Re: graphics acceleration, DRI2, DRM problem

> > +filedev/pci/nvdsbl.c > > can you include this file? and any new .h files as well? I think that this was just for registering a dummy driver for that Nvidia device. It does nothing useful itself. # cat /usr/src/sys/dev/pci/nvdsbl.c /* $OpenBSD: nvdsbl.c,v 0.1 2015/07/28 12:00:01

Re: Upgrading from 5.8 to 5.9: Can't install patches

> On 2016/08/19 14:48, Jay Hart wrote: >> >> Thank You Stuart. I can get moving ahead and will file this as a new process >> moving forward. >> >> One last item: When sysmerge ran the only 'file' it came up with to merge >> was the cert file. I installed the new temp file as presented to me.

Re: graphics acceleration, DRI2, DRM problem

Lampshade wrote: > This is totally fucked up code, but if you like hazard... > I mean that I really just called some random ACPI (aml) methods > not knowing what they should do. > +#Acer Optimus nvdsbl disable nvidia gpu PCI > +device nvdsbl > +attach nvdsbl at pci > +filedev/pci/nvdsbl.c

Re: graphics acceleration, DRI2, DRM problem

This is totally fucked up code, but if you like hazard... I mean that I really just called some random ACPI (aml) methods not knowing what they should do. Additionally this code is for my laptop. I have GEFORCE 620M GPU, so I added this to pcidevs. Another thing is that patched code recognizes my

Re: DPB can't do it's job in 6.0

patrick keshishian: > > No, running dpb as root is also optional. > > true, but then it doesn't switch users to _p{build,fetch}. it runs > as user starting it. That is correct. Setting up your system so that dpb switches to different users is great for bulk builds but renders ports development

Re: DPB can't do it's job in 6.0

On 8/19/16, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > On 2016-08-19, Stuart Henderson wrote: > >> The chroot support is currently optional, but you do need to create the >> user accounts if sysmerge didn't do it for you (_pbuuld, _pfetch), and >> start dpb as root.

Re: DPB can't do it's job in 6.0

On 2016-08-19, Stuart Henderson wrote: > The chroot support is currently optional, but you do need to create the > user accounts if sysmerge didn't do it for you (_pbuuld, _pfetch), and > start dpb as root. No, running dpb as root is also optional. -- Christian "naddy"

Re: DPB can't do it's job in 6.0

On 2016-08-19, Noth wrote: > Hi misc@ > > >I'm a bit disappointed with dpb in 6.0, I haven't tried the chrooting > stuff but was hoping it could still work as before. All I can get it to > do now is start downloading src tarballs, and more often than not fail > at

Re: Upgrading from 5.8 to 5.9: Can't install patches

On 2016-08-19, Jay Hart wrote: > According to the documentation I could find, I need to delete everything in > /usr/src and /usr/obj, > then untar the 5.9 tar files. Once this is done, I can start patching. > > I was just going to remove all files and directories under these two

DPB can't do it's job in 6.0

Hi misc@ I'm a bit disappointed with dpb in 6.0, I haven't tried the chrooting stuff but was hoping it could still work as before. All I can get it to do now is start downloading src tarballs, and more often than not fail at that (manual make -j5 package will build anything). It can barely

Re: Security updates and packages

Hi, on a lighter note, 'cause i usually (with exceptions :) like doing what i like to do better than arguing with people who happen to misunderstand it... Theo de Raadt screamed on Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 08:25:40AM -0600: > AND WHERE IS THE PONY. Right here:

Re: Security updates and packages

> OK I have done a lot of cutting and I may have put your words out of context, > this isn't intended of course, however I feel when you say "OpenBSD isn't a > PRODUCT" that this just can't be. By that I mean, that I buy every CD that > comes out, a) it has an ISBN number so it's a book (but not

Re: Security updates and packages

> > You never purchased an agreement for it to be serviced. > > I'm not expecting that. But the "hint" that this will not be serviced > should be there. The lack of a promise is enough. > > Then, you stand here and demand things? You sir, are just wastewater. > > I simply suggested a line to

Re: Security updates and packages

> Not "purely" but in common parlance and practice I do regard prompt > installation of fixes for "security flaws" as part of "security" in its > usual sense, yes. Then hire some people to do it. Our crew who cares about a subset of that is at their limit. We aren't going to keep slaves, and

