> > -There's no hardware involved: thru boxes are created by
> > +There is no hardware involved: thru boxes are created by
>
> i don;t see why this is an improvement. what's wrong with it?
Well, I didn't mean it was wrong or a bug, but the relaxed style seemed
inconsistent with the rest of the pa
One typo and two style issues:
--- sndio.7.orig2012-12-21 17:55:39.415008759 +0100
+++ sndio.7 2012-12-21 18:01:20.607018154 +0100
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
while doing all necessary conversions on the fly.
It can mix multiple streams or split the hardware into
multiple subdevices, to allow program
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 08:28:51AM +0300, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> # if there's no /var/db/host.random, make one through /dev/urandom
^
> if [ ! -f /var/db/host.random ]; then
> - dd if=/dev/urandom of=/var/db/host.random bs=1024 coun
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:25:27PM +0200, Thordur I Bjornsson wrote:
> Each rule is supposed to be usable as it stands, this is also
> an example ruleset, so removing lo0 is not going to happen
> (this was actually discussed not so long ago among developers).
That makes sense. I thought about it
Hi
Attending a firewall talk at a nerdy summer camp [0], I decided to check
out the current, default pf.conf. There is no reason to exclude lo0 in
the block rule for X11, since the lo interface group is skipped.
Additionally, I have made the comments more uniform.
Martin
0. http://www.thecamp.d
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:32:26PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> I like this one better. Slow down the poll interval just a little so
> it's not so hysterical, but also go straight to 100. If you need CPU,
> you need CPU. It still backs down slowly, but that's just to prevent
> getting caught in s
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:57:00PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Here's a first cut at throwing some code into the kernel. You'll
> definitely want to kill apmd if you're running it. It's rather rough, in
> the wrong spot, and so on, but it's a place to start for further hacking.
> I'm not conv
Because it is more consistent with the documentation for the other
options, and because e.g.
autogroup 1 ``XTerm''
in .cwmrc doesn't work:
Index: cwmrc.5
===
RCS file: /cvs/xenocara/app/cwm/cwmrc.5,v
retrieving revision 1.25
diff
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:39:33AM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
> Definitely NOT OK, as you've touched the definition of the next
> function in file
You're joking?
Index: filter.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/libexec/tftp-proxy/
