Re: running wine automatically as a shell for w32 binaries
Quoting Julian Stacey: Chris BeHanna wrote: On Saturday 06 December 2003 10:19, Julian Stacey wrote: Hi all, I wrote a new imgact function for FreeBSD to start wine automatically as a sort of an interpreter for windows binaries. http://www.mawit.com/~jau/imgact_wine-4.9.patch Great idea ! If this small diff gets tested merged into src/ automatic MS support will be a real plus. With the weekly proliferation of MS worms, trojans, and viruses, do you *really* think this is a good idea? Yeah, it's neat, nifty, and cool, but it comes with substantial risk. No risk to a normal BSD src/ based system if EG ports/emulators/wine is not installed, presumably ? Or if anything is dangerous, not yet switchable, could it be a sysctl or kernel option ? In my example implementation it is already controlled by a sysctl variable! When you set kern.w32emu to empty there is no automation. The kernel simply tries the next imgact function, if there is any left that has not been tried yet. I wouldn't suggest installing wine +MS apps on `real' BSD servers workstations, but for companies transitioning from MS to BSD, they could install wine on their PCs, use legacy MS support easier, reducing MS to FreeBSD migrations costs, boosting FreeBSD adoption. My thinking exactly. In my vision this automation has no place in shared environments, but only in personal systems like laptops helping to convert them away from MS. BTW I'm no MS apologist/lover: My many machines all run pure BSD, (except one DOS 8086) No MS-Win excrement. No wine either except on ports build engines. My own systems are also pure BSD and that is how my systems have always been. It is no reason though to make transition away from MS harder for others than it really needs to be. Risk: I wouldnt install MS excrement on normal BSD systems, but companies migrating from MS could install BSD + wine etc on their ex MS PCs. BTW I'd suggest a `sandbox' login for BSD admins to test use MS support in, for use by migrating MS users). Even if all the BSD system above the home dir. had correct safe permissions, a BSD user running MS support wouldn't be safe: an MS virus or rogue program could still run berserk in under the home directory, but that's a risk for MS users no worse than they already take. Exactly. The risk for an MS user becomes no greater than what it already is. The transition would still be towards a better environment. And given time people could eventually learn to use Mozilla OpenOffice, etc. giving up the MS excrement. If needs be one could even force those converted former MS users to use jail(2/8) accounts to limit the risk to the rest of the system, though it maybe sounds a bit extreme. Cheers, // jau .--- ..- -.- -.- .-.- .-.-.-..- -.- -.- --- -. . -. /Jukka A. Ukkonen,Mawit Ltd, Finland /__ M.Sc. (sw-eng cs)(Phone) +358-500-606-671 / Internet: Jukka.Ukkonen(a)Mawit.Com (Home) +358-9-6215-280 /Internet: ukkonen(a)nic.funet.fi v Internet: jau(a)iki.fi + + + + My opinions are mine and mine alone, not my employers. + + + + ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: running wine automatically as a shell for w32 binaries
Chris BeHanna wrote: On Saturday 06 December 2003 10:19, Julian Stacey wrote: Hi all, I wrote a new imgact function for FreeBSD to start wine automatically as a sort of an interpreter for windows binaries. http://www.mawit.com/~jau/imgact_wine-4.9.patch Great idea ! If this small diff gets tested merged into src/ automatic MS support will be a real plus. With the weekly proliferation of MS worms, trojans, and viruses, do you *really* think this is a good idea? As long as people aren't using it to run Outlook the risk shouldn't be so bad. Besides, it's hard enough to get real programs to run under Wine, I can't imagine getting something that hacks multiple parts of the OS and uses undocumented backdoors to hide itself to work in wine is going to be easy. -- \ |_ _|__ __|_ \ __| Jason Andresen[EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ | ||/ _| Network and Distributed Systems Engineer _| _|___| _| _|_\___| Office: 703-883-7755 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 5-CURRENT: Kernel Makefile.inc1 Error
Thus spake Garance A Drosihn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [06/12/03 03:31]: From the above description, it sounds like you are running on a 5.1 system, and you are trying to compile a 5.2 kernel. Is this true? If the system you are on is 5.1, then you are going to have to do a 'make buildworld' of the 5.2-source before you can do a 'make buildkernel' of a 5.2 kernel. It's not clear from what you're saying, but will this cause problems with the statfs stuff? I've been under the impression that a 5.1-5.2 upgrade requires me to build and boot a new kernel before I can install a new world -- it's not clear if you're saying I need to build /and install/ a new world before building a kernel, or if I just need to build world... - Damian ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 5-CURRENT: Kernel Makefile.inc1 Error
