Re: Is it possible to make subr_acl_nfs4 and subr_acl_posix1e disabled?
Adrian Chadd writes: > Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes: > > I would be very annoyed if it were no longer possible to netboot > > GENERIC... > I don't want to break that. :) I Just don't want to compile it in > unless I'm using NFS/ZFS, and on my 4MB flash boards I'm not booting > w/ NFS compiled in statically.. Sorry, I just realized that I read the text of your message but not the subject; I thought you were proposing to remove NFS from GENERIC. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current
On 9 January 2012 21:06, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Chris Rees wrote: >> On 9 January 2012 18:16, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Mark Linimon wrote: > On 9. Jan 2012, at 01:04 , Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > So you are saying that FreeBSD is currently providing on > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub images tagged as being "9.0 RELEASE" (with > checksum provided), in a `releases' directory, which are not actually > release images per-se ? Excellent! You've shown the ability to understand flat, declarative, sentences that have no qualifying phrases. >>> FWIW, this was more a sarcastic sentence pointing out that FreeBSD is >>> currently officially distributing non-released build in a directory >>> which might leads users to consider this is the official release, thus >>> misleading them. >> >> So, a pointless email. >> > as is linimon@'s. > 9.0 will be *released* when and only when the official, signed, email goes out. Everything up until that point is preparation. >>> ok, I'm a stupid lazy user (obviously)... While browsing the ftp, I >>> see 9.0 ISOs in a `releases' directory. Do you expect me to consult >>> freebsd-announce@, verify the signature of the announce, the hash of >>> the ISOs, etc. to consider that 9.0 has been released ? No, I see 9.0 >>> ISOs in a `releases' directory, I assume it has been released, >>> whatever your spreading process is. >>> >>> Btw, none of the CHECKSUMS files are signed on the FTP. >> >> Have you checked the website? The latest supported release is clearly >> specified, right in the middle of the home page. >> >> Please don't tell me you'd look in ftp before checking the website. I >> think you're just looking to nitpick. >> > I did look the ftp before the website. It is an irrelevant source of > information as I assume none of that stuff to be up-to-date. re@ has > an unimpressive track record about information update. Ridiculous assumption. I don't know who in re@ upset you so much, but you seriously need to get over it and stop trying to prove they're idiots. Constructive feedback is welcome, deliberately finding fault with strange things is not. Chris ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
CXXFLAGS example in share/examples/etc/make.conf should to be updated
hi there, would it be possible to update the CXXFLAGS example in share/examples/etc/make.conf? looking at the gcc(1) man page, -fconserve-space seems to be a bad example. can somebody thing of a C++ specific option which makes more sense? or maybe something like -Weffc++? although idealy this should go into the (non-existing) CXXWARNSFLAGS. cheers. alex ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current
Hi, On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Chris Rees wrote: > On 9 January 2012 18:16, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Mark Linimon wrote: On 9. Jan 2012, at 01:04 , Arnaud Lacombe wrote: So you are saying that FreeBSD is currently providing on ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub images tagged as being "9.0 RELEASE" (with checksum provided), in a `releases' directory, which are not actually release images per-se ? >>> >>> Excellent! You've shown the ability to understand flat, declarative, >>> sentences that have no qualifying phrases. >>> >> FWIW, this was more a sarcastic sentence pointing out that FreeBSD is >> currently officially distributing non-released build in a directory >> which might leads users to consider this is the official release, thus >> misleading them. > > So, a pointless email. > as is linimon@'s. >>> 9.0 will be *released* when and only when the official, signed, email >>> goes out. Everything up until that point is preparation. >>> >> ok, I'm a stupid lazy user (obviously)... While browsing the ftp, I >> see 9.0 ISOs in a `releases' directory. Do you expect me to consult >> freebsd-announce@, verify the signature of the announce, the hash of >> the ISOs, etc. to consider that 9.0 has been released ? No, I see 9.0 >> ISOs in a `releases' directory, I assume it has been released, >> whatever your spreading process is. >> >> Btw, none of the CHECKSUMS files are signed on the FTP. > > Have you checked the website? The latest supported release is clearly > specified, right in the middle of the home page. > > Please don't tell me you'd look in ftp before checking the website. I > think you're just looking to nitpick. > I did look the ftp before the website. It is an irrelevant source of information as I assume none of that stuff to be up-to-date. re@ has an unimpressive track record about information update. - Arnaud ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current
