Matthew Dillon wrote:
[ ... ]
> :How do you reconcile these divergent points of view?
>
> These are not divergent points of view. I am saying quite clearly that
> the ucred code and proc-locking code can be committed in a piecemeal
> fashion. In fact, good chunk of the proc locking
>> I'm fairly sure JHB does not have a patch to address this but, please,
>> be my guest and check P4.
>
> Actually he does. Maybe you should have checked p4 first yourself.
Users of Perforce are starting to force the rest of us to learn and use
it. That is totally not acceptable for th
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 12:05:31AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> I ventured into this brave new world a few days ago and ran into
> this very problem. Alexander's patch (along with a make install in
> /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils) fixed it, as advertised.
>
> Maybe this can now be committed?
NOT u
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 February 2002 at 23:48:12 -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> >>> What John's patch does is spin while the lock owner is running on
> >>> another cpu. Spinning while there are no other processes on the run
> >>> queues as well makes sense but
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 06:24:59AM +0200, John Hay wrote:
> Hi Jacques,
>
> Make release fails here. Can it be your changes to kerberos?
Could be; I'll have a look. Thanks!
--
Jacques A. Vidrine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.nectar.cc/
NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNI
I just made a few _minor_ changes to the rc.firewall{,6} scripts. The
vast majority of users will not be affected. However, since a few may
be, and this is a security issue with the potential to cause some
subtle breakage, I felt a small HEADS UP was in order. (For the very
security conscious and
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 04:03, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 12:05:31AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> >
> > Maybe this can now be committed?
>
> NOT until I have sufficient feedback from the FSF Binutils developers.
OK, I'm confused. binutils has been broken for three weeks. We hav
http://www.freebsd.org/smp/
Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project
[EMAIL PROTECTED] NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, George V. Neville-Neil wrote:
> I'm not in the core of the SMP stuff (the closest I'll get is the
> networking stuff)
On 21-Feb-02 David O'Brien wrote:
>>> I'm fairly sure JHB does not have a patch to address this but, please,
>>> be my guest and check P4.
>>
>> Actually he does. Maybe you should have checked p4 first yourself.
>
> Users of Perforce are starting to force the rest of us to learn and use
I sure missed something, I'm sorry. I still have the problem with
buildworld. What should I do to fix it?
# /usr/bin/cc -print-search-dirs
install: /usr/libexec/(null)
programs: /usr/libexec/elf/
libraries: /usr/lib/
Thanks,
ed
Quoting Edwin Culp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> David,
>
> I see i
>Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:48:10 -0800
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I sure missed something, I'm sorry. I still have the problem with
>buildworld. What should I do to fix it?
># /usr/bin/cc -print-search-dirs
>install: /usr/libexec/(null)
>programs: /usr/libexec/elf/
>libraries: /usr/lib/
Well
Michael D. Harnois wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 04:03, David O'Brien wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 12:05:31AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
>>
>>>Maybe this can now be committed?
>>>
>>NOT until I have sufficient feedback from the FSF Binutils developers.
>>
>
> OK, I'm confused. bi
Quoting David Wolfskill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:48:10 -0800
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >I sure missed something, I'm sorry. I still have the problem with
> >buildworld. What should I do to fix it?
>
> ># /usr/bin/cc -print-search-dirs
> >install: /usr/libexec/(
Bernd Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is still missing an overview over the p4 collections.
> No - I'm not going to cvsup p4-all - I already had an increasing of
> 1G overnight without a single warning.
> A p4-self collection is also missing.
p4-all is not a good idea - Perforce makes
"Michael D. Harnois" wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 04:03, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 12:05:31AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe this can now be committed?
> >
> > NOT until I have sufficient feedback from the FSF Binutils developers.
>
> OK, I'm confused. binutil
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Other people's code has dropped by the wayside completely, and
> been lost; the SACK/TSACK work Luigi did never got integrated
> and accepted by the project, and LRP code that Peter Druschel
> and Gaurav Banga did at Rice University, which was originally
Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not interested in using P4. I think it's a mistake. That is, I
> think it is being severely overused. [...]
