On Tuesday 19 July 2005 21:43, you wrote: > WARNING, this is likely going to sound offensive to some people... > > Johan M:son Lindman wrote: > > On Tuesday 19 July 2005 17:02, you wrote: > >>Since OpenBSD is not very helpful in this case I can only enclose the > >>dmesg without the enclosure plugged in. But first here's the info for > >>the enclosure as Linux sees it (dmesg): > > > > Read this, http://www.openbsd.org/report.html (hint, you should try a > > -current snapshot to see if the problem has been fixed recently). > > Interesting assumption on your part that I hadn't read that document. I
I did not assume anything. It's a good document everyone should read it, seeing as you have read it, good on you. > have read it. And it doesn't say anything about trying current instead > of the "stable" branch as I have. Your hint doesn't help most users as > they don't run current but stable. This OpenBSD list seems to be filled > with some of the most discourteous netizens I've encountered. If you You know, every so often people who actually get good sound advice on this list go all defensive, that's strange considering the people who help you are actually doing you a favour, they go out of their way to help you. > wanted to say that I should use the current because there is a know > problem pertaining to my situation that was fixed in current -- Then say > so. And yes I have read the changelog for current and it does have > entries for umass. But they provide no indication as to what problems > the changes address. So they are useless from a users perspective. And Changelogs are not useless, of course. Anyways you don't HAVE to comprehend the changelog, that's why I told you to try -current, then you'd see first hand if it works or not. > I'm not about to go digging in source histories and sources themselves > to find out any more information than what is in the changelog. > > So please, if you, or others know of specific changes that pertain to my > problem mention them. And I will try and figure out a way to use that As usual everyone else should do your [digging searching testing] for you, why am I not suprised? > specific part of current, because I just can't follow current on a > production server (as other users will also tell you). And if there's a This is the main problem right there. You're tinkering and fiddling with a production server. Don't. > FAQ on how to use only some specific current changes, instead of the > complete ball of wax, that would also be appreciated. No it doesn't work that way. Back porting changes from -current to -stable is not recommended nor supported. Just go for -current and you'll be good. As Theo like to stress from time to time, the quality of -current snapshots is very high. Regards Johan M:son
