Re: RELENG_4_3 calls itself -RELEASE?
On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 10:00:49AM -0400, Antoine Beaupre (LMC) wrote: Go for RUTABAGA. It's cute. Besides, Debian does it and everybody likes it. It allows us to pick names in honor of dead people. Yay. ;) I like this, and vote for -POUL for this branch, to forever pay homage to a recently departed writer. We should scrap -STABLE for a more meaningless name, but I won't get into this. Is it me or this thing comes up about twice a month? Yup. Conversely, that doesn't make it less of an issue, but I am .not. going down that path. :) Jamie A. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Boot oddness
So I installed FreeBSD to be duaql boot with WinME; WinME is on disk 1, a 30G drive, FreeBSD on 2, another 30G drive. All went well in install, but when I boot, I have problems. When I get to the promtp for loading an OS, I have the choices of F1 for the OS on the drive, GF5 to change drives. F5 works fine, but when I choose F1, the system freezes. To make it odder, if the default is to load an OS, if I wait without pressing F1, it .will. load the OS. Sadly, it has a habit of changing the default from F1 to F5, at which point I cannot load anything; I have to pop in my Install CD and make it boot the drive. How can I fix this? I would like the menu to work, but I would likely settle for making a floppy for FreeBSD that I can just pop in when I want to boot FreeBSD. Ideas? Jamie PS Sorry for typos, 5 second lag to my email box. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: Problems with mergemaster
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:31:25AM -0600, Darren Gamble wrote: Good day, For each file, I get *** Problem installing ./foo , it will remain to merge by hand I got this too, and ignored it. They merged fine for me, which would be why it ignored them subsequently. Jamie To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
fxp drivers
Just wondering, for those of you who have older fxp cards and were having problems with the new drivers, have they been fixed yet? I run an old fxp and need to update my machine, but am not willing to until I am certain it will still work afterwards. The machine is remote and if the card doesn't come up, there is nothing I can do. Jamie To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: Administrative tag a possibility?
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 07:43:27AM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: That seems a little dangerous - perhaps some of the files will have md5 appearing in other lines for other reasons, and that would mess up this simple grep. Perhaps a more complicated tag in the file would be more appropriate. Not to mention that, AFAIK, once you add the checksum to the file, the checksum would be different because the file is no longer the same, ne? I am not aware of a way to include a checksum in the file being checked. Jamie -- Stephen Montgomery-Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.math.missouri.edu/~stephen To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: which branch?
So really, then, it is only recently that people should even have been moving from 2.2.x to 3.x? This doesn't seem to make sense to me. So we are selling an unstable version in the stores? One we don't recommend normal people install? Jamie On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 12:31:19PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Jamie Norwood wrote: -STABLE is supposed to be safe to put on a server. If 4.x is .not. yet safe... Why is it in -STABLE? This kinda bugs me as it fairly well defeats the point of having a -STABLE if it isn't, in fact, stable. -STABLE means the branch which only gets minimal changes, and is *intended* to be stable, safe code. However even -stable breaks sometimes, and at the start of a new branch which has had as many major code changes as 4.0 did, there are bound to be problems to be resolved. The same situation existed with 3.0, which only really "stabilized" about 3.1 or 3.2, and with 2.2.0. Basically the recommendation has always been that the code only truly settles down after a few releases along the branch and if you really can't afford to deal with problems you should wait for 4.3 or even 4.4 before installing the 4.x series (we used to jump to a .5 release, e.g. 2.2.2 - 2.2.5, when it was considered the branch had become truly conservatively stable and safe, but we don't do this any more, so the .3 release is usually a reasonable equivalent). However, there are a lot of people who still run 3.0 or 3.1 systems without problems, so the "early deployers" certainly don't always find themselves in trouble. Kris In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: which branch?
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 11:58:32AM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Oleg Ogurok wrote: Does 4.0-STABLE exists? Yes. Of course since the 4.x branch has only just been born, there are likely to be some problems worked out over the course of the next few weeks, so please don't just slap this on a production server without testing first, etc :) Your testing will however be very valuable and help to improve the quality of the branch. I've been wondering about this, as I have seen it go by a few times along with almost-flames of all the people sure to go slap this on a server... -STABLE is supposed to be safe to put on a server. If 4.x is .not. yet safe... Why is it in -STABLE? This kinda bugs me as it fairly well defeats the point of having a -STABLE if it isn't, in fact, stable. Jamie Kris In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: XF86 on-the-fly color depth change
Well, it's not on-the-fly like you want, but one way is, when loading X, to specify the color depth, via: xstart -- -bpp XX Where XX is the desired depth. Jamie On Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 06:20:58PM -0700, Jason Barnes wrote: Stabilizers: I find that I have to keep two /etc/XF86Config files around, one for 24-bit color, and one for 8-bit color, that I copy onto XF86Config itself in order to change the color depth on my X display. I then have to restart the server in order to get things working properly. Ctrl-Alt-+/- change screen resolution on the fly, is there a way to change the screen color depth on the fly? It seems to me that there must be because otherwise there's no point to having the extra color depth SubSections in the XF86Config file in the first place, but I haven't been able to identify what the command is. AtDhVaAnNkCsE! - Jason PS: On a mostly unrelated note, why is it that some programs (i.e., xanim, doom) require 8 bit color and can't handle more colors? I can understand the other way, but it seems to me that it ought to be able to use a 256-color subset of the available 16.8 million to work in and not just be completely unable to operate. /---\ |Jason Barnes | |U of A LPL Box#238A real person has two reasons for doing anything:| |Tucson, AZ 85721a good reason, and the real reason. | |(520) 327 - 8483 | \---/ PGP public key can be obtained at http://c3po.lpl.arizona.edu/pgpkey To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