Hi, On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Chris Rees wrote: >> On 9 January 2012 18:16, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >>> ok, I'm a stupid lazy user (obviously)... While browsing the ftp, I >>> see 9.0 ISOs in a `releases' directory. Do you expect me to consult >>> freebsd-announce@, verify the signature of the announce, the hash of >>> the ISOs, etc. to consider that 9.0 has been released ? No, I see 9.0 >>> ISOs in a `releases' directory, I assume it has been released, >>> whatever your spreading process is. >>> >>> Btw, none of the CHECKSUMS files are signed on the FTP. >> >> Have you checked the website? The latest supported release is clearly >> specified, right in the middle of the home page. >> >> Please don't tell me you'd look in ftp before checking the website. I >> think you're just looking to nitpick. > > And, which is worse: > 1. tag the release branch, build the ISOs, upload to main FTP > server, wait for the mirrors (FTP, CVS, SVN) to sync, then make the > official announcement which includes a few days/weeks where "the > release" is available but not official; or > 2. tag the release branch, build the ISOs, upload to main FTP > server, make the official announcement, user goes to their > favourite/closest mirror, and can't access the release since it hasn't > synced yet > 3. tag the release[0], build the ISOs, upload then to main FTP and mirrors but restrict visibility[0], announce the release, make the build visible everywhere. At worse, fall-back on #2 with peer-to-peer distribution. If some steps in that process do not exist, create them. - Arnaud > I think people would complain a hell of a lot more about 2 than they > currently do about 1. > > Yes, people upgrading via source will see X.Y-RELEASE before it's > officially announced on the website/mailing lists. Yes, people > browsing ftp.freebsd.org will see X.Y-RELEASE ISOs before it's > officially announced. Yes, some users will get confused by seeing > X.Y-RELEASE available before the official annoucements. > > But, that's a lot better than making an annoucement and having users > unable to use it since it's not available on their local mirrors. > > What's annoying, though, is that we have to go through this with every > ... single ... minor ... release. It's not a hard concept, yet every > time there's a new release, people get confused by it. > > Is there something that could be done to make it more > streamlined/smoother? Maybe, maybe not. Depends. You'd have to want > to join the RE team to find out more about the current release/mirror > infrastructure. :) And then be willing to put in the time/effort to > improve it. :D > > Does all of Arnaud's complaining and nit-picking constitute a request > to volunteer to "fix" things? ;) > > -- > Freddie Cash > fjwc...@gmail.com > ___ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: couldn't log on to my -CURRENT machine after upgrade to latest PAM
On 9 Jan, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Don Lewis writes: >> After staring at the code a lot more, I see your point about the loss of >> information. The problem is that openpam_parse_chain() returns >> PAM_SUCCESS whether or not if found anything, but we want the loop to >> terminate when either an error is detected or if openpam_parse_chain() >> actually found something. Maybe changing the loop exit to something >> like this would work: >> >> if (ret != PAM_SUCCESS || pamh->chains[facility] != NULL) >> return (ret); > > The simplest fix for now is probably to revert r487; it applies cleanly > except for the first hunk, which is easy to apply manually. openpam_configure() checks whether or not pamh->chains[] is NULL, so I figured that was a good test once I figured out how openpam_parse_chain() was returning its results. Once you decide on a fix, I can move my old /etc/pam.conf back to test it. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: couldn't log on to my -CURRENT machine after upgrade to latest PAM