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 12:41:26PM -0500, Damian Gerow wrote: Thus spake Garance A Drosihn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [06/12/03 03:31]: From the above description, it sounds like you are running on a 5.1 system, and you are trying to compile a 5.2 kernel. Is this true? If the system you are on is 5.1, then you are going to have to do a 'make buildworld' of the 5.2-source before you can do a 'make buildkernel' of a 5.2 kernel. It's not clear from what you're saying, but will this cause problems with the statfs stuff? I've been under the impression that a 5.1-5.2 upgrade requires me to build and boot a new kernel before I can install a new world -- it's not clear if you're saying I need to build /and install/ a new world before building a kernel, or if I just need to build world... Just build, as all the documentation (UPDATING, handbook, ...) says. buildworld builds a copy of any updated tools that are needed to bootstrap the rest of the upgrade process, for example a new make. Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FBSD 5-CURRENT: Kernel Makefile.inc1 Error
Thus spake Kris Kennaway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [08/12/03 13:18]: It's not clear from what you're saying, but will this cause problems with the statfs stuff? I've been under the impression that a 5.1-5.2 upgrade requires me to build and boot a new kernel before I can install a new world -- it's not clear if you're saying I need to build /and install/ a new world before building a kernel, or if I just need to build world... Just build, as all the documentation (UPDATING, handbook, ...) says. Thanks for clearing that up. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 5-CURRENT: Kernel Makefile.inc1 Error
At 12:41 PM -0500 12/8/03, Damian Gerow wrote: Thus spake Garance A Drosihn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [06/12/03 03:31]: From the above description, it sounds like you are running on a 5.1 system, and you are trying to compile a 5.2 kernel. Is this true? If the system you are on is 5.1, then you are going to have to do a 'make buildworld' of the 5.2-source before you can do a 'make buildkernel' of a 5.2 kernel. It's not clear from what you're saying, but will this cause problems with the statfs stuff? I've been under the impression that a 5.1-5.2 upgrade requires me to build and boot a new kernel before I can install a new world -- it's not clear if you're saying I need to build /and install/ a new world before building a kernel, or if I just need to build world... My comments were not trying to cover the installation steps. All I said was that you have to do a BUILDworld before you do a BUILDkernel, because it sounded to me like you might have been building a 5.2 kernel without doing any matching buildworld. You can get through the statfs changes by following the standard recommended buildinstall order. The standard recommended order is: make buildworld make buildkernel make installkernel reboot into single user mode mergemaster -p make installworld mergemaster reboot into nicely-upgraded system Many developers have gotten away with shortening this list, or with an alternate order. For the statfs change, it is particularly important that the proper order be followed. For this change, you really need to do that installkernel and *reboot* before doing the installworld. depressing aside Oh, and due to a small-but-significant bug in one of the makefiles, you would be well advised to make sure that you do not set the 'DISTDIR' variable. You might have that set in /etc/make.conf, expecting it to be used by the *ports* collection. Right now there is a problem where it is also checked during installworld, and the makefile will not do the right thing if that is set. We hope to have that sorted out very soon... /depressing -- Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 5-CURRENT: Kernel Makefile.inc1 Error
Thus spake Garance A Drosihn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [08/12/03 13:40]: It's not clear from what you're saying, but will this cause problems with the statfs stuff? I've been under the impression that a 5.1-5.2 upgrade requires me to build and boot a new kernel before I can install a new world -- it's not clear if you're saying I need to build /and install/ a new world before building a kernel, or if I just need to build world... My comments were not trying to cover the installation steps. All I said was that you have to do a BUILDworld before you do a BUILDkernel, because it sounded to me like you might have been building a 5.2 kernel without doing any matching buildworld. And my request for clarification was as a result of you not mentioning any of the install steps -- I (having recently botched a 5.1-5.2-BETA upgrade) didn't know if you were /insinuating/ an installworld, or if you left it out because it wasn't to be done. Hence my request. But this has all been cleared up now -- thanks. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does indent(1) have a KNF mode?
