On Dec 28, 2011, at 12:34 AM, David Thiel wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:54:20PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
>> The first run of fsck, using the journal, gives results that I would
>> expect. The second run seems to imply that the fixes made on the
>> first run didn't actually get written to
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:54:20PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
> The first run of fsck, using the journal, gives results that I would
> expect. The second run seems to imply that the fixes made on the
> first run didn't actually get written to disk. This is definitely an
> oddity. I see that you
On Dec 27, 2011, at 10:14 PM, David Thiel wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 02:48:22PM -0800, Xin Li wrote:
- use journalled fsck; - use normal fsck to check if the
journalled fsck did the right thing.
>
> Ok, here is the log of fsck with and without journal.
>
> http://redundancy.redu
On 12/27/2011 22:08, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Why not just list the things that sysinstall did that people like, and
> extract out / reimplement those bits?
That's sounds great. As soon as that's done, we can remove sysinstall
from the base. Until those things exist, removing it is premature
Hi,
Why not just list the things that sysinstall did that people like, and
extract out / reimplement those bits?
Noone's going to complain if you write say, a stand-alone package
browser, or a stand-alone gui upgrade tool, or stand-alone
configuration program, etc.
Adrian
_
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 02:48:22PM -0800, Xin Li wrote:
> >> - use journalled fsck; - use normal fsck to check if the
> >> journalled fsck did the right thing.
Ok, here is the log of fsck with and without journal.
http://redundancy.redundancy.org/fscklog3
That was done the very next boot, after
On 12/27/2011 18:32, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> On 12/28/11 06:29, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 12/27/2011 03:48, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
>>> On the topic of Doug's actual question, I see minimal sense in
>>> resurrecting sysinstall in head now. I would suggest it be done much
>>> closer to (say, 6 mont
On 12/28/11 06:29, Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/27/2011 03:48, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
On the topic of Doug's actual question, I see minimal sense in
resurrecting sysinstall in head now. I would suggest it be done much
closer to (say, 6 months before) the 10.0 release cycle, if no suitable
post-inst
On 2011-12-27 02:04, Philip Paeps wrote:
On 2011-12-26 10:10:40 (+), Alexander Best wrote:
i grep'ed through src/sys and found several places where WERROR= was set in
order to get rid of the default -Werror setting. i tried to remove those
WERROR= overrides from any Makefile, where doing so
On Tue Dec 27 11, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Dec 26, 2011, at 6:04 PM, Philip Paeps wrote:
>
> > On 2011-12-26 10:10:40 (+), Alexander Best wrote:
> >> i grep'ed through src/sys and found several places where WERROR= was set in
> >> order to get rid of the default -Werror setting. i tried to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/27/11 14:36, David Thiel wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 02:29:03PM -0800, Xin LI wrote:
>> I'm not sure if your experiments are right here, the second log
>> shows you're running it read-only, which is likely caused by
>> running it on live fil
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 02:29:03PM -0800, Xin LI wrote:
> I'm not sure if your experiments are right here, the second log shows
> you're running it read-only, which is likely caused by running it on
> live file system.
Yes, this most recent instance is me running it on a live FS, because
I'm us
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:53 PM, David Thiel
wrote:
> I've had multiple machines now (9.0-RC3, amd64, i386 and earlier
> 9-CURRENT on ppc) running SU+J that have had unexplained panics and
> crashes start happening relating to disk I/O. When I end up running a
> full fsck, it keeps turning out tha
I noted the following behaviour from "fetch" today.. I am actually hunting
another problem so I'm just posting it here in case anyone recognises it
and knows where to fix it...
"d"
48885 fetchRET read 1
48885 fetchCALL gettimeofday(0x7fffcda0,0)
48885 fetchRET get
I've had multiple machines now (9.0-RC3, amd64, i386 and earlier
9-CURRENT on ppc) running SU+J that have had unexplained panics and
crashes start happening relating to disk I/O. When I end up running a
full fsck, it keeps turning out that the disk is dirty and corrupted,
but no mechanism is in
On Dec 26, 2011, at 6:04 PM, Philip Paeps wrote:
> On 2011-12-26 10:10:40 (+), Alexander Best wrote:
>> i grep'ed through src/sys and found several places where WERROR= was set in
>> order to get rid of the default -Werror setting. i tried to remove those
>> WERROR= overrides from any Makefi
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011, Ron McDowell wrote:
> As a related question, is there a good primer somewhere about how to use SVN?
> I'm using csup at present.
- Install the subversion port
- Downlaod the source. To get HEAD code:
svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/head/
or to get 9-stable code:
On 12/27/2011 03:48, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> On the topic of Doug's actual question, I see minimal sense in
> resurrecting sysinstall in head now. I would suggest it be done much
> closer to (say, 6 months before) the 10.0 release cycle, if no suitable
> post-installation configuration tool has m
On Tue Dec 27 11, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:27:43AM +, Alexander Best wrote:
> > On Tue Dec 27 11, Philip Paeps wrote:
> > > On 2011-12-26 10:10:40 (+), Alexander Best
> > > wrote:
> > > > i grep'ed through src/sys and found several places where WERROR= was
> > > >
On 14.12.11 14:20, Sean Bruno wrote:
> We're seeing what looks like a syncher/ufs resource starvation on 9.0 on
> the cvs2svn ports conversion box. I'm not sure what resource is tapped
> out. Effectively, I cannot access the directory under use and the
> converter application stalls out waiting f
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:50:54AM -0600, Ron McDowell wrote:
>
> As a related question, is there a good primer somewhere about how to use
> SVN? I'm using csup at present.
>
http://wiki.freebsd.org/SubversionPrimer
--
Steve
___
freebsd-current@fre
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 10:55:50PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Way back in Nov 2010, this thread was related to a problem I
> had, where an re(4) { 810xE PCIe 10/100baseTX, according to the
> driver } interface dropped received packets, resulting in a
> significant impact of NFS performance.
>
>
Lawrence Stewart wrote:
On 12/27/11 16:13, Ron McDowell wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
The story so far ...
sysinstall was removed from HEAD in October. I (and others) objected on
the basis that at this time there is no replacement for the
post-install
configuration role that sysinstall played. M
I think such a tool should /not/ be a port, since I expect it would include a
package browser in it. I think it's something that could really help new users
get used to FreeBSD without having to trawl through man pages right at the
start.
--
Bruce Cran
Sent from my iPad
On 27 Dec 2011, at 05
On 12/27/11 16:13, Ron McDowell wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
The story so far ...
sysinstall was removed from HEAD in October. I (and others) objected on
the basis that at this time there is no replacement for the post-install
configuration role that sysinstall played. More sysinstall components
w
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:27:43AM +, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Tue Dec 27 11, Philip Paeps wrote:
> > On 2011-12-26 10:10:40 (+), Alexander Best wrote:
> > > i grep'ed through src/sys and found several places where WERROR= was set
> > > in
> > > order to get rid of the default -Werror s
On Tue Dec 27 11, Philip Paeps wrote:
> On 2011-12-26 10:10:40 (+), Alexander Best wrote:
> > i grep'ed through src/sys and found several places where WERROR= was set in
> > order to get rid of the default -Werror setting. i tried to remove those
> > WERROR= overrides from any Makefile, where
On 2011-12-26 10:10:40 (+), Alexander Best wrote:
> i grep'ed through src/sys and found several places where WERROR= was set in
> order to get rid of the default -Werror setting. i tried to remove those
> WERROR= overrides from any Makefile, where doing so did not break tinderbox.
>
> in thos
28 matches
Mail list logo
