On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 12:02:25PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> I find it really difficult to understand and work with the code of
> rtsock.c because of the following defines:
>
>
> /* Sleazy use of local variables throughout file, warning */
> #define dstinfo.rti_info[RTAX
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 08:38:05PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I do use emulators, specifically for ARM, because it's just easier for me.
> > And one of my co-workers is a contributor to the Hercules emulator.
>
> Then you know it is not sufficient for our needs, yet we keep getting
> the same
> I do use emulators, specifically for ARM, because it's just easier for me.
> And one of my co-workers is a contributor to the Hercules emulator.
Then you know it is not sufficient for our needs, yet we keep getting
the same message from some people. The emulators are too slow, or they
need to b
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 07:33:01PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > You may argue that, since the kernel has a workaround for this issue,
> > > this is a moot point. But if some developer has a better idea for the
> > > kernel heuristic, how can the new code be tested, if not on the real
> > > har
> OTOH, there's a strong case to be made for simply inventing crazy
> architectures out of whole cloth and writing an emulator for them.
I am looking forward to seeing yours. How long do I have to wait?
> > You may argue that, since the kernel has a workaround for this issue,
> > this is a moot point. But if some developer has a better idea for the
> > kernel heuristic, how can the new code be tested, if not on the real
> > hardware?
> >
>
> The problem with this story is that the purported reas
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:32:41PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
> >And it's not full emulator if it doesn't emulate the
> > bugs.
>
> It's almost bedtime in Europe. Do you mind if I tell you a bedtime
> story?
>
> Years ago, a (back then) successful company selling high-end Unix-base
can anyone compile or even test this on a sparc or vax for me?
cheers,
dlg
Index: ncr5380sbc.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/ic/ncr5380sbc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.30
diff -u -p -r1.30 ncr5380sbc.c
--- ncr5380sbc.c17 Jul 20
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 21:49:53 +0100, Tobias Stoeckmann wrote:
> lpd wants to verify that it doesn't open a symbolic link, checking with
> lstat(), then open()ing the file. The only reason I can see that the
> code does not simply use O_NOFOLLOW is a different return value if
> it encounters a syml
>And it's not full emulator if it doesn't emulate the
> bugs.
It's almost bedtime in Europe. Do you mind if I tell you a bedtime
story?
Years ago, a (back then) successful company selling high-end Unix-based
workstations, having been designing its own systems and core components
f
this gets rid of XS_NO_CCB in sbic(4) by moving to iopools. i dont
have an arch that uses this so i mostly want compile testers, but
if someone actually has the hardware that would be great.
this change is mildly interesting because it demonstrates the
flexibility of iopools at sharing resources b
> Regarding the "less architecture support to save electricity"
> argument, I'm not sure one follows the other. Computing power has
> grown to a point that emulators are perfectly valid - particularly for
> older systems.
And that is based upon real experience you have with the emulators?
I rathe
>That's a bug to be filed against an emulator. And it's easier to do
>that *now* when the older hardware is around to test for bug
>compatibility. And it's not full emulator if it doesn't emulate the
>bugs.
We are an operating system project. We have a full set of tasks ahead
of ourselves. We ar
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Christopher Ahrens wrote:
> *Instructions are executed as they should, not how they actually work
That's a bug to be filed against an emulator. And it's easier to do
that *now* when the older hardware is around to test for bug
compatibility. And it's not full emul
Kevin Lyda wrote:
Regarding the "less architecture support to save electricity"
argument, I'm not sure one follows the other. Computing power has
grown to a point that emulators are perfectly valid - particularly for
older systems.
I think a push to package and maintain emulators for many of the
Hi,
lpd wants to verify that it doesn't open a symbolic link, checking with
lstat(), then open()ing the file. The only reason I can see that the
code does not simply use O_NOFOLLOW is a different return value if
it encounters a symlink (maybe I am wrong here, would like to get feedback
on this as
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 06:23:53PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:09:31PM -0500, sven falempin wrote:
> > >
> > >Awesome.
> > >Â * the one on the client openBSD
> > >Â * the one on the builder
> > >i
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 06:23:53PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:09:31PM -0500, sven falempin wrote:
> >
> >Awesome.
> >Â * the one on the client openBSD
> >Â * the one on the builder
> >is there a new make command in ports to sign ? like make sign ? make
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:09:31PM -0500, sven falempin wrote:
>
>Awesome.
>Â * the one on the client openBSD
>Â * the one on the builder
>is there a new make command in ports to sign ? like make sign ? make
>resign ?
See signify(1), pkg_add(1), pkg_create(1), bsd.port.mk(5)
Awesome.
To keep OUR control, one shall create a FTP, resign all packet and update
the key,
or generate packet and sign with is own key, moreover update the one on his
openBSD client ,
where are those keys ?
* the one on the client openBSD
* the one on the builder
is there a new make command
On 01/17/2014 06:08 PM, Kevin Lyda wrote:
Regarding the "less architecture support to save electricity"
argument, I'm not sure one follows the other. Computing power has
grown to a point that emulators are perfectly valid - particularly for
older systems.
You still seem like you do not understa
Regarding the "less architecture support to save electricity"
argument, I'm not sure one follows the other. Computing power has
grown to a point that emulators are perfectly valid - particularly for
older systems.
I think a push to package and maintain emulators for many of these
older architectur
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 09:59:03AM +0100, Sébastien Marie wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:02:22AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2014/01/16 08:53, Sébastien Marie wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Does it make sens to have an option to require package to be signed ?
> >
> > It makes more se
It's probably time to talk about it.
Yes, we are now distributing signed packages. A lot of people have probably
noticed because there was a key mismatch on at least one batch of signed
packages.
Obviously, we haven't finished testing yet.
Don't read too much into that. "Signed packages" just
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:02:22AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2014/01/16 08:53, Sébastien Marie wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does it make sens to have an option to require package to be signed ?
>
> It makes more sense to just enable that by default, when we are happy
> with the infrastructure
25 matches
Mail list logo
