Re: How to move vi to /bin
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:51:46PM +0530, manish jain wrote: > I want to move vi to /bin so that I have an editor available in > single-user mode. This sounds simple (and should be if all you have is > a single partition), but there are problems. For starters, terminfo > can't locate its database in single-user mode. > > Could anyone please tell me how to go about this on a 7.x system ? I > am also curious to know why FreeBSD doesn't place vi under /bin in the > first place. Why not mount /usr? As I understand it, the usual criterion is that only things that are necessary to get the other partitions mounted go in the root partition; everything else goes under /usr. I don’t know if this is the case with FreeBSD, but I don’t know of any other. -- Benjamin M. A’Lee || mail: b...@subvert.org.uk web: http://bma.subvert.org.uk/ || gpg: 0x166891C7 pgp0MNUAHdTag.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why FreeBSD not popular on hardware vendors
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:49:43PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> >> I think that can be handled quite easily by community social pressure, >> and moderation would just set a precedent for "it's someone else's job". > > moderation is needed. Things like "community social pressure" simply > doesn't. Like with democracy - those who are more common and louder will > takeover, no matter if it make sense or not. > > It's already happening on that group that's why i talk about starting > moderation to remove all posts that are not about group topic! Group topic? As far as I can tell, the topic is "user questions" (according to http://lists.freebsd.org/ and the List-Id header). Where exactly is it defined what those questions may be about? -- Benjamin M. A'Lee || mail: b...@subvert.org.uk web: http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ || gpg: 0xBB6D2FA0 "...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." -- Richard Dawkins ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: When switching from console to X, mousebuffer gets pasted
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 04:52:23PM -0500, Robert Huff wrote: > cpghost writes: > > > > For instance: I open an xterm, type some text and select it. When i > > > do a switch to a console, and get back to my X with Alt-F9, the text > > > is automaticly pasted into my xterm. As if i pressed the > > > mouse3-butten. > > > > > > X.Org X Server 1.4.0 > > > Release Date: 5 September 2007 > > > X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0 > > > Build Operating System: FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE-p8 i386 > > > > I've noticed this too but thought I had misconfigured something > > or that it was related to sysutils/screen from where I was > > switching back to X. Glad to see that others are affected by this > > as well; so it's really a bug. > > I think I'm getting bit by this as well, on: > > X.Org X Server 1.4.0 > Release Date: 5 September 2007 > X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0 > Build Operating System: FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT i386 I'm seeing this on Debian GNU/Linux, with the same version of X, so it's not a FreeBSD issue. Ben signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Building FreeBSD on Linux
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 01:15:22AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2007-11-30 16:06, "Saravanan Shanmugham (sarvi)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I am trying to build all of FreeBSD from a Linux Machine and seem to > > be running into problems. We have farm of build machines that we use > > to build many other things and my team would look like to use it going > > forward for our FreeBSD development. > > > > Has anyone tried this before? > > > > I have tried GNU Make 3.80 as well as pmake. And I can't seem to find > > bmake for Linux. > > I don't know of any port of BSD make(1) to Linux, or if that would be > sufficient to cross-build FreeBSD. I'm trying to build a snapshot of > FreeBSD make(1) which builds with autoconf, for other stuff, but it > may take a while before I have a fully autoconf-ified version and that > may still not be adequate. Debian has a package 'freebsd5-buildutils', which includes a version of make that runs on GNU/Linux. I used it for a while when I was too lazy to port some makefiles to GNU make. I don't know, however, if it'll build more recent versions of FreeBSD than 5.x. Ben signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [freebsd-questions] Dangers of using a non-base shell
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 08:39:00PM +, Howard Jones wrote: > Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: >> You could possibly also put "bash -l && exit" in your .shrc, which would >> exit if bash exited successfully. I haven't tested it, but it should >> work. >> > or 'exec bash -l' which will replace the existing shell with bash in > memory, rather than run it from it as a subprocess. I was going to verify > that that's the technical explanation, but 'man exec' gets you the utterly > useless builtin(1) manpage. > > The effect is that you only have to type exit once, anyway. I was going to suggest exec, but if bash then failed to execute, you'd be immediately logged out of sh as well. My suggestion would execute bash if it could, and drop back to sh if bash failed. There may be a better way of doing it, and you can always get a shell prompt some other way if needs be, but this is what works for me. -- Benjamin A'Lee :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subvert Technologies :: http://subvert.org.uk/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 08:50:40PM +, Stephen Allen wrote: > It's been drawn to my attention not to use bash from the ports collection, > because if one of it's dependencies (gettext or libiconv) fails or is > updated significantly, it could break, and prevent login. The suggested > solution was to use a base shell (such as sh) and append 'bash -l' to .shrc > to automatically enter bash. > > The quite annoying side-effect is having to type 'exit' twice to get out of > a su shell or screen. > > Would it be a better idea to use the pre-compiled binary for bash? And if > I did so, could I be alerted to updates as easy as using 'pkg_version -v' > when checking if any ports need updating? With some of the shells there's the option to compile them statically, which would avoid the problem. You could possibly also put "bash -l && exit" in your .shrc, which would exit if bash exited successfully. I haven't tested it, but it should work. A precompiled binary wouldn't help, AFAIK, because you still wouldn't be able to use it if there was a problem with one of the libraries. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Writing Flash Driver
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 07:47:56AM -0500, icantthinkofone wrote: > Svein Halvor Halvorsen wrote: >> icantthinkofone wrote: >> >>> My naive question is, what is involved with creating an open source >>> driver for flash for freebsd? Is it a legal issue? Or does it take more >>> time than anyone has to give? Or is it just too difficult to do without >>> help from Adobe? >>> >> >> http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ >> >> It can even play youtube. >> > Does that in any way answer the question? Yes. Obviously it's not a legal issue, as it's been done. Likewise, it's not so difficult as to require help from Adobe, as it's been done without such help. As I understand it, it's mostly a case of time and effort - working through as many different Flash files as possible, working out what they're doing, and implementing the support for it. -- Benjamin A'Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ "I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers." - Mahatma Gandhi pgpA0ukKl8EB2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Per-port options in make.conf?