Don Lewis writes: > After staring at the code a lot more, I see your point about the loss of > information. The problem is that openpam_parse_chain() returns > PAM_SUCCESS whether or not if found anything, but we want the loop to > terminate when either an error is detected or if openpam_parse_chain() > actually found something. Maybe changing the loop exit to something > like this would work: > > if (ret != PAM_SUCCESS || pamh->chains[facility] != NULL) > return (ret); The simplest fix for now is probably to revert r487; it applies cleanly except for the first hunk, which is easy to apply manually. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Mark Linimon wrote: > > On 9 January 2012 18:16, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > > > > Do you expect me to consult freebsd-announce@, verify the signature > > > of the announce, the hash of the ISOs, etc. to consider that 9.0 has > > > been released ? > > That is exactly what I expect. In fact, I insist on it. And the reason > I insist on it is because this is the documented procedure, and has been > for at least 14 releases in the last 6 years, and most likely many before > I became active. > > I have been seeing the "release is not official until..." message since at least 3.4, so it's hardly new and is unlikely to ever go away. At least there has been no release announcement on slashdot when the ISOs were rolled but before the release was ready as has happened more than once in the past. (Knock on wood!) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: couldn't log on to my -CURRENT machine after upgrade to latest PAM
On 9 Jan, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Don Lewis writes: >> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes: >> > The culprit was this commit: >> > >> > http://trac.des.no/openpam/changeset/487/trunk/lib/openpam_configure.c >> > >> > However, I'm not confident that simply reverting this commit is the >> > right way to go. >> Thanks for the detective work. It looks to me like the bug is caused by >> the change in the openpam_parse_chain() return value. In the previous >> code it returned the value of count, which I would guess was greater >> than zero if it found something. In that case, the for loop in >> openpam_load_chain() would be terminated because r != 0. In the new >> code, openpam_parse_chain() will return PAM_SUCCESS if it found >> something, and the loop in openpam_load_chain() will go through another >> iteration because ret == PAM_SUCCESS. > > Thank you, Captain Obvious. I am still not confident that simply > reverting this commit is the right way to go, because it discards > valuable information when an error occurs, especially if an error occurs > while parsing an include. It wasn't so obvious to me, especially with the gratuitous variable renaming in the diff. After staring at the code a lot more, I see your point about the loss of information. The problem is that openpam_parse_chain() returns PAM_SUCCESS whether or not if found anything, but we want the loop to terminate when either an error is detected or if openpam_parse_chain() actually found something. Maybe changing the loop exit to something like this would work: if (ret != PAM_SUCCESS || pamh->chains[facility] != NULL) return (ret); ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 01:16:59PM -0500, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Mark Linimon wrote: > >> On 9. Jan 2012, at 01:04 , Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > >> So you are saying that FreeBSD is currently providing on > >> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub images tagged as being "9.0 RELEASE" (with > >> checksum provided), in a `releases' directory, which are not actually > >> release images per-se ? > > > > Excellent! You've shown the ability to understand flat, declarative, > > sentences that have no qualifying phrases. > > > FWIW, this was more a sarcastic sentence pointing out that FreeBSD is > currently officially distributing non-released build in a directory > which might leads users to consider this is the official release, thus > misleading them. That build is intended to become the official release unless some last-minute showstopper problem is found. (Unlikely, but has happened before.) The build is being distributed in advance of the official announcement to make sure it is available on all mirrors at the moment the announcement is made. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1...@student.uu.se ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current
