From msheldon at godaddy.com  Thu May  6 20:31:59 2010
From: msheldon at godaddy.com (Michael Sheldon)
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 13:31:59 -0700
Subject: [ldns-users] TSIG trouble
Message-ID: <20100506133159.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.819843d9a5.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nlnetlabs.nl/pipermail/ldns-users/attachments/20100506/6babbb50/attachment.htm>

From matthijs at NLnetLabs.nl  Mon May 10 13:43:57 2010
From: matthijs at NLnetLabs.nl (Matthijs Mekking)
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 15:43:57 +0200
Subject: [ldns-users] TSIG trouble
In-Reply-To: <20100506133159.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.819843d9a5.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
References: <20100506133159.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.819843d9a5.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <4BE80D9D.6060601@nlnetlabs.nl>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I have ran into a TSIG incompatibility issue between BIND9 and LDNS.
There was a bug in BIND9 regarding the HMAC-SHA functions, it was fixed
in 9.7.0:

2834. [bug]	HMAC-SHA* keys that were longer than the algorithm
		digest length were used incorrectly, leading to
		interoperability problems with other DNS
		implementations.  This has been corrected.
		(Note: If an oversize key is in use, and
		compatibility is needed with an older release of
		BIND, the new tool "isc-hmac-fixup" can convert
		the key secret to a form that will work with all
		versions.) [RT #20751]

If you are using SHA, this could very well be the cause.


Best regards,

Matthijs Mekking
NLnet Labs



Michael Sheldon wrote:
> I'm writing a server that uses TSIG, and having some issues with DIG
> against it.
> 
> I get the key fine, and validate it without trouble. I then sign the
> result and return it.
> 
> drill is happy with it all the way around, no issues.
> The same query with the same key using dig returns the results, but also
> includes:
> ;; WARNING -- Some TSIG could not be validated
> 
> Any idea on what I might be looking for?
> 
> Using the same TSIG key in NSD works fine with both dig and drill
> 
> Michael Sheldon
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ldns-users mailing list
> ldns-users at open.nlnetlabs.nl
> http://open.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/ldns-users

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6A2bAAoJEA8yVCPsQCW5GBMH/RYS97SzvnQe+WRsTdQaf924
irZwz+8R/lLOCtIo+IPw3qrsJg2Ty62x6ePX3xNpBQt0eV/Vu4Yz4VR+ct+KAQ4i
ZcFDVAGd752tFgrOqTS1USp4i1UhY98ol6NQtxeJBFziHUyDKF4Pk18898KuddeT
W1h5nO72Oct6S2UtStTV1xJGtGe+HK2XRFTYwGucw3FVc3GsgU4jX1fjqsiP5J+E
FtsT2JrNwsv7wfEJ9cCUK2EviVc6I2DoN7MCa9s8edckZYsAX2P86MWq7HiVQjZE
WrHJ3s8e8O3FZr0ZdvpCWAmeKG1Ul8NBjyw5pHS5qh4KUydQfGr4/s/Uy7RZnLU=
=hIbi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From msheldon at godaddy.com  Mon May 10 20:49:02 2010
From: msheldon at godaddy.com (Michael Sheldon)
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:49:02 -0700
Subject: [ldns-users] TSIG trouble
Message-ID: <20100510134902.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.dde0563812.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nlnetlabs.nl/pipermail/ldns-users/attachments/20100510/67ab586a/attachment.htm>

From msheldon at godaddy.com  Tue May 11 22:56:57 2010
From: msheldon at godaddy.com (Michael Sheldon)
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 15:56:57 -0700
Subject: [ldns-users] TSIG trouble
Message-ID: <20100511155657.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.8f75ee2e57.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

So, it looks like my TSIG response is somehow incorrect, though drill
does not complain, NSD does.

Does anyone have a clear example of signing a *response* to a TSIG
request using ldns? I found nothing in the example apps.


Michael Sheldon
Dev-DNS Services
GoDaddy.com





  -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: Re: [ldns-users] TSIG trouble
 From: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs at NLnetLabs.nl>
 Date: Mon, May 10, 2010 6:43 am
 To: Michael Sheldon <msheldon at godaddy.com>
 Cc: ldns-users at open.nlnetlabs.nl
 
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 Hash: SHA1
 
 I have ran into a TSIG incompatibility issue between BIND9 and LDNS.
 There was a bug in BIND9 regarding the HMAC-SHA functions, it was fixed
 in 9.7.0:
 
 2834. [bug] HMAC-SHA* keys that were longer than the algorithm
 digest length were used incorrectly, leading to
 interoperability problems with other DNS
 implementations. This has been corrected.
 (Note: If an oversize key is in use, and
 compatibility is needed with an older release of
 BIND, the new tool "isc-hmac-fixup" can convert
 the key secret to a form that will work with all
 versions.) [RT #20751]
 
 If you are using SHA, this could very well be the cause.
 
