20:11:56 delilah spamd[26905]: 146.151.48.74: disconnected after 36099 seconds.

  5. Re: Request for old 3.1 package

    Espen Randen wrote:
    > On 2006-03-17, void * clvrmnky() wrote:
    >> I managed to break a package on my old OBSD 3.1 box, and this release
    >> has fallen off most of the mirrors I can find. Does anyone have access
    >> to the 3.1 release of the imap-uw package or the ports tree from that
    >> release?

    >
    > You really should upgrade as OpenBSD 3.1 is really old and not
    > supported anymore.
    >

    Well, yes, of course. I would not have asked for this if that was an
    immediate option. I am retiring this box completely once the 3.8 box I
    have is setup. For now I have to maintain the 3.1 box.

    > Having said that, I have the OpenBSD 3.1 CDs available with the following
    > imap-uw packages;
    > OpenBSD/3.1/packages/i386/imap-uw-2001.315.tgz
    > OpenBSD/3.1/packages/i386/imap-uw-2002.334.tgz
    > OpenBSD/3.1/packages/i386/imaputils-uw-20001219.tgz
    >
    > As you can see, I assume that your architecture is i386.
    > If this is what you want I'll put them up on a web-server.
    >

    I ended up just compiling from source by looking at the ports patchset
    for imap-uw. It took two tries, but is seems to work ok.

    Thanks.

  6. Re: Request for old 3.1 package

    Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
    > jKILLSPAM.schipper@math.uu.nl writes:
    >
    >> Shouldn't you be able to just do a CVS checkout?

    >
    > He possibly could, but it wouldn't give him the actual package, just the
    > port. Which would then need to fetch the four year old source archive
    > from somewhere and build the thing locally. That is, assuming the
    > machine has the compiler bits installed.
    >

    This is exactly what happened. None of the distfiles sites had this
    particular file. Even tried an ftp search. Using the patchset from the
    port I managed to hack the current sources into enough shape to build
    and work on 3.1.

    >> However, as pointed out, you're past due for an upgrade.

    >
    > Also very true. You will probably be surprised how easy upgrading
    > OpenBSD is. Going from 3.1 to 3.8 should be a reinstall with a touch of
    > editing (merging) your config files.
    >
    > You would really only need to merge the files you have actually changed,
    > so if you steer clear of the times of day where the system in question
    > is most in demand, the experience probably won't be very stressful.
    >

    This is a well-hacked, well-loved and well-used box based on venerable
    hardware. I can imagine the comments I'd get if I ever mentioned a
    problem with a "Pentium class" machine from when dinosaurs walked the
    earth! I've got new hardware running 3.8, and am migrating services
    from one to the other. For now, I'd like the convenience of reading my
    mail remotely until I switch that service over, as well.

    I suspect that the upgrade would not be a slam-dunk on this machine.
    What I didn't want was to start a risky one-way process and have a bunch
    of things break, or change in some funny way, forcing me to stay up all
    week to fix it.

    The new quiet, fast and muscled box is pristine 3.8, and I'll attempt to
    track releases every 6 months. These boxes will have to run in tandem
    for a few months until I sort things out. This has nothing to do with
    OBSD and everything to do with me. I know, for example, that my
    DHCP/DNS setup is going to be a huge PITA to migrate over, and I fully
    expect to make a hash of it at least once. One would think I might take
    notes when doing this stuff, but nooooo.

    Considering that until now I've been measuring uptime in years, this
    says a fair amount about OBSD. Well, at least in my admittedly
    undemanding environment.

    Thanks.

  7. Re: Request for old 3.1 package

    On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:00:34 -0500, void * clvrmnky() wrote:

    > This is a well-hacked, well-loved and well-used box based on venerable
    > hardware. I can imagine the comments I'd get if I ever mentioned a
    > problem with a "Pentium class" machine from when dinosaurs walked the
    > earth! I've got new hardware running 3.8, and am migrating services
    > from one to the other. For now, I'd like the convenience of reading my
    > mail remotely until I switch that service over, as well.


    I have OBSD 3.8 running quite smoothly on an old portable with 133MHz
    Pentium, 80Mb RAM, 2Gb disk. I'm running X with fvwm and a wireless card
    as well. Perfectly usable, although Firefox is a bit slow to load.

    For a bare server, you might be surprised. OBSD has suffered surprisingly
    little bloat compared to, well, nearly everything.