On Sunday 07 December 2003 10:25, Steve Kargl wrote: Does indent(1) have a KNF mode? If not, does anyone have/know a set of command line switches that best approximates KNF? No, but it probably should have. Somebody once suggested several years ago the following options gave the closest appromixation of knf: -nbad -nbap -bbb -nbc -br -brs -c33 -cd33 -cdb -ce -ci4 -cli0 -di16 -fc1 -fca -hnl -i8 -ip4 -l79 -lp -npcs -nprs -psl -saf -sai -saw -sc -nsob -nss -ts8 A search of the archives for a few of those options may turn up the original. If you'd like to conjure up a patch to add a knf mode, I'm happy to test and commit it. -- Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? Wes Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does indent(1) have a KNF mode?
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 11:00:29AM -0800, Wes Peters wrote: On Sunday 07 December 2003 10:25, Steve Kargl wrote: Does indent(1) have a KNF mode? If not, does anyone have/know a set of command line switches that best approximates KNF? No, but it probably should have. Somebody once suggested several years ago the following options gave the closest appromixation of knf: -nbad -nbap -bbb -nbc -br -brs -c33 -cd33 -cdb -ce -ci4 -cli0 -di16 -fc1 -fca -hnl -i8 -ip4 -l79 -lp -npcs -nprs -psl -saf -sai -saw -sc -nsob -nss -ts8 A search of the archives for a few of those options may turn up the original. If you'd like to conjure up a patch to add a knf mode, I'm happy to test and commit it. Bill Fumerola (sp?) sent me an almost identical list. He had -bbo instead of -bbb and he also had -cp33. -- Steve ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does indent(1) have a KNF mode?
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 11:16:25AM -0800, Steve Kargl said: No, but it probably should have. Somebody once suggested several years ago the following options gave the closest appromixation of knf: -nbad -nbap -bbb -nbc -br -brs -c33 -cd33 -cdb -ce -ci4 -cli0 -di16 -fc1 -fca -hnl -i8 -ip4 -l79 -lp -npcs -nprs -psl -saf -sai -saw -sc -nsob -nss -ts8 A search of the archives for a few of those options may turn up the original. If you'd like to conjure up a patch to add a knf mode, I'm happy to test and commit it. Bill Fumerola (sp?) sent me an almost identical list. He had -bbo instead of -bbb and he also had -cp33. I don't know how much (if at all) FreeBSD KNF differs from NetBSD KNF, but http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/share/misc/indent.pro contains the following: -bap -br -ce -ci4 -cli0 -d0 -di0 -i8 -ip -l79 -nbc -ncdb -ndj -ei -nfc1 -nlp -npcs -psl -sc -sob chris --- Chris Doherty I think, said Christopher Robin, that we ought to eat all our provisions now, so we won't have so much to carry. -- A. A. Milne --- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dhclient bug
I've identified what appears to be a bug in the dhclient code, but I'm a bit stuck on how to actually fix the issue. I've talked with a couple of ISC people, and can't get anyone to look at it, at least not for several weeks. So, I'm trying the next best thing, are there any FreeBSD people who've bug-fixed dhclient in the past who might be able to help me make a proper patch? If so, please contact me off-list as this is not a FreeBSD issue per-se. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FBSD 5-CURRENT: Kernel Makefile.inc1 Error
* Damian Gerow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [031208 12:43]: Thus spake Garance A Drosihn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [06/12/03 03:31]: From the above description, it sounds like you are running on a 5.1 system, and you are trying to compile a 5.2 kernel. Is this true? If the system you are on is 5.1, then you are going to have to do a 'make buildworld' of the 5.2-source before you can do a 'make buildkernel' of a 5.2 kernel. It's not clear from what you're saying, but will this cause problems with the statfs stuff? I've been under the impression that a 5.1-5.2 upgrade requires me to build and boot a new kernel before I can install a new world -- it's not clear if you're saying