On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:22:29AM +, Mike Barcroft wrote:
Fri Nov 29 03:15:00 GMT 2002
U lib/libpam/modules/pam_ksu/pam_ksu.c
U release/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/early-adopter/article.sgml
Running test variables
PASS: Test variables detected no regression, output matches.
Running test targets
Bruce Evans wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Riccardo Torrini write
As far as I know it use an EXOR 0x10 to hide/unhide but fdisk doesn't
recognize 0x0B/0x0C fat32 when hidden (0x1B/0x1C)
But as I said, this is rather marginal and I
Fri Nov 29 09:15:00 GMT 2002
Running test variables
PASS: Test variables detected no regression, output matches.
Running test targets
PASS: Test targets detected no regression.
Running test sysvmatch
PASS: Test sysvmatch detected no regression.
Running test lhs_expn
PASS: Test lhs_expn detected no
Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 05:57, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
ntpdate_flags=-s -b 200.220.255.229:
Nov 28 15:15:38 dcs ntpdate[259]: no server suitable for synchronization
found
Nov 28 15:15:39 dcs ntpd[377]: ntpd 4.1.1b-a Thu Nov 28 11:09:29 BRST
2002 (1)
Nov 28 15:15:39 dcs
Yesterday morning I was having some trouble with XFree consuming much more
cpu time than necessary... A truss showed that some kind of shared memory
issue going on, but also froze my system hard. After rebooting (kernel was
from Nov 26 or 27) fsck could not check my one dirty UFS2 partition. Had
Right now, if I want to ensure that a particular program compiles
with a WARNS level of no less than 3, I have to put this in the
Makefile:
WARNS?= 3
.if ${WARNS} 3
WARNS= 3
.endif
That is somewhat cumbersome and obviously some relatively simple
changes to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wesley Morgan
writes:
Yesterday morning I was having some trouble with XFree consuming much more
cpu time than necessary... A truss showed that some kind of shared memory
issue going on, but also froze my system hard. After rebooting (kernel was
from Nov 26 or 27)
Fri Nov 29 15:15:00 GMT 2002
U share/man/man3/stdarg.3
U share/man/man4/ata.4
U share/man/man4/dummynet.4
U share/man/man4/ipfirewall.4
U share/man/man4/ktr.4
U share/man/man4/stf.4
U share/man/man4/tap.4
U share/man/man4/tcp.4
U share/man/man4/umass.4
U share/man/man4/usb.4
U
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 09:41:56AM -0500, Wesley Morgan wrote:
I've seen one post similar to this, but not much else. I think maybe the
UFS2 problem had to do with Kirk's recent changes, but the disklabel
issue... I'm wary to reboot my machine! What in the hell could be causing
this? I'm
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 09:41:56AM -0500, Wesley Morgan wrote:
I've seen one post similar to this, but not much else. I think maybe the
UFS2 problem had to do with Kirk's recent changes, but the disklabel
issue... I'm wary to reboot my machine!
Yesterday morning I was having some trouble with XFree consuming much more
cpu time than necessary... A truss showed that some kind of shared memory
issue going on, but also froze my system hard. After rebooting (kernel was
from Nov 26 or 27) fsck could not check my one dirty UFS2 partition.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 08:47:10AM -0800, Sam Leffler wrote the words in effect of:
Yesterday morning I was having some trouble with XFree consuming much more
cpu time than necessary... A truss showed that some kind of shared memory
issue going on, but also froze my system hard. After
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 06:45:48PM +0200, Vallo Kallaste
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've seen one post similar to this, but not much else. I think maybe the
UFS2 problem had to do with Kirk's recent changes, but the disklabel
issue... I'm wary to reboot my machine! What in the hell could be
I usually stick to just running -RELEASE but since I had some time
I thought I'd try 5.0-DP2 and now have a few questions.