> On 9 January 2012 18:16, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >> Excellent! You've shown the ability to understand flat, declarative, >> sentences that have no qualifying phrases. >> > FWIW, this was more a sarcastic sentence I am being sarcastic because I am frustrated. I am frustrated because I am having to repeat myself. > pointing out that FreeBSD is currently officially distributing > non-released build in a directory which might leads users to consider > this is the official release, thus misleading them. I pointed out no such thing. I am not misleading anyone, nor is the Project. You are. It is not "officially distributing". It won't be "officially distributed" until, and only until, the signed email goes out. This is the third email in a row where I have made this flat, factual, statement. Until that time, the contents of various websites is irrelevant. That mail will not go out until (among other things): - the Release Engineering team determines there are no last-minute gotchas, - all the bits are on all the mirrors, so that users will not go to their local mirror, find it not there yet, then pound on the master, bringing it to a crawl, - the Release Notes are in their final form, - a news announcement is in its final form, and other things that I, not being on re@, am probably not aware of. These things are the *preparation* steps. They all have to be in place to make sure that everything is ready for when the mass downloads begin. This is to prevent people who are installing the release from having a bad experience, e.g., with missing documentation. > > Do you expect me to consult freebsd-announce@, verify the signature > > of the announce, the hash of the ISOs, etc. to consider that 9.0 has > > been released ? That is exactly what I expect. In fact, I insist on it. And the reason I insist on it is because this is the documented procedure, and has been for at least 14 releases in the last 6 years, and most likely many before I became active. > > No, I see 9.0 ISOs in a `releases' directory, I assume it has been > > released, whatever your spreading process is. You assumed so, posted, were told it was not correct, and cannot seem to accept that answer. I'm sorry, but it's the correct answer, and all the argumentation in the world will not change that answer. > > Btw, none of the CHECKSUMS files are signed on the FTP. Perhaps that's part of the preparatory steps. mcl ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Adding disk firmware programming capability to camcontrol
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 03:47:41PM +, Nima Misaghian wrote: > We have added firmware download command to atacontrol at work, for > which I have attached a patch against 8.2 to this email. > > The format of the command is similar to the camcontrol counterpart: > > atacontrol fwdownload > > But ultimately we would like to add the support to program ATA/SATA > disks to camcontrol as well. I've cleaned up the patch slightly and added the fwdownload details to the man page. The most recent patch is here: http://people.freebsd.org/~emaste/atacontrol.diff I expect this to get committed in the next couple of days, with the intent of MFCing it to older branches which do not use ATA-CAM. The final goal is to get camcontrol to grow the ability to update ATA disks as well via ATA-CAM. -Ed ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Chris Rees wrote: > On 9 January 2012 18:16, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >> ok, I'm a stupid lazy user (obviously)... While browsing the ftp, I >> see 9.0 ISOs in a `releases' directory. Do you expect me to consult >> freebsd-announce@, verify the signature of the announce, the hash of >> the ISOs, etc. to consider that 9.0 has been released ? No, I see 9.0 >> ISOs in a `releases' directory, I assume it has been released, >> whatever your spreading process is. >> >> Btw, none of the CHECKSUMS files are signed on the FTP. > > Have you checked the website? The latest supported release is clearly > specified, right in the middle of the home page. > > Please don't tell me you'd look in ftp before checking the website. I > think you're just looking to nitpick. And, which is worse: 1. tag the release branch, build the ISOs, upload to main FTP server, wait for the mirrors (FTP, CVS, SVN) to sync, then make the official announcement which includes a few days/weeks where "the release" is available but not official; or 2. tag the release branch, build the ISOs, upload to main FTP server, make the official announcement, user goes to their favourite/closest mirror, and can't access the release since it hasn't synced yet I think people would complain a hell of a lot more about 2 than they currently do about 1. Yes, people upgrading via source will see X.Y-RELEASE before it's officially announced on the website/mailing lists. Yes, people browsing ftp.freebsd.org will see X.Y-RELEASE ISOs before it's officially announced. Yes, some users will get confused by seeing X.Y-RELEASE available before the official annoucements. But, that's a lot better than making an annoucement and having users unable to use it since it's not available on their local mirrors. What's annoying, though, is that we have to go through this with every ... single ... minor ... release. It's not a hard concept, yet every time there's a new release, people get confused by it. Is there something that could be done to make it more streamlined/smoother? Maybe, maybe not. Depends. You'd have to want to join the RE team to find out more about the current release/mirror infrastructure. :) And then be willing to put in the time/effort to improve it. :D Does all of Arnaud's complaining and nit-picking constitute a request to volunteer to "fix" things? ;) -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current
