07.07.2010 16:34, Randi Harper ???????(??):
Your "telling" me this is just as valid as warning me against using
computer-cases of a particular color. It is a silly requirement. My
expecting things, that worked for 7, to work in 8 is reasonable. There
may be (documented!) exceptions, but it ought to "just work".
Attached is the kernel config-file (i386), that worked fine under 7.x. The
kernel-compile will break (some *freebsd7* structs undefined), without the
COMPAT_FREEBSD7 option. Try it for yourself...
Don't use a kernel config from 7. We've already told you this.
That's an obviously flawed argument -- this line of thinking can be used
against ANY ONE reporting ANY BUG -- if one has a problem, then one's
way of doing things "clearly isn't fine".
Yes, your way is fine. But so is mine. It is perfectly reasonable to expect
my method to work just as well -- the 7->8 is not revolutionary, but simply
the next step. I read the "UPDATING" file and, though annoyed a little, took
care of things mentioned in there... The remaining things are enumerated
Your way clearly isn't fine, as it doesn't work.
No, and I'm not going to. A commercial OS would've been the laughing
stock, if one hand to change C: to 1: between releases, for example...
These changes aren't gratuitous. Did you read the commit messages
behind each of the changes? I'm guessing that you haven't.
I bothered to type up my list. Presumably, problem-reports are welcome.
I've been a Unix-user since 1990, a FreeBSD user since 1993 (or 94?),
and a project-member for a decade. If *I* have a problem, then newer
users certainly will too. And, guess what, they'll simply go with
something, that does not give as much grief...
Again: this particular change seems gratuitous.
It's not. You didn't bother researching before complaining.
If this is a known problem, it is even more of an outrage, that some
shim was not introduced to keep the users from hitting this particular bump.
To put it in simple terms, there were changes made to geom, and the way that
sysinstall writes out dedicated disks wasn't compatible. Search the
mailing list archives.
The modification should be necessary.
Why? Why should a netboot act differently from a local boot from CD?
Just because you don't want to
make the modification doesn't mean it was made that way by accident.
No, I never claimed this to have been an accident...
You don't. But there is very little, that needs to be added there for it
to "just work" over both netboot and local CD, and you should do it,
instead of arguing with me here... No, I don't know, what it is exactly,
but I'm quite certain, it can't be very much.
That variable can be set to any number of things. We don't advertise
the iso image just working out of the box for pxe booting.
Yes, exactly. I didn't like process -- it is needlessly complicated. The
same CD-image, /should/ also be usable "out of the box" for netbooting.
In fact, the article about PXE booting on the official freebsd website says
nothing about using the ISO. You just found some article that said it
was possible (and it is) and complained because you didn't like the
Yes, I have -- and I said so in my very first e-mail on this subject.
For someone, who expects people to "research mailing lists", you do a
terrible job of following a one-day-old thread...
Funny. It works just fine in 8.0 on my Athlon. Have you tried updating
Also, even if it didn't work, this is an issue you should
take up with the author of the port.
Tom -- the maintainer -- is still in CC...
I know nothing about the driver. But a utility I regularly used stopped
working after upgrade, so I added that to my list of upgrade-related
> From the man page:
The amdtemp driver provides support for the on-die digital thermal sensor
present in AMD K8, K10 and K11 processors.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-usb-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"