Re: pkg_add tests
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:15:21PM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On Fri, Jan 24, 2014, at 06:50 AM, Marc Espie wrote: You should realize that the pkg tools have gone thru *major internal changes* over the last month or so. If you see weird things happening, now is a really good time to report them, before it's too late... Also, the 5.4 - 5.5 update is going to be fun: there was a kernel flag day. The proper way to update packages will be along the lines of: in 5.4: pkg_info -mq list pkg_delete * (update to 5.5) in 5.5, install new packages: pkg_add -z -l list Again, there might be issues. Now is a very good time to start looking... Do we have to do any of this if we have been following snapshots or -current? Are there any other gotchas related to these for those of us who are running snapshots or -current? I haven't had any obvious Bad Things jump up and bite me yet, want to keep it that way. (Software-related, at least; having my onboard SATA controller fall down and go boom kind of falls outside the realm of that.) Nope. You already went over the hurdle of timestamps. But if you have some 5.4 installs, or if people want to check how 5.4-5.5 goes, well, it will soon be the time to do so. Basically, the big change for them is that pkg_add now always installs the quirks package first, and it uses it to hunt for package names on fuzzy installs. e.g., the above scenario that I outlined should now get people over the 5.4 - 5.5 hurdle *while handling package renames correctly*. Obviously, this hasn't been tested too much yet... As for the usefulness of testing, for instance, I made a large booboo in an extra check in pkg_sign. Fortunately rpe@ caught it fairly early, so a fixed amd64 snap should be on its way out soon (and it was just garbled archives, so rsync should chew on that one really fast compared to the usual slooow trickle of snapshots out).
[no subject]
I generally associate negative connotations with so-called, as in
the so-called free world. I wouldn't use it just to name something,
as in the kernel is written in the so-called C language. so-called
implies it's called this, but it's not.
Two imo dubious occurrences in the install notes. It's not a so-called
MBR partition; it is an MBR partition. Similarly with hppa LIF.
There's one other use in loongson about initrd which seems ok.
(There is another definition of so-called which isn't negative, as in
if you want a great OS check out OpenBSD, so-called because the
source is all open. But that's not how so-called is used below.)
Index: m4.common
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/distrib/notes/m4.common,v
retrieving revision 1.99
diff -u -p -r1.99 m4.common
--- m4.common 4 Dec 2013 23:20:19 - 1.99
+++ m4.common 25 Jan 2014 00:54:18 -
@@ -477,8 +477,8 @@ dnl Describes MBR partitioning. So much
dnl duplicated 5 times.
dnl
define({:-OpenBSDInstallMBRPart1-:},
-{:-Disks on OpenBSD/MACHINE are partitioned using the so-called
- ``MBR'' partitioning scheme. You will need to create one
+{:-Disks on OpenBSD/MACHINE are partitioned using the ``MBR''
+ partitioning scheme. You will need to create one
MBR partition, in which all the real OpenBSD partitions will
be created.-:})dnl
dnl
Index: hppa/install
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/distrib/notes/hppa/install,v
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -p -r1.24 install
--- hppa/install4 Dec 2013 23:20:19 - 1.24
+++ hppa/install25 Jan 2014 00:54:33 -
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ Booting from Network:
reasonably portable to other UN*X-like operating systems. More information
on diskless booting can be found in the OpenBSD diskless(8) manual page.
- Your MACHINE expects to be able to download a so-called LIF (``Logical
+ Your MACHINE expects to be able to download a LIF (``Logical
Interchange Format'') image, containing both the boot code and the kernel,
via the HP rboot protocol, for older firmware, or via the bootp protocol,
for more recent firmware.
Re: your mail
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 08:08:29PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: I generally associate negative connotations with so-called, as in the so-called free world. I wouldn't use it just to name something, as in the kernel is written in the so-called C language. so-called implies it's called this, but it's not. Two imo dubious occurrences in the install notes. It's not a so-called MBR partition; it is an MBR partition. Similarly with hppa LIF. There's one other use in loongson about initrd which seems ok. I agree with so-called having negative connotations. I think both those instances are using it intentionally, namely there are nasty surprises in some MBR blocks that are not covered by the so-called MBR standard. Probably likewise for hppa LIF...
Re: em(4): Don't count RX overruns and missed packets as input errros
On 31/12/13 5:50 AM, Mike Belopuhov wrote: On 31 December 2013 09:46, Brad Smith b...@comstyle.com wrote: On 31/12/13 3:14 AM, Mark Kettenis wrote: Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 01:28:04 -0500 From: Brad Smith b...@comstyle.com Don't count RX overruns and missed packets as inputs errors. They're expected to increment when using MCLGETI. OK? These may be expected, but they're still packets that were not received. And it is useful to know about these, for example when debugging TCP performance issues. Well do we want to keep just the missed packets or both? Part of the diff was inspired by this commit when I was looking at what counters were incrementing.. for bge(4).. revision 1.334 date: 2013/06/06 00:05:30; author: dlg; state: Exp; lines: +2 -4; dont count rx ring overruns as input errors. with MCLGETI controlling the ring we expect to run out of rx descriptors as a matter of course, its not an error. ok mikeb@ it does screws up statistics big time. does mpc counter follow rx_overruns? why did we add them up both previously? Yes, it does. I can't say why exactly but before MCLGETI for most environments it was unlikely to have RX overruns. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: your mail
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 15:53, Marc Espie wrote: On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 08:08:29PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: I generally associate negative connotations with so-called, as in the so-called free world. I wouldn't use it just to name something, as in the kernel is written in the so-called C language. so-called implies it's called this, but it's not. Two imo dubious occurrences in the install notes. It's not a so-called MBR partition; it is an MBR partition. Similarly with hppa LIF. There's one other use in loongson about initrd which seems ok. I agree with so-called having negative connotations. I think both those instances are using it intentionally, namely there are nasty surprises in some MBR blocks that are not covered by the so-called MBR standard. I'd agree if we were talking about the so-called MBR standard. But the partitions created by fdisk are as close to real as we can make them; they aren't imposters. Note also it's not about boot blocks, this text appears on several archs, including arm, which don't necessarily use MBR booting.
Re: your mail
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014, at 08:53 AM, Marc Espie wrote: I agree with so-called having negative connotations. I think both those instances are using it intentionally, namely there are nasty surprises in some MBR blocks that are not covered by the so-called MBR standard. There's an actual MBR standard? If so, maintained by whom? -- Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com
