On 2011-06-24 18.46, Joel Sing wrote:
> On Friday 24 June 2011, Benny Lofgren wrote:
>> On 2011-06-24 01.39, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
>>> What should be done about ccd(4) and raid(4)? They both seem
>>> superseded in functionality by softraid(4), which also has much more
>>> developer interest and a
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 08:16:05PM -0600, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> When a regular expression has zero-length matches in a string,
> both sed(1) global replacement (/g) and replacement of numbered
> instances (e.g. /2) are broken. This is not even limited to sed -E.
> Both Otto's patch and my own re
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 08:34:15PM +0200, Christopher Zimmermann wrote:
> >> By the way, is there a way to mount umass(4) devices without looking at
> >> dmesg for the number of the sd device?
> >
> > hotplugd(8)
>
> That's not what I thought about, but even better - hotplugd the BSD way.
If you
On 06/24/11 19:40, Alexander Polakov wrote:
> * Christopher Zimmermann [110624 21:24]:
>> On 06/24/11 18:46, Joel Sing wrote:
>>> On Friday 24 June 2011, Benny Lofgren wrote:
- More consistent sd unit allocation (perhaps this is achievable
with DUID, I haven't had time to explore that
* Christopher Zimmermann [110624 21:24]:
> On 06/24/11 18:46, Joel Sing wrote:
> > On Friday 24 June 2011, Benny Lofgren wrote:
> >> - More consistent sd unit allocation (perhaps this is achievable
> >> with DUID, I haven't had time to explore that yet)
> >
> > sd(4) unit allocation will always
On 06/24/11 18:46, Joel Sing wrote:
> On Friday 24 June 2011, Benny Lofgren wrote:
>> - More consistent sd unit allocation (perhaps this is achievable
>> with DUID, I haven't had time to explore that yet)
>
> sd(4) unit allocation will always be inconsistent and unpredicatable
> - DUIDs will le
On 06/23/11 21:05, Christopher Zimmermann wrote:
...
Maybe you can force nc(1) not to send a FIN segment by using something
like this:
cat infile - |nc host 1234
This works. Thanks!
On Friday 24 June 2011, Benny Lofgren wrote:
> On 2011-06-24 01.39, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> > What should be done about ccd(4) and raid(4)? They both seem
> > superseded in functionality by softraid(4), which also has much more
> > developer interest and active development.
>
> Never used ccd(4)
On Saturday 25 June 2011, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> > What should be done about ccd(4) and raid(4)? They both seem
> > superseded in functionality by softraid(4), which also has much more
> > developer interest and active development.
>
> Is softraid ready at all? I
On 06/22/2011 03:15 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:43:27AM +, Thomas Gerlach wrote:
>> ...crap! sorry, something went wrong here. :(
>
> I'm not sure what you mean went wrong.
>
> But in an effort to try to wrap this up, can you please try -current
> with just this di
i know you will love this =))
www.elitewealthsecret.com
thank me later
blessings,
Mike
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 03:38:48PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Matthew Dempsky wrote:
>
> > What should be done about ccd(4) and raid(4)? They both seem
> > superseded in functionality by softraid(4), which also has much more
> > developer interest and active development.
>
> Is softra
Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> What should be done about ccd(4) and raid(4)? They both seem
> superseded in functionality by softraid(4), which also has much more
> developer interest and active development.
Is softraid ready at all? I thought it was experimental, under
construction, incomplete, don
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> Diff below fixes "ldd /usr/lib/*.so.*" so that it outputs more than
> just the first shared object's dependencies, like the behavior from
> "ldd /usr/bin/*".
>
> The issue is that dlopen(f, RTLD_TRACE) calls exit() after it's done.
> I looke
On Friday 24 June 2011, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Kenneth R Westerback
>
> wrote:
> > I use neither but know people claim to be using one or the other,
> > but mostly raid(4), a.k.a. raidframe.
>
> Then it sounds like the solution is to subtly break them so we can
>
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Mark Kettenis
wrote:
>> From: Jonathan Matthew
>> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:49:50 +1000
>>
>> > Which shows how badly the chosen name for that function really is.
>> >
>> > I did some digging into the issue. If you look at 3400 docs, you'll
>> > see that descripti
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 06:08:47PM +0600, Alexandr Shadchin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I prepared update package xkeyboard-config to the latest release 2.3.
> Patch available on http://koba.devio.us/distfiles/xkeyboard-config-2.3.diff
> Tested on amd64.
>
> --
> Alexandr Shadchin
No problems here on amd6
If you have problems viewing this message,View the Web or Mobile Version
https://www.magnetmail.net/actions/email_web_version.cfm?recipient_id=7382285
72&message_id=1413942&user_id=LEBHAR_C&VERSION=TEXT&group_id=658916&jobid=586
6550
> From: Jonathan Matthew
> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:49:50 +1000
>
> > Which shows how badly the chosen name for that function really is.
> >
> > I did some digging into the issue. If you look at 3400 docs, you'll
> > see that description of the AHCI_REG_CAP registers says that the BIOS
> > shoul
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 07:04:48PM +0100, Owain Ainsworth wrote:
> How about this now?
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:05:04AM +0100, Owain Ainsworth wrote:
> > These functions used to be big and complicated, now they are glorified
> > wrappers around pmemrange and don't really need their own file
On 2011-06-24 01.39, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> What should be done about ccd(4) and raid(4)? They both seem
> superseded in functionality by softraid(4), which also has much more
> developer interest and active development.
Never used ccd(4) so can't comment on that, but RAIDframe (raid(4)) has
a
21 matches
Mail list logo
