TB --- 2012-03-29 05:17:44 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-03-29 05:17:44 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for mips/mips
TB --- 2012-03-29 05:17:44 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2012-03-29 05:18:27 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2012-03-29 05:18:27 -
TB --- 2012-03-29 06:07:26 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-03-29 06:07:26 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc
TB --- 2012-03-29 06:07:26 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2012-03-29 06:08:53 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2012-03-29 06:08:53 -
Am 03/27/12 15:20, schrieb Eduardo Morras:
At 10:54 27/03/2012, you wrote:
Since the last PostgreSQL port update, server and client are version
9.1.3 and a newly build of the FreeBSD OS (both 9.0-STABLE and
10.0-CURRENT, amd64), clients like pgadmin3 or webinterfaces like those
from refdb
TB --- 2012-03-29 06:59:43 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-03-29 06:59:43 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc
TB --- 2012-03-29 06:59:43 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2012-03-29 07:01:26 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2012-03-29 07:01:26 -
TB --- 2012-03-29 12:23:01 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-03-29 12:23:01 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for ia64/ia64
TB --- 2012-03-29 12:23:01 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2012-03-29 12:23:01 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2012-03-29 12:23:01 -
TB --- 2012-03-29 13:15:11 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-03-29 13:15:11 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for mips/mips
TB --- 2012-03-29 13:15:11 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2012-03-29 13:16:16 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2012-03-29 13:16:16 -
TB --- 2012-03-29 13:15:34 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-03-29 13:15:34 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc
TB --- 2012-03-29 13:15:34 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2012-03-29 13:17:57 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2012-03-29 13:17:57 -
I was wondering if there are some objections using TMPFS for /tmp and
/var/run.
I figured out some problems with some rc.d scripts when using TMPFS for
/var/run, samba and OpenLDAP do store some informations like PID in a
subfolder of their own in /var/run, but the rc.d scripts are not
checking
Hi,
It appears that overlapping I/O regions can trigger a bug on display adapters,
which I've tried to fix here:
http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/233662
I'm not an expert in this area, though if anyone has any better suggestions, I
am willing to try that.
Sympthom: ACPI enabled i386
TB --- 2012-03-29 14:06:55 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-03-29 14:06:55 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc
TB --- 2012-03-29 14:06:55 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2012-03-29 14:07:46 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2012-03-29 14:07:47 -
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 04:18:06PM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
I was wondering if there are some objections using TMPFS for /tmp and
/var/run.
...
My question is whether there are objections using TMPFS for bot /tmp/
and /var/run/ at this stage on FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT/amd64?
I have no
On 29 Mar 2012 16:49, O. Hartmann ohart...@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de
wrote:
I was wondering if there are some objections using TMPFS for /tmp and
/var/run.
I figured out some problems with some rc.d scripts when using TMPFS for
/var/run, samba and OpenLDAP do store some informations like PID in
Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote:
Any rc script that complains about an empty /var/run is buggy- it should be
assumed that it will be emptied on boot.
Then why are there entries for /var/run/{named,ppp,wpa_supplicant}
in /etc/mtree/BSD.var.dist? Should they be removed?
Am 03/29/12 18:14, schrieb David Wolfskill:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 04:18:06PM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
I was wondering if there are some objections using TMPFS for /tmp and
/var/run.
...
My question is whether there are objections using TMPFS for bot /tmp/
and /var/run/ at this stage on
On 03/29/12 09:18, O. Hartmann wrote:
I was wondering if there are some objections using TMPFS for /tmp and
/var/run.
For /tmp, what exactly do you mean?
If you want to use tmpfs instead of md/mdmfs when tmpmfs=YES in
rc.conf, I have no opinion.
However, if you always want to use tmpfs
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:50:00PM -0500, Eric van Gyzen wrote:
...
However, if you always want to use tmpfs instead of stable storage,
please do not. Some people expect /tmp to be persistent. This is why
/etc/defaults/rc.conf has clear_tmp_enable=NO. Changing this would
break the POLA.
Am 03/29/12 21:50, schrieb Eric van Gyzen:
On 03/29/12 09:18, O. Hartmann wrote:
I was wondering if there are some objections using TMPFS for /tmp and
/var/run.
For /tmp, what exactly do you mean?
If you want to use tmpfs instead of md/mdmfs when tmpmfs=YES in
rc.conf, I have no opinion.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:07:01PM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
...
Aren't MDMFS backed filesystems of static size? And haven't they to be
created first before they can be used? Using TMPFS seems toi be a more
convenient way to me - dynamical (?), using a fstab entry for convenience.
One may
В Thu, 15 Dec 2011 01:02:03 +0100
O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de пишет:
Just read this on
phoronix.com
Is this finally a chance to get GPGPU on FreeBSD natively supported?
nVidia has a binary driver, supporting well their higher end graphics
cards on FreeBSD 64bit natively.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/29/12 09:59, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote:
Any rc script that complains about an empty /var/run is buggy- it
should be assumed that it will be emptied on boot.
Then why are there entries for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/29/12 09:41, Chris Rees wrote:
On 29 Mar 2012 16:49, O. Hartmann
ohart...@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
I was wondering if there are some objections using TMPFS for /tmp
and /var/run. I figured out some problems with some rc.d scripts
On 03/29/2012 14:58, David Wolfskill wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:50:00PM -0500, Eric van Gyzen wrote:
...
However, if you always want to use tmpfs instead of stable storage,
please do not. Some people expect /tmp to be persistent. This is why
/etc/defaults/rc.conf has
TB --- 2012-03-29 20:22:47 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-03-29 20:22:47 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for mips/mips
TB --- 2012-03-29 20:22:47 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2012-03-29 20:23:56 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2012-03-29 20:23:56 -
TB --- 2012-03-30 04:37:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-03-30 04:37:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for mips/mips
TB --- 2012-03-30 04:37:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2012-03-30 04:37:42 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2012-03-30 04:37:42 -
24 matches
Mail list logo