 
 Best regards,
 
 Matthijs Mekking
 NLnet Labs
 
 
 
 Michael Sheldon wrote:
 > I'm writing a server that uses TSIG, and having some issues with DIG
 > against it.
 > 
 > I get the key fine, and validate it without trouble. I then sign the
 > result and return it.
 > 
 > drill is happy with it all the way around, no issues.
 > The same query with the same key using dig returns the results, but
also
 > includes:
 > ;; WARNING -- Some TSIG could not be validated
 > 
 > Any idea on what I might be looking for?
 > 
 > Using the same TSIG key in NSD works fine with both dig and drill
 > 
 > Michael Sheldon
 > 
 > 
 >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > ldns-users mailing list
 > ldns-users at open.nlnetlabs.nl
 > http://open.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/ldns-users
 
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
 
 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6A2bAAoJEA8yVCPsQCW5GBMH/RYS97SzvnQe+WRsTdQaf924
 irZwz+8R/lLOCtIo+IPw3qrsJg2Ty62x6ePX3xNpBQt0eV/Vu4Yz4VR+ct+KAQ4i
 ZcFDVAGd752tFgrOqTS1USp4i1UhY98ol6NQtxeJBFziHUyDKF4Pk18898KuddeT
 W1h5nO72Oct6S2UtStTV1xJGtGe+HK2XRFTYwGucw3FVc3GsgU4jX1fjqsiP5J+E
 FtsT2JrNwsv7wfEJ9cCUK2EviVc6I2DoN7MCa9s8edckZYsAX2P86MWq7HiVQjZE
 WrHJ3s8e8O3FZr0ZdvpCWAmeKG1Ul8NBjyw5pHS5qh4KUydQfGr4/s/Uy7RZnLU=
 =hIbi
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
 _______________________________________________
ldns-users mailing list
ldns-users at open.nlnetlabs.nl
http://open.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/ldns-users



From matthijs at NLnetLabs.nl  Wed May 12 06:57:34 2010
From: matthijs at NLnetLabs.nl (Matthijs Mekking)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 08:57:34 +0200
Subject: [ldns-users] TSIG trouble
In-Reply-To: <20100511155657.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.8f75ee2e57.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
References: <20100511155657.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.8f75ee2e57.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <4BEA515E.1050200@nlnetlabs.nl>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Michael,

With ldns_pkt_new() you can create a new DNS packet. Use the set
functions to set the QR bit and other values to match your response
packet. You can use ldns_pkt_tsig_sign() to add the TSIG record.

You are suggesting that drill does not complain about the TSIG record,
while it should? Please let me know which version of drill/ldns are you
using, and what the TSIG parameters are (algorithm: hmac-md5, data
length: ?), so I can try for myself.

Best regards,

Matthijs

Michael Sheldon wrote:
> So, it looks like my TSIG response is somehow incorrect, though drill
> does not complain, NSD does.
> 
> Does anyone have a clear example of signing a *response* to a TSIG
> request using ldns? I found nothing in the example apps.
> 
> 
> Michael Sheldon
> Dev-DNS Services
> GoDaddy.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   -------- Original Message --------
>  Subject: Re: [ldns-users] TSIG trouble
>  From: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs at NLnetLabs.nl>
>  Date: Mon, May 10, 2010 6:43 am
>  To: Michael Sheldon <msheldon at godaddy.com>
>  Cc: ldns-users at open.nlnetlabs.nl
>  
> I have ran into a TSIG incompatibility issue between BIND9 and LDNS.
> There was a bug in BIND9 regarding the HMAC-SHA functions, it was fixed
> in 9.7.0:
> 
> 2834. [bug] HMAC-SHA* keys that were longer than the algorithm
> digest length were used incorrectly, leading to
> interoperability problems with other DNS
> implementations. This has been corrected.
> (Note: If an oversize key is in use, and
> compatibility is needed with an older release of
> BIND, the new tool "isc-hmac-fixup" can convert
> the key secret to a form that will work with all
> versions.) [RT #20751]
> 
> If you are using SHA, this could very well be the cause.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Matthijs Mekking
> NLnet Labs
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Sheldon wrote:
>> I'm writing a server that uses TSIG, and having some issues with DIG
>> against it.
> 
>> I get the key fine, and validate it without trouble. I then sign the
>> result and return it.
> 
>> drill is happy with it all the way around, no issues.
>> The same query with the same key using dig returns the results, but
>> also
>> includes:
>> ;; WARNING -- Some TSIG could not be validated
> 
>> Any idea on what I might be looking for?
> 
>> Using the same TSIG key in NSD works fine with both dig and drill
> 
>> Michael Sheldon
> 
> 
> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ldns-users mailing list
>> ldns-users at open.nlnetlabs.nl
>> http://open.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/ldns-users
> 