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 11:18:59PM -0400, Josh Carroll wrote:
> > Is there any way to specify options in make.conf on a per-port basis?
>
> Yes, something like this should work:
>
> .if ${.CURDIR:M*/portnamehere*}
> WITHOUT_X11=yes
> .endif
>
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 07:30:29AM +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 11:32:39PM +0100, Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote:
> > Is there any way to specify options in make.conf on a per-port basis?
> >
> > For example, if I want Vim built without X11, I can specify the WITHOUT_X11
> > flag, but putting that in make.conf will affect every port.
>
> Use .if and .CURDIR;
>
> .if ${.CURDIR:M*/editors/vim}
> WITHOUT_X11=yes
> .endif
>
> Note that this only works for the vim port. If you want to use it for
> say vim5 and vim6, you have to add an extra star at the end:
>
> .if ${.CURDIR:M*/editors/vim*}
> WITHOUT_X11=yes
> .endif
Thanks, I thought I'd seen something along these lines but I couldn't
work out what exactly it was (or if there was a better way).
--
Benjamin A'Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless
they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." - Voltaire
pgpBOkG1WGV8B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: help in deletion part of a line
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 03:41:40PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: > > Is there an easier way by sed or ed to remove strings > (caight by grep) of the sort: > > part5.chapter2.text- > > where "5" and "2" can be any integer below 10? > > (I know how to delete the *entire* line using ed, but not just > the first part? gilmour% echo testpart5.chapter2.text-test | sed 's/part[0-9].chapter[0-9]\.text-//g' testtest Modify as necessary. -- Benjamin A'Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ "The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true." - Albert Einstein pgpFBKGG7xX7m.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: defend from -> :() { :&:; } ;:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 02:25:42PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 06:44:18PM +0200, Martin Tournoij wrote:
> > On Sun 21 Oct 2007 12:10, Danielisz Laszlo wrote:
> > > Please do not try to execute this: :() { :&:; } ;: on your BSD machine.
> > > I ask all who already tried it how to defend from this?
> >
> > Wow,, my machine just crashed :-/
> > Does in this work on other OS's as well (ie. GNU/Linux)? Or just
> > (Free?)BSD? I really don't feel like crashing another machine right
> > now...
> >
> > Only works in sh, not in csh.
> >
> > Anyway, this seems to be security/stability issue, maybe a PR is in
> > order?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Martin Tournoij
>
>
> If this *is* only a /bin/sh bug, then it maybe time to issue a
> PR. Remember that *our* "Bourne" shell is really "a shell" or
> ash. I remember hacking on this and playing with it back in tha
> late 80's.
>
> It might be time to use zsh as the FBSD /bin/sh
Why bother? It's not a bug, exactly, so much as a nasty trick of
the sh syntax. It works just as well in zsh.
--
Benjamin A'Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/
"He who breaks a thing to find out how it works has left the path of
wisdom." - J.R.R. Tolkien
pgp9ySm3UvSpt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Is it difficult to move from Linux?
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:33:57PM +0100, Donovan R. Palmer wrote: > I have been using Linux for over 10 years, but have for a number of reasons > become very interested in learning to use FreeBSD. Are there any ex or > current Linux users here and could you tell me how hard it is to make the > shift from Linux? Is there anything in particular which has been written > which would be useful to read? Depends, really. For the average desktop user, there's no difference whatsover - Gnome, KDE, etc., are basically identical on both platforms. From an administration point of view, things are in different places - but if you've used more than a couple of GNU/Linux distributions you may have encountered this anyway. The only difficulty I've had is in portability of things like shell scripts and Makefiles between the two; options supported in one version of a program may not always be supported in the other and/or may work differently (this isn't to say BSD is worse, just different). A couple of links: http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2004/11/11/FreeBSD_Basics.html http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php -- Benjamin A'Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein pgpdGZWPcqCDG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Per-port options in make.conf?
Is there any way to specify options in make.conf on a per-port basis? For example, if I want Vim built without X11, I can specify the WITHOUT_X11 flag, but putting that in make.conf will affect every port. I'm aware it's possible to do it with portupgrade, but I was hoping for a method that would work both with and without portupgrade. Thanks in advance. -- Benjamin A'Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ "For if a thing is not diminished by being shared with others, it is not rightly owned if it is only owned and not shared." - St. Augustinus pgp6nbneH2DGh.pgp Description: PGP signature
