Re: Devd / devmatch(8) -- netif race 12-RC1

wireless lagg initialization is broken in this scenario, all-right. The init/rc system as it is now can’t cope easily with a modern asynchronous initialization sequence. Sure you could probably find an order which works, only to find yourself in trouble next time you want add some modern functi

Devd / devmatch(8) -- netif race 12-RC1

Hello, Today I tried a simple wireless failover on a machine running free-bsd. After reboot the system cannot complete the initialization sequence OK with devmatcher. The devd/devmatch(8) combo correctly identified the wireless card and loaded required drivers and firmware. rcorder(8) reports

Re: Followup on packaging base with pkg(8)

Thanks for the work you put in this major feature. Could we please get a full list of the issues which surfaced, quirks, and other worth to mention notes ? I believe its important. > On 19 May 2016, at 23:31, Glen Barber wrote: > > Despite the schedule adjustment for 11.0-RELEASE to allow ad

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

>> > > *THAT* is the tone I was complaining about. This is not at all respectful. > Respect is a two way street. If you want respect, offer yours. We make our point very poorly, I get you, but it is the result of what you and others from the projectdo. Meaning, 0 communication. I dont k

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

left there do become annoying. > On 21 Apr 2016, at 23:20, Edward Tomasz Napierała wrote: > > On 0421T1526, Dan Partelly wrote: >> The scenario is: >> >> Let’s say I have autofs_enable , working with media map. >> >> If I have a CD in CD drive , all

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

The scenario is: Let’s say I have autofs_enable , working with media map. If I have a CD in CD drive , all is well and when the system is fully booted up /media contains a directory through which I can access the content of the CD-ROM. Now if you eject this CD , and insert a new one, nothing hap

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

IMO, the number of packages per-se is not a problem as long as you can manage them without arcane commands, aliases, pipe - filters, or scripts. (they all have their place, but less , the better) My point is that I don't really want to keep on my head a Unix hacker hat. I (and presumably many

Re: DDB patches

de: > eventually we may decide to bring it in … You tell me nothing new, but thank you. > On 20 Nov 2015, at 17:56, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > > > On 11/20/15 08:54, Dan Partelly wrote: >> Hi Pedro, >> >> I think you confuse blackmailing with something much

Re: DDB patches

walk > away as soon as he/she receives criticism or has plans that do not match ours. > If this is not your ideal workflow … fork your own BSD, a lot of intelligent > people do just that. > > Pedro. > >> >> Dan >> >> >> >>> On 19

Re: DDB patches

to the project. > On 19 Nov 2015, at 16:10, Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > > On 19-11-2015 14:53, Dan Partelly wrote: >>> So not submitting a PR for an issue sound real strange to my ears. >> >> >> It is NOT a patch for an issue, bug, anything on those lines at

Re: DDB patches

e added to a problem database which is used for bug reports. But then again, it may be just me. Dan > On 19 Nov 2015, at 15:44, Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > > On 19-11-2015 10:57, Dan Partelly wrote: >> Hey Pedro, >> >> Thanks a lot , mate. >> >> I

Re: DDB patches

this done one way or another , we could proceed to the libification of ifconfig, should you so desire, and you believe we can all benefit from it. Dan > On 19 Nov 2015, at 11:17, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > Hello; > >> Il giorno 19/nov/2015, alle ore 02:34, Dan Partelly

DDB patches

Hey Pedro, some times ago you got some DDB patches from me in which I added relational ops support from it. The patch was a bit clobbered, but last I know you cleaned it up and put it somewhere on freebsd.org (prolly your page) up for review. Could you or Adrian review the patch set , and if

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

add /usr.bin/uptime > On 18 Nov 2015, at 23:56, Ed Maste wrote: > > On 18 November 2015 at 15:46, Luigi Rizzo wrote: >> i was going to suggest doing ldd on the binaries or a grep on the >> Makefile but the latter returns a surprisingly low number >> of matches. > > That's because it's usually

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

describing arbitrary commands, , have the request validated, user right checked, then passed to a command execution system (and I use the command term very loosely, I do not refers to a utility) > On 17 Nov 2015, at 18:42, Simon J. Gerraty wrote: > > Dan Partelly wrote: >> Juni

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

> On 17 Nov 2015, at 11:04, Julian Elischer > wrote: > > Personally I would have liked it if in '91 we had followed one very serious > suggestion, > and implemented every user command as a base 'library', and a tcl wrapper > script that gave the external behaviour.

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

daemon would help FreeBSD. I am very grateful your company helped us with libxo. Now you could help with the other end of the system. So Juniper, thank you for contributing, and please help the OS who makes us all tick. Dan > On 17 Nov 2015, at 00:02, Simon J. Gerraty wrote: >

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

Hi Adrian, No, no, none wasn't unwelcoming or cold. Thanks for your responses > I plan on attacking the binary code reuse a bit by turning the > net80211 bits of ifconfig into a library and starting to use it from > other places This is great news. ifconfig is an obvious target. I personally a

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

t; > On 2015-11-15 14:44, Dan Partelly wrote: >>> I would welcome competing ideas/solutions, but someone would have to >>> actually build them, not just >> >>> rattle off some ideas on the mailing list. >> >> Am I missing the point of a mailing list

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

hy of the status of a FreeBSD initiated and sponsored object. > On 16 Nov 2015, at 19:16, Allan Jude wrote: > > On 2015-11-16 12:09, Elizabeth Myers wrote: >> On 15/11/15 06:54, Dan Partelly wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I was looking at the new facili

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

> It's all fine and good making technical decisions based on drawings > and handwaving and philosophizing, but at some point someone has to do > the code. HI Adrian, . What I eluded too is not a small project. It is something that would need proper discussion and agreement, since it would be per

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

HI Simon, Thanks for the write-up . One question: >> The ability to get machine parsable output from OS components is a big part >> of the success of Junos CLI, netconf etc. Once you get machine parsable output, and feed it to your GUIs , WEB, other tools, and modify it, how do you feed it

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

> I would welcome competing ideas/solutions, but someone would have to actually > build them, not just > rattle off some ideas on the mailing list. Am I missing the point of a mailing list ? it is a place to present and exchange ideas, ask why some things are the way they are , and get critici

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

Meaning, is that simple to push things in head , if somone does the work, even with with no proper review of the problem at hand , and the proposed solutions ? > On 15 Nov 2015, at 19:05, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > Hi, > > The reason is simple - someone offered to do the work and push it throu

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

I know about NexBSD, but, as I said in my original message, I am interested on what happen in FreeBSD proper, and what issues XOification tries to solve )and if any proper process was given to solving the identified issues , instead of just adding XO because it could be added. > On 15 Nov 20

libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

Hi all, I was looking at the new facility of dumping JSON,XML from many utils in base and after some funny minutes, I couldn't stop ask myself “ Ok, this is funny , but why ? “ And I couldn't find a real answer. Ill outline what I think: 1. Undoubtedly, it makes base code slightly harder to u