On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:14:37AM +0200, Anselm Garbe wrote:
Hi there,
after make world of today:
my mouse behaves sometimes curios (while moving around, some selections
are done, without clicking)...
OK, after installing a new world (source code of Aug 15, 2002 at 00:00
MEZ), the psm
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 08:07:29AM +0900, Jun Kuriyama wrote:
What I want to know is, our buildworld does not been supported without
-O or not.
AFAIK it world should compile with -O (I seem to remember parts breaking
with -O0 for instance).
- alex
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Is anybody successfully using the port emulators/rtc with vmware2 on
-current?
While the port builds and installs fine, a /dev/rtc device never appears.
ISTM that the rtc device does a make_dev as part of the device open()
rather than at module load and that vmware doesn't work like that.
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:31:35 -0700 (PDT) Nate Lawson wrote:
:I upgraded a machine from 4.6R to -CURRENT today and had similar
:problems. Comments below.
:
I upgraded from 4.5R to -CURRENT last night, and had /no/ issues.
:On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, David Wolfskill wrote:
: To upgrade from
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 07:11:05AM -0500 I heard the voice of
dmk, and lo! it spake thus:
Is anybody successfully using the port emulators/rtc with vmware2 on
-current?
[...]
Replying to myself...
I have since hacked rtc so it works with vmware2 on my -CURRENT system
dated February 4, 2002.
--
Rebuilding the temporary build tree
--
stage 1: bootstrap tools
--
stage 2: cleaning up the object tree
See my HEADS UP message to -CURRENT and the 20020815 entry to
src/UPDATING.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 08:38:41AM -0700, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
--
Rebuilding the temporary build tree
I'd debate silly, but you're more or less correct.
The userland is really a bit mixed. Most of /sbin and /usr/sbin is from
FreeBSD (kind of necessary), while most of /usr/bin is from Debian.
---Nathan
Brooks Davis wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:51:49AM +0200, Mario Goebbels
That will certainly be a big help. When we got rid of the pkg/ and
patches/ directories I begged Satoshi to go farther and put patches in
main port directory and get rid of pkg/COMMENT. That was back when we
hit 3000 ports -- I guess people didn't want to accept we would hit 8000
in
Hmm. This could be my bug due to mixing up a -stable and a -current
patch. I modified accept() to reject negative sockaddr name lengths, but
it looks like I botched the return path:
if (uap-name) {
error = copyin(uap-anamelen, namelen, sizeof (namelen));
Actually, I've gone ahead and committed the change, update to
uipc_syscalls.c:1.128 and see if the problem goes away. (if you do it by
hand locally, make sure to assign error = EINVAL before jumping).
Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
My recollection is that the problem relates to calling make_dev() from the
attach routine, and attach from the open call, and of course you can't
open before you make_dev with devfs. Someone needs to restructure the
driver to match some our other pseudo-device drivers where the device is
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 07:11:05AM -0500, dmk wrote:
Is anybody successfully using the port emulators/rtc with vmware2 on
-current?
While the port builds and installs fine, a /dev/rtc device never appears.
ISTM that the rtc device does a make_dev as part of the device open()
rather
Hi,
Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
anything.
It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next
line of 5.x releases.
Just a thought.
Jesse Gross
Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly
Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly desirable for -current, otherwise we
will be stuck at gcc311 for the entire life of FreeBSD 5.x. The
important question to ask is, who will do the dirty work?
Moving to GCC 3.2 will do us no good. The lifetime of the 3.2 release
will be pretty short and 3.3 is
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:59:11AM -0600, Long, Scott wrote:
Hi,
Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
anything.
It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next
line of 5.x
I don't know if I'm the only one having this problem, but I haven't
been able to make a complete buildworld for a couple of
days now. The last time I upgraded was arround August 5.
I have been getting a signal 11 consistently in the same spot.
=== secure/usr.sbin/sshd
=== share
===
I got that but a recent cvsup fixed it. Not sure what the problem was but
there were a few patches to colldef on Wednesday.
