On 2 Apr 2010, at 23:07, Doug Barton wrote:
Therefore I think that the status quo of having it all in there, and
knobs to turn off the bits you don't want is a good one since it seems
to please the majority of our users. I will continue to maintain the
bind-tools port though, that's somethi
On 2 Apr 2010, at 23:07, Doug Barton wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
So first of all, yes Virginia, this was an April Fool's Day joke. To
both those for whom this post created a false sense of despair, and
(perhaps more importantly) to those for whom it created a fa
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Doug Barton wrote:
> So first of all, yes Virginia, this was an April Fool's Day joke. To
> both those for whom this post created a false sense of despair, and
> (perhaps more importantly) to those for whom it created a false sense of
> joy, my apologies. :) And for the rec
On Apr 2, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> Hi Marcel
>
> I got this panic while trying to build some port
> on -current (csup'ed on 1-APR-2010)
>
> panic: deadlkres: possible deadlock detected for 0xe0001187d880, blocked
> for 1801437 ticks
>
> cpuid = 1
> KDB: enter: panic
>
Hi Marcel
I got this panic while trying to build some port
on -current (csup'ed on 1-APR-2010)
panic: deadlkres: possible deadlock detected for 0xe0001187d880, blocked
for 1801437 ticks
cpuid = 1
KDB: enter: panic
[ thread pid 0 tid 100046 ]
Stopped at kdb_enter+0x92: [I2]addl r14=
Xin LI writes:
> Applications aiming to be portable should not define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE
> at all, on any *BSD platforms.
nor on Linux.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mai
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
> Maybe I'm just a lowly sysadmin and ex-port maintainer, but ...
>
> No, no, no, definitely no, no, and no!!
>
> The greatest thing about FreeBSD is that there is a clear separation
> between
> the "base OS" and everything else (ports, local in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 2010/04/02 14:32, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> 2010/4/2 Mark Linimon :
>> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:30:47PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>>> And yes, I *will* keep harping on this until people Get It.
>>
>> You're harping at the wrong people.
2010/4/2 Mark Linimon :
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:30:47PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>> And yes, I *will* keep harping on this until people Get It.
>
> You're harping at the wrong people. Complain to the application authors,
> not to the poor slobs trying to maintain the ports collection
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> [1]: FreeBSD really needs to move away from the "base system" as a
> concept, as I've ranted about in the past. Or if it cannot, the "base
> system" needs to start using pkg_* (somehow) for use, and src.conf
> WITHOUT_xxx (where xxx = some
Can we do sendmail next April 1?
Sent from a device with a tiny keyboard
On Apr 2, 2010, at 1:22 PM, "Reko Turja" wrote:
Based on the inspection of the source tree, I want my bikeshed
mauve. I've not been had by AFD jokes in a while but Doug pulled
this one off...
-Reko
On 2 Apr 2010, at 19:06, Rui Paulo wrote:
On 2 Apr 2010, at 11:29, Arseny Nasokin wrote:
Will be this device in current ? Or there is alternative for it?
Svn path repo: http://svn.freebsd.org/base/user/rpaulo/eeemon/
I wasn't planning on committing it because it's one of those drivers
On 2 April 2010, at 04:27, Denny Lin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 10:11:50AM +0400, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>> On 02.04.2010 9:24, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
>>> While it certainly might make sense to drop BIND out of the base, I'm not
>>> sure dropping bind tools as well from it is the best dec
on 02/04/2010 22:26 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>
> OK, I did it again.
> I tested the below patch using the scenario described above.
> Could you please review and/or test this patch?
> If you like it and it works, I can commit it.
> Thanks!
>
> --- a/sbin/newfs_msdos/newfs_msdos.c
> +++ b/
on 02/04/2010 14:09 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> on 02/04/2010 13:57 Fabian Keil said the following:
>> Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>> Anyways, here is a patch that I would use.
>>> Unfortunately, ENOTIME to understand newfs_msdos code and fix it too,
>>>
>>> --- a/sys/fs/msdosfs/msdosfs_vfsops.c
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
So first of all, yes Virginia, this was an April Fool's Day joke. To
both those for whom this post created a false sense of despair, and
(perhaps more importantly) to those for whom it created a false sense of
joy, my apologies. :) And for the re
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 03:14:54 -0700
From: Jeremy Chadwick
Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
I disagree (so what else is new?) It should be kept out of the base
system. KISS:
Doug pulling BIND out of the base system / going ports-only = excell
Based on the inspection of the source tree, I want my bikeshed mauve.
I've not been had by AFD jokes in a while but Doug pulled this one
off...
-Reko
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-cur
On 2 Apr 2010, at 11:29, Arseny Nasokin wrote:
> Will be this device in current ? Or there is alternative for it?
>
> Svn path repo: http://svn.freebsd.org/base/user/rpaulo/eeemon/
I wasn't planning on committing it because it's one of those drivers that can
seriously damage your hardware if yo
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 03:14:54 -0700
> From: Jeremy Chadwick
> Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
>
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:24:51AM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > In message <20100402021715.669838e0.s...@freebsd.org>, Stanislav Sedov
> > writes:
> > >On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:55:0
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 12:28:36PM +0200, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > [1]: FreeBSD really needs to move away from the "base system" as a
> > concept, as I've ranted about in the past.
>
> Strongly disagree.