Re: Security updates and packages

On 19 Aug 2016, Theo de Raadt wrote: (snip) > There is no juxtaposition. I'm pretty sure that I managed to place the quotations side by side! > You are expecting a bunch of volunteers to do the massive job of > upgrading last-month's software -- and do it better than Google with > Android, or

Re: Security updates and packages

On 08/19/16 17:43, Theo de Raadt wrote: >>> You even come to the conclusion that such work isn't going to happen >>> for free, but leave the result dangling. Especially since OpenBSD >>> isn't a PRODUCT. If product-servicing is a requirement, first of all >>> choose something which is a PRODUCT,

Re: Security updates and packages

> > You even come to the conclusion that such work isn't going to happen > > for free, but leave the result dangling. Especially since OpenBSD > > isn't a PRODUCT. If product-servicing is a requirement, first of all > > choose something which is a PRODUCT, then choose a PRODUCT VENDOR who > >

Re: Security updates and packages

> You even come to the conclusion that such work isn't going to happen > for free, but leave the result dangling. Especially since OpenBSD > isn't a PRODUCT. If product-servicing is a requirement, first of all > choose something which is a PRODUCT, then choose a PRODUCT VENDOR who > actually

Re: Security updates and packages

Theo de Raadt wrote: Especially since OpenBSD isn't a PRODUCT. If product-servicing is a requirement, first of all choose something which is a PRODUCT, then choose a PRODUCT VENDOR who actually does SERVICING. Nicely put. My open source Ublu (https://github.com/jwoehr/ublu) is currently

Re: Security updates and packages

> > I was wondering if packages for -release would be fixed if a security > > issue is found in one of these third party programs, which could be > > updated with pkg_add -u. > > It's a good question. I was quite amused to notice the juxtaposition of: > > ] Our aspiration is to be NUMBER ONE in

Re: Upgrading from 5.8 to 5.9: Can't install patches

According to the documentation I could find, I need to delete everything in /usr/src and /usr/obj, then untar the 5.9 tar files. Once this is done, I can start patching. I was just going to remove all files and directories under these two locations. Is this the correct procedure? TIA, Jay

Re: Upgrading from 5.8 to 5.9: Can't install patches

On 2016-08-19, trondd wrote: > On Thu, August 18, 2016 7:34 pm, Jay Hart wrote: >> >> Next I downloaded all 25 patches but patch 002 failed to install and I >> think its because I need to >> download and untar src.tar.gz and sys.tar.gz. My thinking is the source >> tree I

Re: Security updates and packages

On 2016-08-19, Thuban wrote: > I was wondering if packages for -release would be fixed if a security > issue is found in one of these third party programs, which could be > updated with pkg_add -u. No, they're not, they're fixed for release and not further updated. It's

Re: Security updates and packages

Hi, haveva look at this: https://stable.mtier.org/ Regards Am 19.08.2016 08:59 schrieb "Thuban" : > Hello, > I was wondering if packages for -release would be fixed if a security > issue is found in one of these third party programs, which could be > updated with

Re: Security updates and packages

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Thuban wrote: > Hello, > I was wondering if packages for -release would be fixed if a security > issue is found in one of these third party programs, which could be > updated with pkg_add -u. > Officially? No. But this seems to be a

Re: Security updates and packages

You can pay someone to build them for you, where M:Tier springs to mind. Also, having a build host (or vm) somewhere running -stable and (re)building any updated -stable port for your particular platform isn't all that difficult and hard, especially if its just about a single or a specific small

Re: Security updates and packages

On 19 Aug 2016, thu...@yeuxdelibad.net wrote: > I was wondering if packages for -release would be fixed if a security > issue is found in one of these third party programs, which could be > updated with pkg_add -u. It's a good question. I was quite amused to notice the juxtaposition of: ] Our

Re: ispec - PSK - issues

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 07:57:40PM +, Justin Mayes wrote: > Hello all - > > I was also recently trying to do a simple ipsec/l2tp vpn. I found that it > works fine for everything except my android 5.1.1 device. This problem and a workaround were already discussed here:

Security updates and packages

Hello, I was wondering if packages for -release would be fixed if a security issue is found in one of these third party programs, which could be updated with pkg_add -u. Or does someone has to stay up to date and usr ports to upgrade each single package on his system to follow -stable? (with the