Re: Major dhclient(8) changes - no more dhclient-script

2012-11-15 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2012/11/15 16:59, Jiri B wrote: > On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:44:01AM -0500, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: > > Those of you following -current or running very recent snaps may have > > noticed a lot of changes to dhclient in the last couple of weeks. > > > > Aside from some major clean up, these c

Re: Major dhclient(8) changes - no more dhclient-script

2012-11-15 Thread Jiri B
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:44:01AM -0500, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: > Those of you following -current or running very recent snaps may have > noticed a lot of changes to dhclient in the last couple of weeks. > > Aside from some major clean up, these changes revolve around the > elimination of th

Re: Major dhclient(8) changes - no more dhclient-script

2012-11-15 Thread Jiri B
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 08:35:52AM -0500, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:14:40PM -0500, sven falempin wrote: > > 2012/11/9 Kenneth R Westerback > > > > > Those of you following -current or running very recent snaps may have > > > noticed a lot of changes to dhclient in t

mg: sort functnames

2012-11-15 Thread Florian Obser
It looks like functnames was supposed to be sorted. I have an ok from jasper but running this by tech@ because I'm not sure if there is a reason why this might not be desirable. Also fix some whitespace while there. So I'm going to commit this unless someone screams at me ;) (I checked that every

Re: ##@!#@# gnu tools

2012-11-15 Thread Matthias Kilian
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:53:52PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote: > External people seem to ask weird questions. > > I just had to dig into autoconf/auto* because it seems to be a "must > have" for a "portable" project. Here's a simple configure replacement you could use for such projects:

Re: ##@!#@# gnu tools

2012-11-15 Thread Andres Perera
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Marc Espie wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:53:52PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote: >> For all the GNU people, here is how a Makefile for hello.c should look like: >> PROG= hello >> NOMAN= yes >> .include >> >> Yes, you're supposed to provide a man page hello.1 and

Re: ##@!#@# gnu tools

2012-11-15 Thread Franco Fichtner
On Nov 15, 2012, at 5:53 PM, Reyk Floeter wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Marc Espie wrote: >> external people regularly ask "but why you don't want to use GNU/m4 GNU/make >> GNU/whatever ?" >> > > External people seem to ask weird questions. > > I just had to dig into autoconf/aut

Re: ##@!#@# gnu tools

2012-11-15 Thread Marc Espie
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:53:52PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote: > For all the GNU people, here is how a Makefile for hello.c should look like: > PROG= hello > NOMAN= yes > .include > > Yes, you're supposed to provide a man page hello.1 and remove the NOMAN line > :) Well, a portable Makefile for

Re: ##@!#@# gnu tools

2012-11-15 Thread Mike Belopuhov
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Reyk Floeter wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Marc Espie wrote: >> external people regularly ask "but why you don't want to use GNU/m4 GNU/make >> GNU/whatever ?" >> > > External people seem to ask weird questions. > > I just had to dig into autoconf/aut

Re: ##@!#@# gnu tools

2012-11-15 Thread Reyk Floeter
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Marc Espie wrote: > external people regularly ask "but why you don't want to use GNU/m4 GNU/make > GNU/whatever ?" > External people seem to ask weird questions. I just had to dig into autoconf/auto* because it seems to be a "must have" for a "portable" project.

##@!#@# gnu tools

2012-11-15 Thread Marc Espie
external people regularly ask "but why you don't want to use GNU/m4 GNU/make GNU/whatever ?" Well, latest one, turns out gnu-m4 has relly sloppy regexp handling. Namely, stuff like regexp(`n', `?') *works* with gm4... I know somewhat incredible... our regexpes obviously will not like ? lik

mg: make-directory

2012-11-15 Thread Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse
Hi, One of the things lacking in mg was support M-x make-directory, which comes quite handy. This diff mimics the rather silent behaviour of Emacs: there's basically no feedback in case creating the directory failed for whatever reason. Should we be more verbose about it, or just stay in line with

Re: macppc: print uninorth/u3 revision number

2012-11-15 Thread Mark Kettenis
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:18:06 +0100 > From: Martin Pieuchot > > Simple diff to print UniNorth's revision so it becomes easy to know > which AGP chipset people have without looking at the 'eeprom -p' output. > > before: > memc0 at mainbus0: uni-n > after: > memc0 at mainbus0: uni

Re: macppc: print uninorth/u3 revision number

2012-11-15 Thread Mike Belopuhov
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > Simple diff to print UniNorth's revision so it becomes easy to know > which AGP chipset people have without looking at the 'eeprom -p' output. > > before: > memc0 at mainbus0: uni-n > after: > memc0 at mainbus0: uni-n rev 0

macppc: print uninorth/u3 revision number

2012-11-15 Thread Martin Pieuchot
Simple diff to print UniNorth's revision so it becomes easy to know which AGP chipset people have without looking at the 'eeprom -p' output. before: memc0 at mainbus0: uni-n after: memc0 at mainbus0: uni-n rev 0xd2 Ok? Index: dev/uni_n.c =