I'm with you!
>
> > Or if it cannot, the "base
> > system" needs to start using pkg_* (
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 10:11:50AM +0400, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> On 02.04.2010 9:24, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> >While it certainly might make sense to drop BIND out of the base, I'm not
> >sure dropping bind tools as well from it is the best decision. How hard
> >it will be to continue maintain
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:24:51AM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <20100402021715.669838e0.s...@freebsd.org>, Stanislav Sedov writes:
> >On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:55:07 +
> >"Poul-Henning Kamp" mentioned:
>
> >Sorry, I think I was not clear enough.
>
> Sorry for misunderstanding.
Strongly disagree.
Or if it cannot, the "base
system" needs to start using pkg_* (somehow) for use, and src.conf
WITHOUT_xxx (where xxx = some software) removed. Concept being: "I
don't need Kerberos; pkg_delete base-krb5. I also don't need
lib32;
pkg_delete base-lib32". Beautiful concept, h
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 03:14:54AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
> [1]: FreeBSD really needs to move away from the "base system" as a
> concept, as I've ranted about in the past. Or if it cannot, the "base
> system" needs to start using pkg_* (somehow)
No, it does not need to do that. It migh
Mark Linimon writes:
> Probably 75%+ of the application authors neither know nor care that
> their code is being run on anything other than Linux.
I think you missed the bit where what they're doing is wrong on Linux,
too.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
___
on 02/04/2010 13:57 Fabian Keil said the following:
> Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> Anyways, here is a patch that I would use.
>> Unfortunately, ENOTIME to understand newfs_msdos code and fix it too,
>>
>> --- a/sys/fs/msdosfs/msdosfs_vfsops.c
>> +++ b/sys/fs/msdosfs/msdosfs_vfsops.c
>> @@ -580,6 +580,7
Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 30/03/2010 18:41 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> > on 30/03/2010 18:36 Fabian Keil said the following:
> >> Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >>
> >>> on 29/03/2010 23:29 Fabian Keil said the following:
> Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > Thus, clearly, it is a fault of a tool th
> [1]: FreeBSD really needs to move away from the "base system" as a
> concept, as I've ranted about in the past.
Strongly disagree.
> Or if it cannot, the "base
> system" needs to start using pkg_* (somehow) for use, and src.conf
> WITHOUT_xxx (where xxx = some software) removed. Concept being:
Will be this device in current ? Or there is alternative for it?
Svn path repo: http://svn.freebsd.org/base/user/rpaulo/eeemon/
--
Arseny
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsub
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The result of the RFC was that bind is not a mandatory component to make "a
usable system", so you argument suffers from bad logic.
With an eye on the date of Doug's suggestive e-mail, I actually am concerned
that we maintain support for DNSSEC va
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
from r206082 on: $Subject
Make sure to read UPDATING (short: make sure there is no WITH_CTF in
src.conf or make.conf).
Once any fallout from this has sorted itself out, assuming no serious
objections, and pending appropriate make universe foo,
In message <20100402021715.669838e0.s...@freebsd.org>, Stanislav Sedov writes:
>On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:55:07 +
>"Poul-Henning Kamp" mentioned:
>Sorry, I think I was not clear enough.
Sorry for misunderstanding.
Yes, the case can certainly be made that DNS query tool belongs in the
base syst
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:55:07 +
"Poul-Henning Kamp" mentioned:
> In message <20100402013353.f544e8ad.s...@freebsd.org>, Stanislav Sedov writes:
> >On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:26:13 +0900
> >Randy Bush mentioned:
>
> >Ports doesn't support cross-compilation yet,
> >and it would be a pity to find y
In message <20100402013353.f544e8ad.s...@freebsd.org>, Stanislav Sedov writes:
>On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:26:13 +0900
>Randy Bush mentioned:
>Ports doesn't support cross-compilation yet,
>and it would be a pity to find yourself
>bootstrapping another tiny arm platform and
>having to use ports to hav
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:30:47PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> And yes, I *will* keep harping on this until people Get It.
You're harping at the wrong people. Complain to the application authors,
not to the poor slobs trying to maintain the ports collection.
There's a lot of crap code ou
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:26:13 +0900
Randy Bush mentioned:
>
> i don't mind if dig, doc, et alia are not in base, as long as they are a
> separate port from the bind hippo.
>
The major benefit of having them in the base
is the ability to cross-compile them when
building the distribution for anot
> While it certainly might make sense to drop BIND out of the base, I'm not
> sure dropping bind tools as well from it is the best decision. How hard
> it will be to continue maintaining bind tools inside the base (so the
> critical ones like dig and nslookup still will be available), while movin
thanks!
yep, i understood the stacks in from vr0 to the bridge. but yes,
short-cutting the diagram was a bad. thanks for the fix.
it's the bridge that worries me. took me a while to make it work
randy
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
htt
On 4/1/10 8:35 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
i have a year old 8 soekris system i am about to upgrade. it is pppoe
externally, and has a bridged natted wireless/ether internal net.
..
||
| b --wlan0|
|
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Xin LI wrote:
> Hi, Tom,
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Tom Uffner wrote:
> [...]
>> i realize this. i was just adding to the list of ports that no longer
>> build after this change. ghostscript is kind of important for print
>> support.
>>
>> i doubt this is
41 matches
Mail list logo