1. I did an ftp install. My machine has two RealTek 8029 cards in
it but only one of them has a cable attached. When sysinstall asked
me which interface to use it gave me
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 09:41:56AM -0500, Wesley Morgan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yesterday morning I was having some trouble with XFree consuming much more
cpu time than necessary... A truss showed that some kind of shared memory
issue going on, but also froze my system hard. After rebooting
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 12:11:42PM -0500, Robert Ames wrote:
2. My machine is a Pentium 166 with only 16 MB of RAM. I'm trying
to rebuild the kernel and so far the compile has been running for
almost 24 hours and it's not finished yet. Is this to be expected?
Yes. gcc 3.x is slower, and
I'm cross-building 5.0 on 4.x, and I get the following:
bento# make buildworld -j4
Running test variables
PASS: Test variables detected no regression, output matches.
Running test targets
PASS: Test targets detected no regression.
Running test sysvmatch
PASS: Test sysvmatch detected no
On Friday 29 November 2002 12:12 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 12:11:42PM -0500, Robert Ames wrote:
2. My machine is a Pentium 166 with only 16 MB of RAM. I'm trying
to rebuild the kernel and so far the compile has been running for
almost 24 hours and it's not finished
Kris Kennaway wrote:
3. When trying to rcp files to this machine I get a rshd: Login
incorrect error. I have inetd configured and running and a .rhosts
file in place (with proper permissions). I'm assuming this might
be PAM related. Any suggestions?
Can you log in with plain rsh? Do the
From: David Syphers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 13:04:47 -0600
[Well, I'm Cc:ing -current anyway -- dhw]
Out of curiosity, how much slower is a 5.x kernel compilation than a 4.x, on
average? My 486, 66 MHz and 16 MB RAM, compiles a 4.x kernel in about 3
If you have updated your kernel sources on or after Nov 27th,
and are running with ufs/ffs/ffs_vfsops.c version 1.197, this
message applies to you.
I have had a report of a disk label getting trashed after booting
up to a kernel with the new UFS2 superblock format. I have just
checked in an
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Kirk McKusick wrote:
I have had a report of a disk label getting trashed after booting
up to a kernel with the new UFS2 superblock format. I have just
checked in an update to ufs/ffs/ffs_vfsops.c (version 1.198) that
explicitly checks to make sure that it will not trash
On Friday 29 November 2002 01:32 pm, David Wolfskill wrote:
...
That should, at least, provide a reasonably valid set of comparisons.
Thanks.
I suppose Robert's results might be abnormally long if -current requires a lot
more memory than -stable, thus requiring a lot of swap, as Kris pointed
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 02:02:42PM -0600, David Syphers wrote:
On Friday 29 November 2002 01:32 pm, David Wolfskill wrote:
...
That should, at least, provide a reasonably valid set of comparisons.
Thanks.
I suppose Robert's results might be abnormally long if -current requires a lot
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 02:28:35PM -0500, Robert Ames wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
3. When trying to rcp files to this machine I get a rshd: Login
incorrect error. I have inetd configured and running and a .rhosts
file in place (with proper permissions). I'm assuming this might
be PAM
Yesterday I installed 5.0-DP2 without problems, however my 100mbit link
to
my desktop computer goes extremely slowly using HTTP, FTP or SMB and
proabably others. I used to be able to tranfer files using FTP at over
7.9MB/sec in 4.7 but now the best that I can do is 800KB/sec. When I
look at
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:53:06 -0500 (EST)
Wesley Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Kirk McKusick wrote:
I have had a report of a disk label getting trashed after booting
up to a kernel with the new UFS2 superblock format. I have just
checked in an update to
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:24:24PM -0500, Craig Reyenga wrote:
Yesterday I installed 5.0-DP2 without problems, however my 100mbit link
to
my desktop computer goes extremely slowly using HTTP, FTP or SMB and
proabably others. I used to be able to tranfer files using FTP at over
7.9MB/sec
I'm trying to get this into 5.0 (I know its late, but life's tough)
This brings ATA support to the PC98 arch will all bells and whistles.
I want to thank the PC98 core team for getting me a PC98 machine
to do this work on, without that it would probably newer have happend..
Please get back to
Can anyone comment on this? I had a bad experience circa Nov 19, which resulted in a
very unstable kernel/world combination. Has the issue been resolved? Meaning can I add
CPUTYPE?=p4 in /etc/make.conf now?
