On Wednesday 30 January 2013 3:49:34 am Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:35:13 -0500
> > From: Matt Dainty
> >
> > * Christian Weisgerber [2013-01-24 13:03:43]:
> > > I think it's dubious that we match the CPU brand name for this at
> > > all. Shouldn't this be properly handle
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:57:46PM +0100, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:11:25PM +0100, André Stöbe wrote:
> > Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> > > This diff adds 2 new options to usermod(8):
> > > -U to unlock a user's password
> > > -Z to lock a user's password
> >
> > Today I was
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:11:25PM +0100, André Stöbe wrote:
> Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> > This diff adds 2 new options to usermod(8):
> > -U to unlock a user's password
> > -Z to lock a user's password
>
> Today I was working with these two switches and really got confused.
> I've tested the foll
Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> This diff adds 2 new options to usermod(8):
> -U to unlock a user's password
> -Z to lock a user's password
Today I was working with these two switches and really got confused.
I've tested the following with snapshots from Jan 11 and 5.3-beta.
I've got a user with 13 ast
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:00:08PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:05:29 -0600
> > From: "Todd T. Fries"
> >
> > In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore?
> >
> > I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use
>
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 09:42:58PM -0500, Scott McEachern wrote:
> I think these might be helpful:
>
i've just committed this. note (for future diffs ;) scan_ffs should be
listed after rc.
jmc
> --- fsck.8.orig Sun Feb 10 21:34:32 2013
> +++ fsck.8 Sun Feb 10 21:37:48 2013
> @@ -176,4 +176
On 02/10/13 21:42, Scott McEachern wrote:
I think these might be helpful:
Sorry, I didn't have a machine with the sources available when I sent
that. Is this more helpful or is it too late?
Index: fsck.8
===
RCS file: /cvs/sr
Penned by Mark Kettenis on 20130211 10:00.08, we have:
| > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:05:29 -0600
| > From: "Todd T. Fries"
| >
| > In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore?
| >
| > I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:05:29 -0600
> From: "Todd T. Fries"
>
> In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore?
>
> I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use
> for it in the last number of years.
>
> I vote it gets tedu'ed.
I fear it's
On 2013/02/11 00:05, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore?
ftp translation; but I doubt anyone uses that.
> I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use
> for it in the last number of years.
>
> I vote it gets t
On 11 February 2013 07:05, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore?
>
> I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use
> for it in the last number of years.
>
> I vote it gets tedu'ed.
>
I vote for it too, I remember
In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore?
I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use
for it in the last number of years.
I vote it gets tedu'ed.
Penned by David Hill on 20130209 12:53.51, we have:
| Anyone want to OK and commit?
|
| O
12 matches
Mail list logo