On 9 January 2012 18:16, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Mark Linimon wrote: >>> On 9. Jan 2012, at 01:04 , Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >>> So you are saying that FreeBSD is currently providing on >>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub images tagged as being "9.0 RELEASE" (with >>> checksum provided), in a `releases' directory, which are not actually >>> release images per-se ? >> >> Excellent! You've shown the ability to understand flat, declarative, >> sentences that have no qualifying phrases. >> > FWIW, this was more a sarcastic sentence pointing out that FreeBSD is > currently officially distributing non-released build in a directory > which might leads users to consider this is the official release, thus > misleading them. So, a pointless email. >> 9.0 will be *released* when and only when the official, signed, email >> goes out. Everything up until that point is preparation. >> > ok, I'm a stupid lazy user (obviously)... While browsing the ftp, I > see 9.0 ISOs in a `releases' directory. Do you expect me to consult > freebsd-announce@, verify the signature of the announce, the hash of > the ISOs, etc. to consider that 9.0 has been released ? No, I see 9.0 > ISOs in a `releases' directory, I assume it has been released, > whatever your spreading process is. > > Btw, none of the CHECKSUMS files are signed on the FTP. Have you checked the website? The latest supported release is clearly specified, right in the middle of the home page. Please don't tell me you'd look in ftp before checking the website. I think you're just looking to nitpick. Chris ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current
Hi, On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Mark Linimon wrote: >> On 9. Jan 2012, at 01:04 , Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >> So you are saying that FreeBSD is currently providing on >> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub images tagged as being "9.0 RELEASE" (with >> checksum provided), in a `releases' directory, which are not actually >> release images per-se ? > > Excellent! You've shown the ability to understand flat, declarative, > sentences that have no qualifying phrases. > FWIW, this was more a sarcastic sentence pointing out that FreeBSD is currently officially distributing non-released build in a directory which might leads users to consider this is the official release, thus misleading them. > 9.0 will be *released* when and only when the official, signed, email > goes out. Everything up until that point is preparation. > ok, I'm a stupid lazy user (obviously)... While browsing the ftp, I see 9.0 ISOs in a `releases' directory. Do you expect me to consult freebsd-announce@, verify the signature of the announce, the hash of the ISOs, etc. to consider that 9.0 has been released ? No, I see 9.0 ISOs in a `releases' directory, I assume it has been released, whatever your spreading process is. Btw, none of the CHECKSUMS files are signed on the FTP. - Arnaud ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FS hang when creating snapshots on a UFS SU+J setup
Hello,
I'm sorry to bother you, but you may not be aware of this thread and
this problem. We are several people experiencing deadlocks, kernel
panics and other problems when creating sanpshots on file systems
with SU+J. It would be nice to get some feedback, e.g. how can we
help debugging and / or fixing this problem.
Thank you,
Yamagi
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 23:27:57 -0600
Bryce Edwards wrote:
> I have a RELENG_9 machine that hangs when a snapshot is created on the
> root fs (UFS, with SU+J). More accurately, all the processes show a
> state of "suspfs" (with ^T) and no fs activity is completed from then
> on. A hard reboot (power cycle) was the only way to proceed.
>
> Here's some reference info - let me know what else I should provide.
>
> $uname -a
> FreeBSD xxx.xxx.net 9.0-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 9.0-PRERELEASE #0: Sun Dec
> 25 05:04:37 UTC 2011 r...@xxx.xxx.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC
> amd64
>
> csup was run just before build[world|kernel] so you have reference on
> the version information.
