Re: ``Resource temporarily unavailable'' in vi

2003-07-15 Thread Byron Schlemmer
On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 09:09, Terry Lambert wrote:
 
 One way to track this down, if it's that repeatable for everyone,
 would be to open another terminal window, get the pid of the
 program that's going to do this, and then:
 
   truss -p pid | grep Resource temp
 
 ...or just let it run to completion, and you'll get some context,
 too, in your scrollback buffer.

Being the curious person that I am, I tried the following from the truss
manpage :

% truss /bin/echo hello
truss: cannot open /proc/1805/mem: No such file or directory
truss: cannot open /proc/curproc/mem: No such file or directory

Is this expected behaviour on -CURRENT or is it just me? More
information :

% ls -al /proc
total 4
dr-xr-xr-x   2 root  wheel  512 Jan 16 22:26 .
drwxr-xr-x  17 root  wheel  512 Jul 11 18:46 ..

% file `which truss`
/usr/bin/truss: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1
(FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.0.1, dynamically linked (uses shared libs),
stripped

% uname -a
FreeBSD nemesis.work 5.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 5.1-RELEASE #5: Fri Jun 27
12:52:43 SAST 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/NEMESIS 
i386

-- 

byron

Bus error -- driver executed.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: ``Resource temporarily unavailable'' in vi

2003-07-15 Thread Byron Schlemmer
On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 13:45, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
 It's expected if you don't have a process filesystem mounted on /proc.
 
 kldload procfs
 mount_procfs /dev/procfs /proc

Doh! I should have RTFM. Apologies. 

truss(1) :

It does this by stopping and restarting the process being monitored via
procfs(5)

Thanks anyway.

-- 

byron

Bus error -- driver executed.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


make.conf and MASTER_SITE_BACKUP

2003-06-23 Thread Byron Schlemmer
Hi,

Had a quick search around mail archives and problem reports. Did spot
anything, but it seems 

MASTER_SITE_BACKUP?=
MASTER_SITE_OVERRIDE?=

work in make.conf for 5 however make.conf(5) doesn't seem to mention it?
Is this a feature?

-byron
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: The official GEOM is in the tree speech.

2002-10-05 Thread Byron Schlemmer

On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

 Ok, we've reached a milestone which have been on the radar for 8½
 years, at least for some of us:

Wow! Thats determination :)

 Our task is to stay alive and kicking, our challenge is to
 be ahead of our time and the rest of the pack.

 And that is the first point I would like to make:  If it wasn't
 for the bikeshed it would produce, I would like to propose
 that starting right after then 5.0 branch, we rename our
 HEAD revision from -current to -future.

 What goes in in current is by nature, and our release cycle, one
 to two years ahead of our main userbase.  We should have in -current
 what they will be asking for 12 months down the road.

As a simple user and already busy sysadmin this is good to hear. It
really is nice to know that there are really smart folks out there
expending lots of their own making FreeBSD an even better OS than it
already is.

 And that brings me to the next point I want to make:

 It worries me however, to realize how tough an ass-hole I have
 had to be, in order to get to stick to the principle of doing
 things right, rather than just hack it in.

 The best way to destroy FreeBSD in the long term, is to let our
 infrastructure rot.

I certainly agree with the above point. I'm mainly just a lurker here,
but I've been watching the little battles being fought here and there,
each of us trying to steer FreeBSD towards our own ideals. However GEOM
seems to be regarded generally as right thing to do. For all of
Poul-Hennings hard work I personally would like to congratulate him. He
certainly is braver than me asking smart hackers world wide to modify
their code to suit. However I have the following thing to say in this
regard. The thing that first struck me about FreeBSD and the thing that
has kept me using FreeBSD is the generally complete thinking about
pieces of code. FreeBSD seems to me to be more well-balanced, cleaner
and faster than other OSs other there. And it must be due to core
infrustructure like this that helps keep it that way. Hence all I can
really do is to implore the rest of the developers out there to consider
the above and to help keep FreeBSD, mean, lean and rot free? :)

 Finally, on a personal note Peters commitstats say I have been
 committing to the kernel on average every 16 hours for the last
 year.  It feels that way too.

Once again, my thanks to phk and the rest of the FreeBSD hackers out
there for all their hard work.

 And now is the time for me to shut up, and for time and practical
 experience will have to judge if I delivered on the promises I made
 along the way.

 Thanks for listening,

Always, it's always amazing what you can learn. Like who is Zilog Zeus?
:)

- byron


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message