I need to build /and install/ a new world before building a kernel, or if I just need to build world... You basically need to follow the recommended procedure to the letter, as opposed to skipping some of the reboot steps in the middle. with a 5.2 /usr/src: * make buildworld * make buildkernel * make installkernel * reboot to single-user * make installkernel * mergemaster * reboot The issue is, your kernel will continue handing out old file system structures until you reboot with a new one. Rather early in the installworld process, you will stop being able to use fundamental system commands like ls and cp, which expect the new structures. Also, a small number of ports break as well. Between the mergemaster and reboot steps you may wish to rebuild any critical ports. postfix, for example, refuses to start it's smtpd until you rebuild it. Any other ports which behave oddly, particularly those which die with a signal 11, probably need a rebuild. --Mike pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FBSD 5-CURRENT: Kernel Makefile.inc1 Error
Thus spake Michael Edenfield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [08/12/03 17:28]: with a 5.2 /usr/src: * make buildworld * make buildkernel * make installkernel * reboot to single-user * make installkernel * mergemaster * reboot I think you want that second 'installkernel' to actually be an 'installkernel'. The issue is, your kernel will continue handing out old file system structures until you reboot with a new one. Rather early in the installworld process, you will stop being able to use fundamental system commands like ls and cp, which expect the new structures. According to the posts by Mr. McKusick, the new kernel should be able to understand both the old and the new structures -- so cp should *not* break. So long as you follow his instructions, and reboot with the new kernel before doing the installworld. Also, a small number of ports break as well. Between the mergemaster and reboot steps you may wish to rebuild any critical ports. postfix, for example, refuses to start it's smtpd until you rebuild it. Any other ports which behave oddly, particularly those which die with a signal 11, probably need a rebuild. Yes, I ran into that as well. I gave up on guessing which ports needed to be re-compiled, and just did a portupgrade -fa, and went to bed. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 5-CURRENT: Kernel Makefile.inc1 Error
On 2003-12-08 at 23:50:03 Damian Gerow wrote: * make buildworld * make buildkernel * make installkernel * reboot to single-user * make installkernel * mergemaster * reboot I think you want that second 'installkernel' to actually be an 'installkernel'. I'd advise some more coffee, you probably meant 'installworld' on the second instance. ;) Btw, I've also seen some reports, and experienced, that the first make installkernel can also fail with signal 12's, probably due to the new 'install' executable using some not-yet-available system calls. If you are stuck in this case, you can manually copy the kernel file to its destination, boot from it in single user mode, and run installkernel from there. That saved my neck, at least... pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FBSD 5-CURRENT: Kernel Makefile.inc1 Error
Thus spake Dimitry Andric ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [08/12/03 18:01]: I think you want that second 'installkernel' to actually be an 'installkernel'. I'd advise some more coffee, you probably meant 'installworld' on the second instance. ;) Oh wow. Thanks. I'll go find my caffeine drip... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does indent(1) have a KNF mode?
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 10:25:39AM -0800 I heard the voice of Steve Kargl, and lo! it spake thus: Does indent(1) have a KNF mode? If not, does anyone have/know a set of command line switches that best approximates KNF? For the record, I tend to install GNU indent when I feel the itch, as it has significantly greater flexibility. You may have more luck there. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