>
> $mount
> /dev/gpt/root on / (ufs, local, journaled soft-updates)
> devfs on /dev (devfs, local, multilabel)
> linprocfs on /compat/linux/proc (linprocfs, local)
> { zfs info removed }
>
> $df -h
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
> /dev/gpt/root 454G 9.1G 409G 2% /
> devfs 1.0k 1.0k 0B 100% /dev
> linprocfs 4.0k 4.0k 0B 100% /compat/linux/proc
> { zfs info removed }
>
> After the hard reset, there was a snapshot file listed in /.snap and
> it was ~465 GB, iirc. Unfortunately, I needed to get things going
> again so I was not able to debug or diagnose further. I may be able
> to schedule a time that I could recreate the issue and diagnose
> better, but I wanted to get your input on what data points and/or
> command you would be interested in.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Bryce
> ___
> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
>
--
Homepage: www.yamagi.org
XMPP: yam...@yamagi.org
GnuPG/GPG: 0xEFBCCBCB
pgpjO4CjwHfj4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: couldn't log on to my -CURRENT machine after upgrade to latest PAM
Don Lewis writes: > Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes: > > The culprit was this commit: > > > > http://trac.des.no/openpam/changeset/487/trunk/lib/openpam_configure.c > > > > However, I'm not confident that simply reverting this commit is the > > right way to go. > Thanks for the detective work. It looks to me like the bug is caused by > the change in the openpam_parse_chain() return value. In the previous > code it returned the value of count, which I would guess was greater > than zero if it found something. In that case, the for loop in > openpam_load_chain() would be terminated because r != 0. In the new > code, openpam_parse_chain() will return PAM_SUCCESS if it found > something, and the loop in openpam_load_chain() will go through another > iteration because ret == PAM_SUCCESS. Thank you, Captain Obvious. I am still not confident that simply reverting this commit is the right way to go, because it discards valuable information when an error occurs, especially if an error occurs while parsing an include. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current
> On 9. Jan 2012, at 01:04 , Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > So you are saying that FreeBSD is currently providing on > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub images tagged as being "9.0 RELEASE" (with > checksum provided), in a `releases' directory, which are not actually > release images per-se ? Excellent! You've shown the ability to understand flat, declarative, sentences that have no qualifying phrases. 9.0 will be *released* when and only when the official, signed, email goes out. Everything up until that point is preparation. mcl ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: couldn't log on to my -CURRENT machine after upgrade to latest PAM
On 9 Jan, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Don Lewis writes: >> The documentation says that /etc/pam.conf is only used if >> /etc/pam.d/service-name isn't found, and the code appears to agree >> with that, however this doesn't seem to be working as expected after >> the latest import of PAM. > > The culprit was this commit: > > http://trac.des.no/openpam/changeset/487/trunk/lib/openpam_configure.c > > However, I'm not confident that simply reverting this commit is the > right way to go. Thanks for the detective work. It looks to me like the bug is caused by the change in the openpam_parse_chain() return value. In the previous code it returned the value of count, which I would guess was greater than zero if it found something. In that case, the for loop in openpam_load_chain() would be terminated because r != 0. In the new code, openpam_parse_chain() will return PAM_SUCCESS if it found something, and the loop in openpam_load_chain() will go through another iteration because ret == PAM_SUCCESS. I think the code around the end of the loop should look more like: if (ret == PAM_SUCCESS) break; } return (ret); } ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: couldn't log on to my -CURRENT machine after upgrade to latest PAM
Don Lewis writes: > The documentation says that /etc/pam.conf is only used if > /etc/pam.d/service-name isn't found, and the code appears to agree > with that, however this doesn't seem to be working as expected after > the latest import of PAM. The culprit was this commit: http://trac.des.no/openpam/changeset/487/trunk/lib/openpam_configure.c However, I'm not confident that simply reverting this commit is the right way to go. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