_______________________________________________
> ldns-users mailing list
> ldns-users at open.nlnetlabs.nl
> http://open.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/ldns-users

> _______________________________________________
> ldns-users mailing list
> ldns-users at open.nlnetlabs.nl
> http://open.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/ldns-users

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6lFYAAoJEA8yVCPsQCW5RKUH/2Efm9X/e0qf5rCPgKZTyNKQ
CxaQ+vOKxjevEpTp/uXetpy5UI/VJVlnzx0R3W8C4CwfKNRO8pLcEBMDnvsAO/ct
S3XZ2lsNaIveUqc+lw9nZrXmbr7So1C/HBLVja+ohlXW6sD7LeX+sKKp8224OvFA
ieP/FYSlA9iNyHN6e2GSZ9V0PAP3PKjEacUS38FuqE8qW3W1+mqPF6Li2cw0ksfA
1dZqpajyarcDnrn2aiovRlX/taCF1+yqi6dV9FSq7y6uVa9RbMiQz6+QUVwv8lAH
tFxDzKWzvEP0xnkTk99PD8D7LuClcJHOrm/bDOejrj3SKKI8id4IaujyLDloRnc=
=+hKw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From matthijs at NLnetLabs.nl  Wed May 12 07:04:14 2010
From: matthijs at NLnetLabs.nl (Matthijs Mekking)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 09:04:14 +0200
Subject: [ldns-users] How to use _searchlist provided
	by	ldns_struct_resolver?
In-Reply-To: <4BCC8BBD.8070902@nic.cz>
References: <4BCC8BBD.8070902@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <4BEA52EE.4050702@nlnetlabs.nl>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Zbynek,

Sorry for the late follow-up. You are right that making a dname from
string always returns an absolute dname. You can try making a dname with
ldns_dname_new_frm_data().

Best regards,

Matthijs

Zbynek Michl wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am trying to use search list, but unsuccessfully. Here is an sample:
> 
> --- CODE ---
> ldns_rdf *domain = ldns_dname_new_frm_str("myhostname");
> ldns_rdf *search = ldns_dname_new_frm_str("mydomain.cz");
> 
> ldns_resolver_push_searchlist(res, search);
> 
> p = ldns_resolver_search(res, domain, LDNS_RR_TYPE_A,
>              LDNS_RR_CLASS_IN, LDNS_RD);
> --- /CODE ---
> 
> The problem is that "myhostname.mydomain.cz" will never be tried,
> because of ldns_dname_new_frm_str() adds "." to the end of "myhostname"
> and therefore ldns_resolver_search() will not concatenate "mydomain.cz".
> So how can I create "myhostname" RDF without trailing "."? Or any other
> suggestion?
> 
> Cheers,
> Zbynek
> _______________________________________________
> ldns-users mailing list
> ldns-users at open.nlnetlabs.nl
> http://open.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/ldns-users

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6lLsAAoJEA8yVCPsQCW5Ss8IAItekTcmCrBH/GbCYgbLIVMO
zlydOWWoYPbwWN23uT53v6/b9GaCl85vlxQk8XizcyffFpHvNpydbLAAZQ6oF0rP
JtzsTlR9vmNvoTfr23ZYAlALKnacDhb3W34nAFwZwoOf8KhGvI36D9IvY9NI4r/K
bt9BQm/wGF2yyqUsCp7D8/NaHbgzP7J2hU+58A8I14cuXRGOv3KEWPHZA/hLTxfI
B6YflGVdqBRXVKr8tkB7hc4SPwrSyaFiWEyp13fCyTzJ+uUk9xijO1Ec0QeGLd1L
AKUQeGRs8Ci+4Xu5N37L2galQVezjFhLXTE6XGwO0yZ/9V9ZChdSoG0X1u7JiiU=
=wPt5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From msheldon at godaddy.com  Wed May 12 16:46:56 2010
From: msheldon at godaddy.com (Michael Sheldon)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 09:46:56 -0700
Subject: [ldns-users] TSIG trouble
Message-ID: <20100512094656.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.62011335a3.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

> With ldns_pkt_new() you can create a new DNS packet. Use the set
> functions to set the QR bit and other values to match your response
> packet. You can use ldns_pkt_tsig_sign() to add the TSIG record.

