On 05/03/13(Tue) 09:03, David Hill wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:54:58AM -0700, Bob Beck wrote:
> >
> >
> >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
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:54:58AM -0700, Bob Beck wrote:
>
>
>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
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
>
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 recall having any use
| > for it i
> 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
Anyone want to OK and commit?
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 05:19:18PM -0500, David Hill wrote:
>O_NONBLOCK is set with F_SETFL
>
>Index: usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c
>===
>RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c,v
>retrieving revision 1.12
>dif
O_NONBLOCK is set with F_SETFL
Index: usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c,v
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -N -u -p usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c
--- usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c 8 Sep 2002 01:20:15 - 1.
10 matches
Mail list logo