On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:51:56 +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Here is the fix, making sure that section 1 from ports still
> overrides section 6 from base, but cat from ports does *not*
> override man from base.
>
> OK?
This has bothered me for some time already. Please go ahead, ok
pascal@.
> You
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 03:52:45PM +0200, Anders Berggren wrote:
> >>> The following patch clarifies that sending "r" over the FIFO doesn't
> >>> produce the exact same results as SIGUSR1. Or do you prefer that we
> >>> change the behaviour of the FIFO's "r" to match SIGUSR1, for example by
> >>
Hi,
David Coppa writes:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>
>> Here is the fix, making sure that section 1 from ports still
>> overrides section 6 from base, but cat from ports does *not*
>> override man from base.
>
> Definitely makes sense.
>
>> OK?
>
> Ok with me.
I t
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 02:52:02AM +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 13/07/2013, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >
> > Whoa. I think USB was just called a good model.
> >
> > Good? I'm not sure on that point. A better idea for a model? Yeah,
> > kind of like much less worse.
> >
>
> I'll readily study an
