On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 03:44:53PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
#> On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 01:39:50AM +0200, Shaun Jurrens wrote:
#>
#> > The trace doesn't look too wierd, otherwise. There was a warning about
#> > having libm.so.2 and libm.so.3 causing a potential conflict during
#> > compile... I
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 11:59:08AM +0200, Shaun Jurrens wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 03:44:53PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> #> On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 01:39:50AM +0200, Shaun Jurrens wrote:
> #>
> #> > The trace doesn't look too wierd, otherwise. There was a warning about
> #> > having libm
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 03:44:53PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
#> On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 01:39:50AM +0200, Shaun Jurrens wrote:
#>
#> > The trace doesn't look too wierd, otherwise. There was a warning about
#> > having libm.so.2 and libm.so.3 causing a potential conflict during
#> > compile... I
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 01:39:50AM +0200, Shaun Jurrens wrote:
> The trace doesn't look too wierd, otherwise. There was a warning about
> having libm.so.2 and libm.so.3 causing a potential conflict during
> compile... It seems to find the correct lib, but later also opens libm.so.2
That's a prob
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 07:06:30PM -0800, Doug White wrote:
#> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Shaun Jurrens wrote:
#>
#> > Hi guys,
#> >
#> > I'm resending this mail again with the hopes of finding someone who is also
#> > seeing this problem. I know that mail isn't the best method perhaps, but
#> > before
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Shaun Jurrens wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm resending this mail again with the hopes of finding someone who is also
> seeing this problem. I know that mail isn't the best method perhaps, but
> before I open a PR, I thought I'd try again...
>
> My last recent update revealed a bug
Hi guys,
I'm resending this mail again with the hopes of finding someone who is also
seeing this problem. I know that mail isn't the best method perhaps, but
before I open a PR, I thought I'd try again...
My last recent update revealed a bug perhaps. I'm now running:
FreeBSD dakota 5.4-PRERELEA
Hi guys,
My last recent update revealed a bug perhaps. I'm now running:
FreeBSD dakota 5.4-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 5.4-PRERELEASE #28: Wed Mar 23
20:38:58 CET 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/DAKOTA64 amd64
The system seems to have problems with filedescriptors. It's not otherwise
lo