That is what I am doing. I have also done it by modifying the request
packet, same result.

drill is v1.6.1
ldns is v1.6.4
dig is v9.3.6
nsd is v3.2.4

Drill shows no errors.
Dig says: ;; WARNING -- Some TSIG could not be validated
NSD shows: bad tsig signature

Key type is hmac-md5 (hmac-md5.sig-alg.reg.int.)
Key size is 256

Same results regardless of answer packet length, 1 record or 1,000
records.

I suspect it's something simple, but without any working example, I'm
just flailing in the dark now.

Michael Sheldon
Dev-DNS Services
GoDaddy.com



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ldns-users] TSIG trouble
From: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs at NLnetLabs.nl>
Date: Tue, May 11, 2010 11:57 pm
To: Michael Sheldon <msheldon at godaddy.com>
Cc: ldns-users at open.nlnetlabs.nl

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Michael,

With ldns_pkt_new() you can create a new DNS packet. Use the set
functions to set the QR bit and other values to match your response
packet. You can use ldns_pkt_tsig_sign() to add the TSIG record.

You are suggesting that drill does not complain about the TSIG record,
while it should? Please let me know which version of drill/ldns are you
using, and what the TSIG parameters are (algorithm: hmac-md5, data
length: ?), so I can try for myself.

Best regards,

Matthijs

Michael Sheldon wrote:
> So, it looks like my TSIG response is somehow incorrect, though drill
> does not complain, NSD does.
> 
> Does anyone have a clear example of signing a *response* to a TSIG
> request using ldns? I found nothing in the example apps.
> 
> 
> Michael Sheldon
> Dev-DNS Services
> GoDaddy.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ldns-users] TSIG trouble
> From: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs at NLnetLabs.nl>
> Date: Mon, May 10, 2010 6:43 am
> To: Michael Sheldon <msheldon at godaddy.com>
> Cc: ldns-users at open.nlnetlabs.nl
> 
> I have ran into a TSIG incompatibility issue between BIND9 and LDNS.
> There was a bug in BIND9 regarding the HMAC-SHA functions, it was fixed
> in 9.7.0:
> 
> 2834. [bug] HMAC-SHA* keys that were longer than the algorithm
> digest length were used incorrectly, leading to
> interoperability problems with other DNS
> implementations. This has been corrected.
> (Note: If an oversize key is in use, and
> compatibility is needed with an older release of
> BIND, the new tool "isc-hmac-fixup" can convert
> the key secret to a form that will work with all
> versions.) [RT #20751]
> 
> If you are using SHA, this could very well be the cause.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Matthijs Mekking
> NLnet Labs
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Sheldon wrote:
>> I'm writing a server that uses TSIG, and having some issues with DIG
>> against it.
> 
>> I get the key fine, and validate it without trouble. I then sign the
>> result and return it.
> 
>> drill is happy with it all the way around, no issues.
>> The same query with the same key using dig returns the results, but
>> also
>> includes:
>> ;; WARNING -- Some TSIG could not be validated
> 
>> Any idea on what I might be looking for?
> 
>> Using the same TSIG key in NSD works fine with both dig and drill
> 
>> Michael Sheldon
> 
> 
> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ldns-users mailing list
>> ldns-users at open.nlnetlabs.nl
>> http://open.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/ldns-users
> 

_______________________________________________
> ldns-users mailing list
> ldns-users at open.nlnetlabs.nl
> http://open.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/ldns-users

> _______________________________________________
> ldns-users mailing list
> ldns-users at open.nlnetlabs.nl
> http://open.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/ldns-users

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6lFYAAoJEA8yVCPsQCW5RKUH/2Efm9X/e0qf5rCPgKZTyNKQ
CxaQ+vOKxjevEpTp/uXetpy5UI/VJVlnzx0R3W8C4CwfKNRO8pLcEBMDnvsAO/ct
S3XZ2lsNaIveUqc+lw9nZrXmbr7So1C/HBLVja+ohlXW6sD7LeX+sKKp8224OvFA
ieP/FYSlA9iNyHN6e2GSZ9V0PAP3PKjEacUS38FuqE8qW3W1+mqPF6Li2cw0ksfA
1dZqpajyarcDnrn2aiovRlX/taCF1+yqi6dV9FSq7y6uVa9RbMiQz6+QUVwv8lAH
tFxDzKWzvEP0xnkTk99PD8D7LuClcJHOrm/bDOejrj3SKKI8id4IaujyLDloRnc=
=+hKw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From msheldon at godaddy.com  Wed May 12 23:18:57 2010
From: msheldon at godaddy.com (Michael Sheldon)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 16:18:57 -0700
Subject: [ldns-users] TSIG trouble
Message-ID: <20100512161857.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.118c04e6ae.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

OK, managed to get everyone happy, dig, nsd and drill all agree on a
good signature...

