On 20/04/2016 06:12, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> [And it really bothers me that FreeBSD 'pkg list' behaves
> like 'pkg files' or similar should. It seems intuitive
> that 'pkg list' should list the packages, not all the files
> in all the packages.]
'pkg list' is one of the aliases defined in the
Op 15/04/16 om 19:30 schreef Warner Losh:
> Also a horrible name. It's a generic I/O scheduler. It can do lots of
> things. I keep saying that, and categorically refuse to name the more
> expansive scheduler anything that's so limiting.
>
> Warner
Thanks for all the work on this.
One question?
I
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Glen Barber wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:01:46PM -0700, Sean Fagan wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
>> >
>> > I understand, that maybe it is too late, but ARE YOU KIDDING?! 755
>> > packages?! WHY?! What are reasons and goals
On 20 Apr 2016, at 06:06, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> my problem with 400 packages is that is is hard to decide what you are
> actually running.. or is it FreeBSD 11? is it FreeBSD 10.95342453?
> you have no way to tell exactly what you have without comparing all the
> packages to a known list.
I see this message "Error: stack underflow" when a loader menu is presented.
It seems that it comes from ficl. This is on a quite recent (< 2 weeks) head.
How can I debug this problem?
I have one local modification to forth files, but I'm not sure if the problem is
caused by it or by something i
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 many
> On Apr 20, 2016, at 03:54, krad wrote:
>
> will it still be buildable though from source?
Yes
--
Renato Botelho
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:00:36PM +0300, Dan Partelly wrote:
> 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 reall
On 04/20/16 10:48, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> While number of packages don't see outside internal -- this is
> irrelevant.
> After possibility of update individual package -- nuber of packages is
> impotant.
> Take fresh 11.0. Before 11.1 update only kernel. What you system have?
> 11.0? 11.1-RC3
Quoting Warren Block :
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
Why Wikipedia, specifically? There are a lot of places that describe
quicksort. How about just
Note: This implementation of qsort() is designed to avoid the
worst-case complexity of N**2 that is often seen with stand
It would also be nice to get a statement of what the intended scope of
these patches is from some of the people involved in the project. It's a
major change to the system and it would be nice to have some kind of
architectural document about what is happening. I'm not sure, for
instance, what the
Matthew Seaman wrote on 04/20/2016 12:43:
On the release of 11.1 there would be a complete new set of system
packages generated, and the upgrade process would install the new
versions of those packages all round, even if the content of an
individual package was identical to the one in 11.0. The
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:43:00AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 04/20/16 10:48, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
>
> > While number of packages don't see outside internal -- this is
> > irrelevant.
> > After possibility of update individual package -- nuber of packages is
> > impotant.
> > Take fre
> If these informations were more public I think there will be less
> annoyed posts in mailinglist and more constructive critics / ideas /
> patches.
>
And there other issues arising from the lack of communication:
How exactly bugs / incomplete features are treated in FreeBSD ? Many
times th
On 20.04.2016 11:12, David Chisnall wrote:
> all of the complaints in this thread have been about the UI, not about the
> underlying mechanism.
Nope. And there are (small) thread in other mailing list with very big
concerns about underlying mechanisms, which doesn't have any attention:
https
On 2016.04.20 07:58, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
It is very worrying to see such reports without any reaction from
developers in one month before release. If there is one year till
release, it is nothing. But in one month we will have code slush, and
after that — release, which should be supported
> Message: 20
> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:48:06 +0300
> From: Slawa Olhovchenkov
> To: Dan Partelly
> Cc: David Chisnall , Julian Elischer
> , Nathan Whitehorn ,
> freebsd-current@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)
> Message-ID: <20160420094806.gj6
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:43:08AM -0400, Paul Mather wrote:
>
> > Message: 20
> > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:48:06 +0300
> > From: Slawa Olhovchenkov
> > To: Dan Partelly
> > Cc: David Chisnall , Julian Elischer
> > , Nathan Whitehorn ,
> > freebsd-current@freebsd.org
> > Subject: Re: [
On 20 Apr 2016, at 15:53, Paul Mather wrote:
>
> Arguably, a packaged base will make it easier to help people, because it
> makes more explicit the dependencies of different parts of the system. It's
> been my experience that the interactions and impact of the various
> /etc/src.conf settings
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Johan Hendriks
wrote:
> Op 15/04/16 om 19:30 schreef Warner Losh:
>
> > Also a horrible name. It's a generic I/O scheduler. It can do lots of
> > things. I keep saying that, and categorically refuse to name the more
> > expansive scheduler anything that's so limit
17 апр. 2016 г. 13:44 пользователь "Rainer Duffner"
написал:
>
>
> > Am 17.04.2016 um 11:05 schrieb Pavel Timofeev :
> >
> > HI! I've recently got a SSD device. Yes, not a disk, but a device.
> > It's called, i. e. one of the first REVODRIVEs.
> > It's a PCI-express card with two embedded ssd disk
On Apr 20, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
>> A packaged base is just another way of describing the state of the
>> system. People on mailing lists will still be able to help people
>> fix their problems, but they'll just use different information to
>> pinpoint the precise componen
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208938
Sylvain Garrigues changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.3-RELEASE|11.0-CURRENT
--
You are recei
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208938
Sylvain Garrigues changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
--
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
unistd
/usr/src/lib/libc/../../include/unistd.h:330:45: error: expected function body
after function declarator
intexecl( .
332:46:
same...
stops libc
otherwise clang36 seems to be building so far,
On 2016-04-20 12:06, Jeffrey Bouquet wrote:
> unistd
>
>
> /usr/src/lib/libc/../../include/unistd.h:330:45: error: expected function
> body after function declarator
> intexecl( .
> 332:46:
> same..
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:57:47AM -0400, Paul Mather wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
>
> >> A packaged base is just another way of describing the state of the
> >> system. People on mailing lists will still be able to help people
> >> fix their problems, but th
> On Apr 20, 2016, at 1:24 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
>
> I see this message "Error: stack underflow" when a loader menu is presented.
> It seems that it comes from ficl. This is on a quite recent (< 2 weeks) head.
> How can I debug this problem?
>
> I have one local modification to forth file
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208938
Sylvain Garrigues changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #169494|0 |1
is obsolete|
FreeBSD_HEAD_i386 - Build #2909 - Failure:
Build information: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_i386/2909/
Full change log: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_i386/2909/changes
Full build log: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_i386/2909/console
Change summaries:
2
On 2016-Apr-20 08:45:00 +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>There is something which I don't understand. Why is quicksort falling
>back to insertion sort which is an O(N**2) algorithm, when there exist a
>O(log(N)*log(N)*N) algorithms, which I propose as a solution to the
>"bad" characteristics
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:28:29 -0400, Allan Jude wrote:
> On 2016-04-20 12:06, Jeffrey Bouquet wrote:
> > unistd
> >
> >
> > /usr/src/lib/libc/../../include/unistd.h:330:45: error: expected function
> > body after function declarator
> > intexecl( .
> >
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:37:16 -0700 (PDT), "Jeffrey Bouquet"
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:28:29 -0400, Allan Jude wrote:
>
> > On 2016-04-20 12:06, Jeffrey Bouquet wrote:
> > > unistd
> > >
> > >
> > > /usr/src/lib/libc/../../include/unistd.h:330:45: error: expected function
> > >
34 matches
Mail list logo