Frankly, although I use Perforce myself for PAM work, I agree with
Matt here. Most of what is going on in the Perforce should be
Mike Barcroft wrote:
> I'm getting sick of reading this. Terry, if you want this code
> integrated into FreeBSD, here's what you do: 1) Find yourself a
> mentor, 2) Get a commit bit, 3) Update worthy patchsets to -current
> sources, 4) Have them reviewed, 5) Commit them.
>
> If you aren't intere
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 08:11:52PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Bernd Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There is still missing an overview over the p4 collections.
> > No - I'm not going to cvsup p4-all - I already had an increasing of
> > 1G overnight without a single warning.
> > A p
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 09:14:54PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm not interested in using P4. I think it's a mistake. That is, I
> > think it is being severely overused. [...]
>
> Frankly, although I use Perforce myself for PAM wo
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 01:49:09AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
I'm not a commiter, but here comes my very humble opinion...
> Users of Perforce are starting to force the rest of us to learn and use
> it. That is totally not acceptable for the general FreeBSD population.
This argument is prett
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 13:29, Terry Lambert wrote:
> "Michael D. Harnois" wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 04:03, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 12:05:31AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maybe this can now be committed?
> > >
> > > NOT until I have sufficient feedback
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 03:39:08PM -0600, Michael D. Harnois wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 13:29, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > "Michael D. Harnois" wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 04:03, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 12:05:31AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ma
On 21 Feb 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm not interested in using P4. I think it's a mistake. That is, I
> > think it is being severely overused. [...]
>
> Frankly, although I use Perforce myself for PAM work, I agree with Matt
>
Miguel Mendez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, if all developers started using p4, things would be easier and work
> better in the long term. p4 is lightyears ahead of cvs, and, from what
> I've read in this thread, developers are not exactly happy with cvs now,
> as it's limitations have becom
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 07:33:22AM -0600, Michael D. Harnois wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 04:03, David O'Brien wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 12:05:31AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe this can now be committed?
> >
> > NOT until I have sufficient feedback from the FSF Binuti
"Michael D. Harnois" wrote:
> > I believe the intent is to ensure that the patches make it
> > back into the FSF distributed code, so that in the future,
> > there is less maintenance required for FreeBSD platforms.
>
> This is all wonderful.
>
> But then it seems to me that the entire new binut
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 11:29:46AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Actually, there was a discussion at BSDCon as to whether or
> not to drop the a.out support in order to decrease the patch
> size necessary to make the FSF distributed code do what FreeBSD
That is true for GCC. For contrib/binutils
David O'Brien wrote:
> It works in general for 'make world' and is suffient for FreeBSD
> developent -- the purpose of 5-CURRENT. It is also allowing us to find
> bugs that would otherwise go unfixed in Binutils 2.12.0 release. Or
> would you perfer we stick to 2.11.x forever -- BTW that would n
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 10:36:39PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Miguel Mendez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, if all developers started using p4, things would be easier and work
> > better in the long term. p4 is lightyears ahead of cvs, and, from what
> > I've read in this thread, de
Is their a way to build the port mod_php4 as the module version for
apache and the cgi for command line options.
I currently have mod_php+apache13+mysql+gd working perfect but I now
have the need to run php from the command prompt with mysql & gd. What
is the best way to go about this.
thanks
Could someone tell me where documentation concerning the
use of perforce and or, how to gain access to is located?
Up until very recently I was not aware of it's existence.
This would make it very difficult for someone new to the
Project to contribute.
It seems to my line of thinking that the ex
So, in this thread a few days ago i reported that the
list of arguments passed to mkdep can become quite large
and exceed kern.argmax, especially if your sources are not in the
default place and you are compiling a file with lots of options
such as LINT.
The place to fix (for -current) is sys/con
robert garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Further enhancing the "Elite" attitude that is so often proscribed
> To BSD* developers.
I hope you meant "ascribed" :)
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current"
robert garrett wrote:
>
> Could someone tell me where documentation concerning the
> use of perforce and or, how to gain access to is located?
http://people.freebsd.org/~peter/p4cookbook.txt
> Up until very recently I was not aware of it's existence.