Except if a tcp transmission is split into multiple packets.

The way I read the RFCs...

For a simple reply, the tsig MAC of the query is passed to
ldns_pkt_tsig_sign

For multi-packet replies (big AXFR), the digest of the preceding data is
used for subsequent packets. But, if I try using the tsig MAC of the
previous signed DNS packet, the signature fails in dig and nsd. It also
fails if I just keep using the query MAC.

Ideas?

Michael Sheldon
Dev-DNS Services
GoDaddy.com





From msheldon at godaddy.com  Fri May 14 18:07:45 2010
From: msheldon at godaddy.com (Michael Sheldon)
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 11:07:45 -0700
Subject: [ldns-users] TCP, AXFR and TSIG
Message-ID: <20100514110745.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.4140b24fb6.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nlnetlabs.nl/pipermail/ldns-users/attachments/20100514/1c28dfe4/attachment.htm>

From matthijs at NLnetLabs.nl  Wed May 19 13:56:16 2010
From: matthijs at NLnetLabs.nl (Matthijs Mekking)
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 15:56:16 +0200
Subject: [ldns-users] Improper randomness
 in	ldns_resolver_nameservers_randomize() function
In-Reply-To: <4BCF33D0.1040303@nic.cz>
References: <4BCF33D0.1040303@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <4BF3EE00.60401@nlnetlabs.nl>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Zbynek,

I have changed (in trunk) the function
ldns_resolver_nameservers_randomize(...) to use a different random
generator. You can now initialize randomness yourself by calling
ldns_init_random(...).

Best regards,

Matthijs


Zbynek Michl wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> there is no seed initialization before random() function and it leads to
> select the first resolver everytime from the list if it contains exactly
> two resolvers.
> I guess that init with "srandom((unsigned int)time(NULL))" should be
> enough for this purpose.
> 
> Thanks,
> Zbynek
> _______________________________________________
> ldns-users mailing list
> ldns-users at open.nlnetlabs.nl
> http://open.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/ldns-users

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL8+3+AAoJEA8yVCPsQCW51wkH/iOefTUrk50u1lZrsXEa7+AM
3nTliXoJtuhs8h1yb4uYUAiy6otKXYRkXT9MsvM4g8sOsXc5u013zz7hWry9U4EI
bn8ozcGXmcDudOBnOKrN19icQlSnzoWipthhCc7W2Yn+t3Ev452+Df/31dfVW7th
SOVDdF9nureHiFPGfxdRI7hWDQUvq8Y9Ke7LYxi1MCEBSQcMv8AEWpHG/UpoZwil
ripMA59Vw1hmqqqufbtWlBYIQ64402jl90UaWYKf7E/MVfZMctsvD6BB0ChV78ne
KOhF3bFG0BmjwD2mzGjvV/+umPLqIWtDUKcrlXoLr4+un6StjT4yaMUiiXFb/wc=
=aqD7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From wouter at NLnetLabs.nl  Wed May 26 12:18:03 2010
From: wouter at NLnetLabs.nl (W.C.A. Wijngaards)
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 14:18:03 +0200
Subject: [ldns-users] building drill dies
In-Reply-To: <l2w6e1986b1004290705hdc731dc2s6eb8496bef2f9112@mail.gmail.com>
References: <l2w6e1986b1004290705hdc731dc2s6eb8496bef2f9112@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BFD117B.7080402@nlnetlabs.nl>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Chris,

Fixed in svn trunk of ldns.  Thanks for the detailed followup (offlist)
with Gentoo ebuild logs.

Best regards,
   Wouter

On 04/29/2010 04:05 PM, Chris Smith wrote:
> When trying to build drill with ldns (I'm using svn trunk) and the
> Gentoo ebuild system the autoreconf dies with:
> aclocal-1.10: couldn't open directory `m4': No such file or directory
> 
> I can remove the line:
> ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -Im4
> from drill's Makefile.in and all works fine.
> 
> Not a programmer so I don't know the best way to fix this, but I'm
> guessing there should either be an m4 directory or that line should
> not be there.
> 
> Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkv9EXsACgkQkDLqNwOhpPgmCgCfeAggHkZ3m1yrYlvyRtgNiu28
kGEAnjZEARE6uco8JCnN7qKVMyXxI8ok
=PHRL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----