Re: Devd / devmatch(8) -- netif race 12-RC1

wireless lagg initialization is broken in this scenario, all-right. The init/rc system as it is now can’t cope easily with a modern asynchronous initialization sequence. Sure you could probably find an order which works, only to find yourself in trouble next time you want add some modern

Devd / devmatch(8) -- netif race 12-RC1

Hello, Today I tried a simple wireless failover on a machine running free-bsd. After reboot the system cannot complete the initialization sequence OK with devmatcher. The devd/devmatch(8) combo correctly identified the wireless card and loaded required drivers and firmware. rcorder(8) reports

Re: Followup on packaging base with pkg(8)

Thanks for the work you put in this major feature. Could we please get a full list of the issues which surfaced, quirks, and other worth to mention notes ? I believe its important. > On 19 May 2016, at 23:31, Glen Barber wrote: > > Despite the schedule adjustment for

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

>> > > *THAT* is the tone I was complaining about. This is not at all respectful. > Respect is a two way street. If you want respect, offer yours. We make our point very poorly, I get you, but it is the result of what you and others from the projectdo. Meaning, 0 communication. I dont

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

s left there do become annoying. > On 21 Apr 2016, at 23:20, Edward Tomasz Napierała <tr...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 0421T1526, Dan Partelly wrote: >> The scenario is: >> >> Let’s say I have autofs_enable , working with media map. >> >> If I have

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

The scenario is: Let’s say I have autofs_enable , working with media map. If I have a CD in CD drive , all is well and when the system is fully booted up /media contains a directory through which I can access the content of the CD-ROM. Now if you eject this CD , and insert a new one, nothing

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

IMO, the number of packages per-se is not a problem as long as you can manage them without arcane commands, aliases, pipe - filters, or scripts. (they all have their place, but less , the better) My point is that I don't really want to keep on my head a Unix hacker hat. I (and presumably

Re: DDB patches

> away as soon as he/she receives criticism or has plans that do not match ours. > If this is not your ideal workflow … fork your own BSD, a lot of intelligent > people do just that. > > Pedro. > >> >> Dan >> >> >> >>> On 19 Nov 2015, a

Re: DDB patches

> eventually we may decide to bring it in … You tell me nothing new, but thank you. > On 20 Nov 2015, at 17:56, Pedro Giffuni <p...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > On 11/20/15 08:54, Dan Partelly wrote: >> Hi Pedro, >> >> I think you confuse blackmailing wit

Re: DDB patches

his done one way or another , we could proceed to the libification of ifconfig, should you so desire, and you believe we can all benefit from it. Dan > On 19 Nov 2015, at 11:17, Pedro Giffuni <p...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Hello; > >> Il giorno 19/nov/2015, alle ore 02:34,

Re: DDB patches

ded to a problem database which is used for bug reports. But then again, it may be just me. Dan > On 19 Nov 2015, at 15:44, Willem Jan Withagen <w...@digiware.nl> wrote: > > On 19-11-2015 10:57, Dan Partelly wrote: >> Hey Pedro, >> >> Thanks a lot , mate. >> &g

Re: DDB patches

e project. > On 19 Nov 2015, at 16:10, Willem Jan Withagen <w...@digiware.nl> wrote: > > On 19-11-2015 14:53, Dan Partelly wrote: >>> So not submitting a PR for an issue sound real strange to my ears. >> >> >> It is NOT a patch for an issue, bug, anyth

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

add /usr.bin/uptime > On 18 Nov 2015, at 23:56, Ed Maste wrote: > > On 18 November 2015 at 15:46, Luigi Rizzo wrote: >> i was going to suggest doing ldd on the binaries or a grep on the >> Makefile but the latter returns a surprisingly low number >> of

DDB patches

Hey Pedro, some times ago you got some DDB patches from me in which I added relational ops support from it. The patch was a bit clobbered, but last I know you cleaned it up and put it somewhere on freebsd.org (prolly your page) up for review. Could you or Adrian review the patch set , and

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

> On 17 Nov 2015, at 11:04, Julian Elischer > wrote: > > Personally I would have liked it if in '91 we had followed one very serious > suggestion, > and implemented every user command as a base 'library', and a tcl wrapper > script that gave

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

describing arbitrary commands, , have the request validated, user right checked, then passed to a command execution system (and I use the command term very loosely, I do not refers to a utility) > On 17 Nov 2015, at 18:42, Simon J. Gerraty <s...@juniper.net> wrote: > > Dan Part

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

is worthy of the status of a FreeBSD initiated and sponsored object. > On 16 Nov 2015, at 19:16, Allan Jude <allanj...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 2015-11-16 12:09, Elizabeth Myers wrote: >> On 15/11/15 06:54, Dan Partelly wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

sd.org> wrote: > > On 2015-11-15 14:44, Dan Partelly wrote: >>> I would welcome competing ideas/solutions, but someone would have to >>> actually build them, not just >> >>> rattle off some ideas on the mailing list. >> >> Am I mis

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

Hi Adrian, No, no, none wasn't unwelcoming or cold. Thanks for your responses > I plan on attacking the binary code reuse a bit by turning the > net80211 bits of ifconfig into a library and starting to use it from > other places This is great news. ifconfig is an obvious target. I personally

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

er.net> wrote: > > Dan Partelly <dan_parte...@rdsor.ro> wrote: >>>> The ability to get machine parsable output from OS components is a big >>>> part of the success of Junos CLI, netconf etc. >> >> Once you get machine parsable output, and feed it

libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

Hi all, I was looking at the new facility of dumping JSON,XML from many utils in base and after some funny minutes, I couldn't stop ask myself “ Ok, this is funny , but why ? “ And I couldn't find a real answer. Ill outline what I think: 1. Undoubtedly, it makes base code slightly harder to

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

> I would welcome competing ideas/solutions, but someone would have to actually > build them, not just > rattle off some ideas on the mailing list. Am I missing the point of a mailing list ? it is a place to present and exchange ideas, ask why some things are the way they are , and get

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

HI Simon, Thanks for the write-up . One question: >> The ability to get machine parsable output from OS components is a big part >> of the success of Junos CLI, netconf etc. Once you get machine parsable output, and feed it to your GUIs , WEB, other tools, and modify it, how do you feed it

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

> It's all fine and good making technical decisions based on drawings > and handwaving and philosophizing, but at some point someone has to do > the code. HI Adrian, . What I eluded too is not a small project. It is something that would need proper discussion and agreement, since it would be

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

Meaning, is that simple to push things in head , if somone does the work, even with with no proper review of the problem at hand , and the proposed solutions ? > On 15 Nov 2015, at 19:05, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > Hi, > > The reason is simple - someone offered to do

Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

I know about NexBSD, but, as I said in my original message, I am interested on what happen in FreeBSD proper, and what issues XOification tries to solve )and if any proper process was given to solving the identified issues , instead of just adding XO because it could be added. > On 15 Nov