    --
    mark south: world citizen, net denizen
    echo znexfbhgu2000@lnubb.pb.hx|tr a-z n-za-m
    "Take it? I can't even parse it!" - Kibo, in ARK


  8. Re: Request for old 3.1 package

    Mark South wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:00:34 -0500, void * clvrmnky() wrote:
    >
    >> This is a well-hacked, well-loved and well-used box based on venerable
    >> hardware. I can imagine the comments I'd get if I ever mentioned a
    >> problem with a "Pentium class" machine from when dinosaurs walked the
    >> earth! I've got new hardware running 3.8, and am migrating services
    >> from one to the other. For now, I'd like the convenience of reading my
    >> mail remotely until I switch that service over, as well.

    >
    > I have OBSD 3.8 running quite smoothly on an old portable with 133MHz
    > Pentium, 80Mb RAM, 2Gb disk. I'm running X with fvwm and a wireless card
    > as well. Perfectly usable, although Firefox is a bit slow to load.
    >
    > For a bare server, you might be surprised. OBSD has suffered surprisingly
    > little bloat compared to, well, nearly everything.
    >

    Oh, it's true. However I've collected a few small web sites I'm
    hosting, need local DNS/DHCP, ad hoc SMB backup server, and it still
    acts as an edge box for the entire internal network...

    You get the picture. I know, I'm making the baby Jesus cry because I'm
    running all sorts of services on a router. It's terrible, but I only
    want to afford one small, quiet box. I am retiring the old box because
    it is starting to get flaky. I have a suspicion that the only thing
    keeping it together is the stickers.

    Anyway, the P-133 is _definitely_ processor bound when doing crypto and
    some web services, and I want to host a web DAV site through ssh for a
    friend who will be in another country for a few months. Her link will
    be the main challenge, so I want this end to have cycles to spare.

    Point taken, however. The box hardly swaps, and my load averages stay
    pretty low as long as I'm not building anything.

    In fact, I may keep the old box around and update it to 3.8/3.9 once the
    other box is done and in place. It might be a good test-bed for upgrade
    testing, to encourage me to keep up with the status quo every 6 months.

    Truth be told, I'm getting attached to the old girl.

  9. Re: Request for old 3.1 package

    Begin
    On 2006-03-17, void * clvrmnky() wrote:
    > Anyway, the P-133 is _definitely_ processor bound when doing crypto and
    > some web services, and I want to host a web DAV site through ssh for a
    > friend who will be in another country for a few months. Her link will
    > be the main challenge, so I want this end to have cycles to spare.


    Drop in something like the soekris vpn1401[1] to lighten the crypto load?

    http://soekris.com/vpn1401.htm


    [1] Or a vpn1411 with a pci/minipci bridge. That might be nice if you plan
    to move to a soekris or alike thing that has minipci slots.

    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  10. Re: Request for old 3.1 package

    jpd wrote:
    > Begin
    > On 2006-03-17, void * clvrmnky() wrote:
    >> Anyway, the P-133 is _definitely_ processor bound when doing crypto and
    >> some web services, and I want to host a web DAV site through ssh for a
    >> friend who will be in another country for a few months. Her link will
    >> be the main challenge, so I want this end to have cycles to spare.

    >
    > Drop in something like the soekris vpn1401[1] to lighten the crypto load?
    >
    > http://soekris.com/vpn1401.htm
    >
    >
    > [1] Or a vpn1411 with a pci/minipci bridge. That might be nice if you plan
    > to move to a soekris or alike thing that has minipci slots.
    >


    I've heard of these, and understand a fair amount of work has gone into
    OBSD to support this device. All I know is what I've read in HIFN(4).
    and crypto.html. Since I'm likely to never run ipsec, I never really
    considered it beyond idle thoughts.

    The newish mini-ITX box I have has exactly one PCI slot that I'm
    currently doing nothing with.

    I've been following some of the development list emails, and I'm a
    little unsure if this hardware will really help me, since most of what
    I'm doing is ssh and so on (web DAV will just work through https). I
    suspect a lot of what this device would do for me is to maintain a very,
    very high pool of entropy.

    I'll have to teach myself what crypto-with-hifn means for what I might
    be doing.

  11. Re: Request for old 3.1 package

    Begin
    On 2006-03-17, void * clvrmnky() wrote:
    > I'll have to teach myself what crypto-with-hifn means for what I might
    > be doing.


    Well, having looked through some sources in the FreeBSD tree, I don't
    feel I understand what's going on in the various ssh and ssl sources,
    but cryptodev appears in strings libcrypto, and both the openssl and
    (open)ssh binaries link to that.

    I haven't actually used this hardware so I can't tell you whether it'll
    accelerate for openssh too, but I think it very well might. You could
    ask on a relevant mailinglist? And if you do, do tell. :-)


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

+ Reply to Thread