On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 08:23:05PM +0200, Felix Kronlage-Dammers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> couple devices found in the Tuxedo InfinityBook 14 v2.
>
> felix
thanks, committed
>
>
> Index: sys/dev/pci/pcidevs
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/
Hi,
after renaming a directory that has a mountpoint in its subtree,
umount will fail.
# rm -rf /mnt/FOO
# mkdir -p /mnt/foo/bar
# mount -t mfs /dev/sd0b /mnt/foo/bar
# mv /mnt/foo /mnt/FOO
# umount /mnt/foo/bar
umount: /mnt/foo/bar: No such file or directory
# umount /mnt/FOO/bar
umount: /mnt/FO
Hi,
some ssh unittest ist failing because it links stuff together in another way.
basically add 'sshbuf-misc.c' to SRCS.
additional suggestion: make variable assignments similar to ports
mbuhl
Index: regress/usr.bin/ssh/unittests/misc/Makefile
Hi,
some experts forgot to run the rpki-client regression tests after some
changes. The tests are relinking parts of the source and this is not great
but after all I still prefer some running tests. Patch attached.
thanks,
mbuhl
Index: regress/usr.sbin/rpki-client/test-cert.c
=
All of these fprintf(3) to standard error (with exit(3) afterwards) can
be simplified.
OK?
Index: ndp.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/ndp/ndp.c,v
retrieving revision 1.93
diff -u -p -r1.93 ndp.c
--- ndp.c 28 Jun 2019 13:32:49
Hi,
couple devices found in the Tuxedo InfinityBook 14 v2.
felix
Index: sys/dev/pci/pcidevs
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/pci/pcidevs,v
retrieving revision 1.1894
diff -u -p -u -r1.1894 pcidevs
--- sys/dev/pci/pcidevs 13 Aug 2019
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 19:20:53 +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> I concur. We can at least showcase the "batching" version that passes
> multiple arguments to rm(1) while also mentioning `-delete'.
>
> Both find(1)'s `-print0' and xarg(1)'s `-0' reference each other, I'd
> say that is enough together w
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:00:57AM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> The point of that example is to show how to safely use xargs. Since
> find now has its own built-in xargs support perhaps we should adapt
> the example to use that instead.
As claudio and tb already pointed out, that is indeed a val
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 11:10:43 -0600, "Theo de Raadt" wrote:
> Todd C. Miller wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 11:06:12 -0600, "Theo de Raadt" wrote:
> >
> > > Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > > The point of that example is to show how to safely use xargs. Since
> > > > find now has its own bui
Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 11:06:12 -0600, "Theo de Raadt" wrote:
>
> > Todd C. Miller wrote:
> >
> > > The point of that example is to show how to safely use xargs. Since
> > > find now has its own built-in xargs support perhaps we should adapt
> > > the example to use that i
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 11:06:12 -0600, "Theo de Raadt" wrote:
> Todd C. Miller wrote:
>
> > The point of that example is to show how to safely use xargs. Since
> > find now has its own built-in xargs support perhaps we should adapt
> > the example to use that instead.
>
> Does it not matter that th
Todd C. Miller wrote:
> The point of that example is to show how to safely use xargs. Since
> find now has its own built-in xargs support perhaps we should adapt
> the example to use that instead.
Does it not matter that the xargs solution is maximally portable in
scripts, but the builtin isn't
The point of that example is to show how to safely use xargs. Since
find now has its own built-in xargs support perhaps we should adapt
the example to use that instead.
We can also list the -delete method as an alternative. E.g.
$ find . \( -name \*.jpg -o -name \*.gif \) -exec rm {} +
or
This happened a long time ago...
okay ?
Index: make.1
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/make/make.1,v
retrieving revision 1.128
diff -u -p -r1.128 make.1
--- make.1 31 Jan 2019 10:27:28 - 1.128
+++ make.1 22 Aug 2019 1
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 12:37:28PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> We support -delete since the following and I see no reason to prefer the
> current examples for the very same reasons tedu already outlined:
>
> find.c revision 1.21
> date: 2017/01/03 21:31:16; author: tedu; state: Exp
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 12:37:28PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> We support -delete since the following and I see no reason to prefer the
> current examples for the very same reasons tedu already outlined:
>
> find.c revision 1.21
> date: 2017/01/03 21:31:16; author: tedu; state: Exp
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 12:37:28PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> We support -delete since the following and I see no reason to prefer the
> current examples for the very same reasons tedu already outlined:
>
> find.c revision 1.21
> date: 2017/01/03 21:31:16; author: tedu; state: Exp
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 12:19:27PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> # Start listener process looking for dmesg changes.
> -start_dmesg_listener
> +$AI && start_dmesg_listener
Oh my! Diff with correct boolean logic below (using `||' not `&&').
Index: install.sub
=
We support -delete since the following and I see no reason to prefer the
current examples for the very same reasons tedu already outlined:
find.c revision 1.21
date: 2017/01/03 21:31:16; author: tedu; state: Exp; lines: +10 -4;
add -delete option which can simplify the c
Practically a NOP but we currently still enter the function, remove an
nonexistent lock file that is never going to be used outside of
interactive mode and then return early.
Doing it this way also brings it in line with the sysupgrade watchdog
doing `$UU && start_watchog()`.
OK?
Index: install
update description of -s option in sysupgrade man page.
Index: usr.sbin/sysupgrade/sysupgrade.8
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/sysupgrade/sysupgrade.8,v
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.8 sysupgrade.8
--- usr.sbin/sysupgr
21 matches
Mail list logo