-Nate
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Mike Makonnen wrote:
I don't know if I'm the only one having this problem, but I haven't
been able to make a complete buildworld for a couple
Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly desirable for -current, otherwise we
will be stuck at gcc311 for the entire life of FreeBSD 5.x. The
important question to ask is, who will do the dirty work?
Moving to GCC 3.2 will do us no good. The lifetime of the 3.2 release
will be pretty short
I agree that gcc32 is not an ideal target either, but by going to it,
we can upgrade to gcc33 when it's available and not loose binary
compatibility (at least, according to the gcc folks). I'd rather
move to gcc32 right now and get the binary compatibility pain out of
the way, rather than
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 01:34:47PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
| Actually, I've gone ahead and committed the change, update to
| uipc_syscalls.c:1.128 and see if the problem goes away. (if you do it by
| hand locally, make sure to assign error = EINVAL before jumping).
|
That did it. Thanks!
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
The idea is to move to gcc 3.3-pre _now_ If GCC 3.2 has C++ ABI
kinks worked out, GCC 3.3 surely has the same code in. GCC developers
are trying to keep C++ ABI compatible between 3.2 and 3.3, but they are
not giving any guaranrtees.
Cool.
We can call it 3.3 in the
Jesse Gross wrote:
Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
anything.
It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next
line of 5.x releases.
I believe David O'brien answer this the last 3 times it
Cool.
We can call it 3.3 in the release.
Terry, we will name it the same way we name our current GCC 3.1
snapshots. FreeBSD always shipped tweaked version of GCC with a bunch
of local changes merges in. In STABLE, for example, we have
gcc version 2.95.4 20020320 [FreeBSD]
Just like
cc -pg -O -pipe -I. -I/vol/share/src/lib/libncurses -I/vol/share/src/lib/libncu
rses/../../contrib/ncurses/ncurses -I/vol/share/src/lib/libncurses/../../contrib
/ncurses/include -Wall -DFREEBSD_NATIVE -DNDEBUG -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DTERMIOS -c u
nctrl.c -o unctrl.po
In file included from
Sorry this is a little late. I committed a change today that removes
cam_extend.[ch] and removes usage of it from all periphs. If you're
working on a new CAM periph driver, please use dev-si_drv1 instead. See
cam/scsi/scsi_da.c for an example.
I've tested a full build of the patch for a while
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
We are not _releasing_ our own version of GCC and we do not invent
our own version numbers for it, so your attempt to compare us with
RedHat is unjustified. Again, FreeBSD 5.0 will be in no shape for
serious production use and putting GCC 3.2 there just to replace it
At 1:36 PM -0400 8/15/02, Robert Watson wrote:
Someone needs to restructure the driver to match some our other
pseudo-device drivers where the device is properly created as
part of module initialization. If fixed this and other things
locally at one point on my notebook, but eventually got
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 07:09:26PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
Someone had posted fixes to rtc for -current awhile back, and I
have those updates saved away somewhere. If Josef's recent
changes haven't fixed everything, I'll try to dig up that message.
My recent commit just fixed for
That was because the patches were not being submitted back
against the unadulterated distribution code someone who had
signed the assignment of rights to the FSF.
That was because GCC 2.95.x branch is closed for maintenance. The is no
need in complex theory when a simple explanation is more
It was also about trolling the mailing lists to cause just this
sort of heated discussion (congradulations on playing into
Jesse Gross's trolling here).
This was *not* about trolling the mailing list. I wish I were
intelligent enough to predict the behavior of thousands of people, most
of
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
Can *you* absolutely *guarantee* no binary incompatabilities
between 3.3, as it sits now, in experimental form, and the final
release of 3.3? If not, then I don't see why are exploding at
me.
3.1-pre to 3.2 upgrade breaks compatibility already. Can you
--
Rebuilding the temporary build tree
--
stage 1: bootstrap tools
--
stage 2: cleaning up the object tree
On 12:10-0700, Aug 15, 2002, Mike Makonnen wrote:
I don't know if I'm the only one having this problem, but I haven't
been able to make a complete buildworld for a couple of
days now. The last time I upgraded was arround August 5.
I have been getting a signal 11 consistently in the same
35 matches
Mail list logo