> This would make it very difficult for some
* Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020221 15:14] wrote:
> So, in this thread a few days ago i reported that the
> list of arguments passed to mkdep can become quite large
> and exceed kern.argmax, especially if your sources are not in the
> default place and you are compiling a file with lots of o
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 03:41:46PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020221 15:14] wrote:
> > So, in this thread a few days ago i reported that the
> > list of arguments passed to mkdep can become quite large
> > and exceed kern.argmax, especially if your sources
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> robert garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Further enhancing the "Elite" attitude that is so often proscribed
> > To BSD* developers.
>
> I hope you meant "ascribed" :)
I think he means FreeBSD developers are not allowed
to have that attitude.
8-) 8-).
-- Terry
Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any better ideas ?
You could just chicken out and do
Index: kern.post.mk
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/conf/kern.post.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -r1.7 kern.post.mk
--- kern.post
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Barcroft wrote:
> > I'm getting sick of reading this. Terry, if you want this code
> > integrated into FreeBSD, here's what you do: 1) Find yourself a
> > mentor, 2) Get a commit bit, 3) Update worthy patchsets to -current
> > sources, 4) Have them
Mike Barcroft wrote:
> [Discussion related to the root of the thread, rather than my message,
> removed.]
>
> I see you are not interested in doing this.
>
> -CURRENT READERS TAKE NOTE:
> No longer can Terry blame CVS, P4, Gnats, our two seperate branches of
> development, FreeBSD developers, or
* Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020221 15:47] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 03:41:46PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > * Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020221 15:14] wrote:
> > > So, in this thread a few days ago i reported that the
> > > list of arguments passed to mkdep can become qui
> Not particularly efficient...
oh yes...
i think Al's solution (make -V ... | xargs .. )
wins both in terms of simplicity and efficiency
cheers
luigi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i think Al's solution (make -V ... | xargs .. )
> wins both in terms of simplicity and efficiency
Ah, of course! now why didn't I think of that? :)
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "uns
* Joseph Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Is their a way to build the port mod_php4 as the module version
> for apache and the cgi for command line options. I currently have
> mod_php+apache13+mysql+gd working perfect but I now have the need to
> run php from the command prompt with mysql & g
* Dag-Erling Smorgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020221 16:19] wrote:
> Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > i think Al's solution (make -V ... | xargs .. )
> > wins both in terms of simplicity and efficiency
>
> Ah, of course! now why didn't I think of that? :)
My first thought was:
"If mak
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Dag-Erling Smorgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020221 16:19] wrote:
> > Ah, of course! now why didn't I think of that? :)
> My first thought was:
> "If make(1) doesn't have that functionality I will beat it into it
>with a lead pipe..."
Heh :) He
At 1:08 PM -0500 2/19/02, Michael Lucas wrote:
>In an ideal world, you're correct.
>
>The real question here should have been: do those people who
>are actively committing rapidly to the tree want to see this
>happen? They are the people who will realistically have to
>deal with the PRs.
This is
At 9:00 PM -0500 2/21/02, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>At 1:08 PM -0500 2/19/02, Michael Lucas wrote:
>>In an ideal world, you're correct.
>>
>>The real question here should have been: do those people who
>>are actively committing rapidly to the tree want to see this
>>happen? They are the people wh
The existing very bazaar and local policy in rc.diskless1 is Just Wrong;
and looks like no other Unix diskless configuration I've ever seen. I
plan on committing this patch to negate this.
The use of an MFS /var should also be settable. Otherwise installing
ports(packages) is just a total PITA.
On 21-Feb-02 Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On 21 Feb 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
>> Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I'm not interested in using P4. I think it's a mistake. That is, I
>> > think it is being severely overused. [...]
>>
>> Frankly, although I use Perf
I'd love to see subversion beefed up. It looks like the most
promising of the replacements for cvs on the horizon.
One thing that it doesn't appear to have, that would be useful to the
BSD community, is the ability to cons up a tree from multiple repos
easily. If we had that, then we wouldn't n
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 05:00:37PM -0600, robert garrett wrote:
> Could someone tell me where documentation concerning the
> use of perforce and or, how to gain access to is located?
>
> Up until very recently I was not aware of it's existence.
> This would make it very difficult for someone new
:The existing very bazaar and local policy in rc.diskless1 is Just Wrong;
:and looks like no other Unix diskless configuration I've ever seen. I
:plan on committing this patch to negate this.
:
:The use of an MFS /var should also be settable. Otherwise installing
:ports(packages) is just a tota
54 matches
Mail list logo