Thank you,
JY
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 12:33:22PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Try removing the WITNESS and/or WITNESS_SKIPSPIN debugging options if
you want performance (at the expense of ability to catch locking bugs)
Sorry, I mis-spoke. If you want to leave WITNESS in, then *adding*
the WITNESS_SKIPSPIN
I actually don't have those options in my kernel already, and would it
make _that_ much of a difference?
-Craig
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:24:24PM -0500, Craig Reyenga wrote:
Yesterday I installed 5.0-DP2 without problems, however my 100mbit
link
to
my desktop
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 04:46:47 +0800
JY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone comment on this? I had a bad experience circa Nov 19, which
resulted in a very unstable kernel/world combination. Has the issue been
resolved? Meaning can I add CPUTYPE?=p4 in /etc/make.conf now?
Thank you,
JY
Craig Reyenga wrote:
Yesterday I installed 5.0-DP2 without problems, however my 100mbit link
to my desktop computer goes extremely slowly using HTTP, FTP or SMB and
proabably others. I used to be able to tranfer files using FTP at over
7.9MB/sec in 4.7 but now the best that I can do is
Wesley Morgan wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 09:41:56AM -0500, Wesley Morgan wrote:
I've seen one post similar to this, but not much else. I think maybe the
UFS2 problem had to do with Kirk's recent changes, but the disklabel
issue... I'm
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:20:38 -0800
From: Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's often more efficient to use binary installations/upgrades than
source, on slow machines. For example, I build world on a fast
machine, mount via NFS and then installworld on my slower machines.
Quite so -- not only
Sure. The cards at both ends are realtek 8139B's and according to
ifconfig, they have negotiated a 100mbit full-duplex link.
Uploads AND downloads are slow, using HTTP, FTP and SMB. When I
installed DP2, I simply copied my httpd.conf and smb.conf, so I
can't imagine that configuration of the
Fri Nov 29 21:15:00 GMT 2002
U games/factor/factor.6
U lib/libc/gen/fts.3
U lib/libc/locale/iswalnum.3
U lib/libc/locale/mbrlen.3
U lib/libc/locale/mbrtowc.3
U lib/libc/locale/mbsinit.3
U lib/libc/locale/mbsrtowcs.3
U lib/libc/locale/towlower.3
U lib/libc/locale/towupper.3
U lib/libc/locale/utf8.5
On 2002-11-29 09:18, Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right now, if I want to ensure that a particular program compiles
with a WARNS level of no less than 3, I have to put this in the
Makefile:
WARNS?= 3
.if ${WARNS} 3
WARNS= 3
.endif
That is somewhat
On 2002-11-28 17:00, Daniel C. Sobral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I found out that ntpdate just doesn't seem to be working at all
during boot. Ntpd dies because of the time differential (windows
changes the time two hours because of the TZ). No message from
ntpdate (I'll next try to divert it to
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 09:18:46AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Right now, if I want to ensure that a particular program compiles
with a WARNS level of no less than 3, I have to put this in the
Makefile:
WARNS?= 3
.if ${WARNS} 3
WARNS= 3
.endif
Is this
Hi,
after cvsupping a kernel with the mentioned version of ffs_vfsops.c
I tried to upgrade my kernel from a some weeks aged -current.
After that I'm no longer able to mount or fsck a UFS2 formatted
disk. My dmesg is attached.
Trying fsck_ffs /dev/da0s1a gives:
(nihil)(root) # fsck_ffs /dev/da0s1a
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:53:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Wesley Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Kirk McKusick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Trashed Disk Labels
X-ASK-Info: Confirmed by User
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Kirk McKusick
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm cross-building 5.0 on 4.x, and I get the following:
bento# make buildworld -j4
Running test variables
PASS: Test variables detected no regression, output matches.
Running test targets
PASS: Test targets detected no regression.
