Hi,
I am trying to build samba-3.2.0 so that it runs on OpenBSD 4.3 -stable. The
packages that I built
-rw-r--r-- 3 root wheel 36035921 Aug 1
20:02 /usr/ports/packages/i386/all/samba-3.2.0-cups-ldap.tgz
-rw-r--r-- 3 root wheel 36031693 Aug 1
20:10 /usr/ports/packages/i386/all/samba-3.
On 2008/08/01 19:07, Michael wrote:
> The issue with sparc64 and Berkeley-DB in general is described here:
> http://www.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-single.pl?number=4480
"64-bit assignment statements tend to cause bus errors if misaligned."
strict alignment architectures need strict alignment? who
Markus Lude schrieb:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 07:07:11PM +0200, Michael wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Arpwatch doesn't use Berkeley
db at all.
Thats why I asked if it might be related. Maybe bad wording, english
isn't my mother language. Similar would probably have been a bett
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 07:07:11PM +0200, Michael wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after I already stumbled about some other, probably related, issues in
> sysjail (fixed) and dovecot (reported but not yes fixed) I might have
> found a similar issue with arpwatch, related to the Berkeley-DB.
Sorry, I don't und
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2008/08/01 10:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> This updates tor to the current stable version. It compiles and runs
>> on my i386 and alpha, but should probably be tested further.
>
> Ports is in a pre-release
Hi,
after I already stumbled about some other, probably related, issues in
sysjail (fixed) and dovecot (reported but not yes fixed) I might have
found a similar issue with arpwatch, related to the Berkeley-DB.
Arpwatch itself seems to be working fine, I get emails for new stations,
and only
Hi,
On 2008/08/01 10:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This updates tor to the current stable version. It compiles and runs
> on my i386 and alpha, but should probably be tested further.
Ports is in a pre-release lock at the moment. Please send to the
person listed as maintainer ("make show=MAINTAI
This updates tor to the current stable version. It compiles and runs
on my i386 and alpha, but should probably be tested further.
This patch may be deficient somehow, I've never done this before.
diff -ur oldtor/Makefile tor/Makefile
--- oldtor/Makefile Sat Jan 19 11:03:21 2008
+++ tor/Makef
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 01:10:22PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 01:03:21PM +0200, Raphael Mazelier wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > A few week ago you've proposed the following patch for quagga.
> > It clearly fix the problem and works perfect on my three box.
> > Could you take the
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 01:03:21PM +0200, Raphael Mazelier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A few week ago you've proposed the following patch for quagga.
> It clearly fix the problem and works perfect on my three box.
> Could you take the time to include it in the port tree before the complete
> freeze after 4.4
Hi,
A few week ago you've proposed the following patch for quagga.
It clearly fix the problem and works perfect on my three box.
Could you take the time to include it in the port tree before the complete
freeze after 4.4 ?
(or someone else). Without this patch quagga (and zebra) are completly un
Martynas committed a fix on 2008/07/31 11:31:00.
2008/8/1 Andreas Kahari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/7/31 Markus Lude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:59:20AM +0100, Andreas Kahari wrote:
>>> Hi list,
>>>
>>> I noticed that the devel/nspr port (CURRENT) requires root to build.
2008/7/31 Markus Lude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:59:20AM +0100, Andreas Kahari wrote:
>> Hi list,
>>
>> I noticed that the devel/nspr port (CURRENT) requires root to build.
>> It won't build with SUDO=sudo. Also, it installs header files readable
>> only by root and the wheel
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Sebastian Rother wrote:
> I wont piss off anybody, it will be a gigantic task and I can imagine it
> (hopefully) because of some projects as well but except to tell anybody
> "you can't have both" a "we do not have the manpower to do this" would be
> more truthly? It's no sham
"Sebastian Rother" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wont piss off anybody, it will be a gigantic task and I can imagine it
> (hopefully) because of some projects as well but except to tell anybody
> "you can't have both" a "we do not have the manpower to do this" would be
> more truthly? It's no sh
15 matches
Mail list logo