Running test
ps auwwx | grep fsck only shows the grep command itself, so there's
no background fsck running. The output of top -S -I -s1 shows this
when transferring a file thru FTP:
last pid: 33023; load averages: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00up 0+16:47:00
19:44:30
72 processes: 2 running, 62 sleeping, 8
FreeBSD-CURRENT
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Hi all,
Source upgraded my laptop to current a little while ago. Generally it
has been quite solid though there are a couple of niggles, since upgrade
and with a recent cvsup. Machine is a Dell Inspiron 4000 laptop:
[cameron@opal]$ uname -a
FreeBSD opal.macaroon.net 5.0-CURRENT FreeBSD
The sparc64 tinderbox is running a stale world (about 3 months old),
so it's hitting the same problem.
I'm running a not-so-stale world (19 days old) and hitting the same
problem.
Bill
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 11:34 pm, Paul A. Scott wrote:
Oh, #$%@. I'm so embarrassed. My terminal session was logged into Mac
OSX
not FreeBSD, and I had mirrored the same directory structure, so I faked
myself out.
Bottom line is, cvs on Freebsd works like a champ. The cvs on
The cvs on MacOSX does not [work]. My mistake.
From: Mike Bristow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CVS works just fine - it's just that the filesystem is case insensitive
[1], so when you check out src/contrib, the distinction between
src/contrib/CVS [2] src/contrib/cvs is lost, and Bad Shit happens.
At 1:27 PM -0800 2002/11/29, Paul A. Scott wrote:
Damn. I keep forgetting about the Mac OSX stupid, case-insesitive HFS+.
Yeah, I've bitched about this for years. I mean, HFS was an
improvement over MFS (can you imagine a filesystem structure that
keeps everything at one level and doesn't
Hi,
A freshly built system with Now 28 sources now throws the ACPI errors
seen in the dmesg output. The former ACPI snapshot did not complain in
any way on this system.
[snip]
ACPI-0438: *** Error: Looking up [FAN_] in namespace, AE_NOT_FOUND
ACPI-1287: *** Error: Method execution
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Soeren Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to get this into 5.0 (I know its late, but life's tough)
This brings ATA support to the PC98 arch will all bells and whistles.
--- sys/conf/files28 Nov 2002 01:17:48 - 1.738
+++ sys/conf/files
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Kirk McKusick wrote:
I have had a report of a disk label getting trashed after booting
up to a kernel with the new UFS2 superblock format. I have just
checked in an update to ufs/ffs/ffs_vfsops.c (version 1.198) that
explicitly checks to make sure that it will not trash
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Right now, if I want to ensure that a particular program compiles
with a WARNS level of no less than 3, I have to put this in the
Makefile:
WARNS?= 3
.if ${WARNS} 3
WARNS= 3
.endif
Only in broken Makefiles. WARNS?=
One of the big problems is that install gives a bogus error
message when it can't unlink /usr/bin/make because it's non-root.
Since there's no way that I'm going to suggest changing
install's behavior this late in the release cycle, can we
at least make buildworld's make target ensure that you're
At 09:11 PM 11/24/2002 -0800, Kirk McKusick wrote:
On Tuesday Nov 26th I plan to make an update to the UFS2
superblock. It will not affect UFS1 filesystems so should
be generally transparent to most -current users. For those
using UFS2 filesystems, the new kernel will update the
superblock to the
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 17:43:53 +1100 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Kirk McKusick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Trashed Disk Labels
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You will have to ask Puol-Henning Kamp, but I do not believe that
he has yet put together a bootstrap for the i386 platform that can
boot from a UFS2 filesystem. As such, I believe that you are
required to have a UFS1 root on the i386 at this time. I have
copied Poul-Henning Kamp so that he can
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, David Syphers wrote:
On Friday 29 November 2002 12:12 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 12:11:42PM -0500, Robert Ames wrote:
2. My machine is a Pentium 166 with only 16 MB of RAM. I'm trying
to rebuild the kernel and so far the compile has been
At 11:11 PM 11/29/2002 -0800, Kirk McKusick wrote:
You will have to ask Puol-Henning Kamp, but I do not believe that
he has yet put together a bootstrap for the i386 platform that can
boot from a UFS2 filesystem. As such, I believe that you are
required to have a UFS1 root on the i386 at this
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 23:16:51 -0800
To: Kirk McKusick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Manfred Antar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Update to UFS2 Superblock Format
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Poul-Henning
62 matches
Mail list logo
