Re: Please clarify /usr partition size for 6.9 release
Answered my own question. Jay > My partition size for /usr is 2.0G. Currently using 1.1G, and df is > reporting 783M available. > > Can I upgrade from 6.8 release to 6.9 release without the upgrade failing due > to lack of space in /usr? > > I'm thinking I'm ok. > > In the future, would it be advisable to increase this partitions size? I > could swap /usr (2.0G) for /tmp (3.9G), if I had a process to do > this. > > Thanks in Advance! > > Jay > >
Re: Error making 002_libx11.patch.sig
You are not building using the correct procedure. Sorry, we don't have time to teach that. Please use the syspatches, or the snapshots, or learn to do full builds. The latter is fully documented in manual pages, and reaching for the mailing list is inappropriate. Jonathan Drews wrote: > OpenBSD 6.9 GENERIC.MP#473 amd64 > > Hi Folks: > > I am trying to patch Xenocara with 002_libx11.patch.sig. I first > applied make -f Makefile.bsd-wrapper obj. Afterwards > I get the following error message when I do make -f > Makefile.bsd-wrapper build: > > checking that generated files are newer than configure... done > configure: creating ./config.status > config.status: creating Makefile > config.status: creating include/Makefile > rm: include/Makefile: Permission denied > config.status: error: could not create include/Makefile > *** Error 1 in . (/usr/X11R6/share/mk/bsd.xorg.mk:158 > 'config.status') > *** Error 2 in /usr/xenocara/lib/libX11 > (/usr/X11R6/share/mk/bsd.xorg.mk:196 'build') > > my /usr/include has the following permissions > jack# ls -lhd /usr/include/ > > drwxr-xr-x 32 root bin 3.0K May 1 20:24 /usr/include/ > > My xenocara directory has the following permissions > jack# ls -lhd /usr/xenocara/ > > drwxr-xr-x 16 root wheel 512B Apr 17 16:16 /usr/xenocara/ > > > Any ideas as to what I am doing wrong? > > > Kind regards, > > Jonathan >
Error making 002_libx11.patch.sig
OpenBSD 6.9 GENERIC.MP#473 amd64 Hi Folks: I am trying to patch Xenocara with 002_libx11.patch.sig. I first applied make -f Makefile.bsd-wrapper obj. Afterwards I get the following error message when I do make -f Makefile.bsd-wrapper build: checking that generated files are newer than configure... done configure: creating ./config.status config.status: creating Makefile config.status: creating include/Makefile rm: include/Makefile: Permission denied config.status: error: could not create include/Makefile *** Error 1 in . (/usr/X11R6/share/mk/bsd.xorg.mk:158 'config.status') *** Error 2 in /usr/xenocara/lib/libX11 (/usr/X11R6/share/mk/bsd.xorg.mk:196 'build') my /usr/include has the following permissions jack# ls -lhd /usr/include/ drwxr-xr-x 32 root bin 3.0K May 1 20:24 /usr/include/ My xenocara directory has the following permissions jack# ls -lhd /usr/xenocara/ drwxr-xr-x 16 root wheel 512B Apr 17 16:16 /usr/xenocara/ Any ideas as to what I am doing wrong? Kind regards, Jonathan
OpenBSD 6.8 Errata 019 Failed
configure: error: source directory already configured; run "make distclean" there first *** Error 1 in . (/usr/X11R6/share/mk/bsd.xorg.mk:158 'config.status') *** Error 2 in /usr/xenocara/lib/libX11 (/usr/X11R6/share/mk/bsd.xorg.mk:196 'build') I don't understand what the error message is telling me to do. Nothing I have tried has worked. My source tree is up to date. What directory do I have to run `make distclean' in? Thanks, Ken
Please clarify /usr partition size for 6.9 release
My partition size for /usr is 2.0G. Currently using 1.1G, and df is reporting 783M available. Can I upgrade from 6.8 release to 6.9 release without the upgrade failing due to lack of space in /usr? I'm thinking I'm ok. In the future, would it be advisable to increase this partitions size? I could swap /usr (2.0G) for /tmp (3.9G), if I had a process to do this. Thanks in Advance! Jay
Re: poor ethernet network performance
Keegan Saunders [kee...@undefinedbehaviour.org] wrote: > I'm noticing that my OpenBSD desktop with a Realtek 8168 ethernet controller > (re(4) driver) is experiencing slow network speeds on OpenBSD 6.9 (not > recent, has been an issue before) > Why not include a dmesg? How do you expect anyone to troubleshoot this problem with zero data?
Re: OpenBSD 6.9 and PHP version
On 2021-05-18, Steve Williams wrote: > Hi, > > When I upgraded to OpenBSD 6.9 then did the pkg_add -u, I got > php-php-7.4.18 installed. > > How do I know if it's "safe" to delete the old php-7.3.28 and all the > associated modules? > > I know I'll have to migrate my ".ini" file changes to the new version > for both php and php_fpm, but other than that, how do I figure out if > anything is still calling 7.3? > > I have a simple build, roundcubemail, piwigo, nextcloud and a few others. > > Thanks, > Steve W. > > Roundcube and nextcloud are ok with 7.4. No idea about piwigo.
Re: sane-backends permission problems
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:42:22AM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:39:34AM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 05:21:16PM -0400, Allan Streib wrote: > > > Predrag Punosevac writes: > > > > > > > predrag@oko$ scanimage -L > > > > > > > > No scanners were identified. If you were expecting something different, > > > > check that the scanner is plugged in, turned on and detected by the > > > > sane-find-scanner tool (if appropriate). Please read the documentation > > > > which came with this software (README, FAQ, manpages). > > > > > > Had the same problem today. sane-find-scanner returned... > > > > > > found USB scanner (vendor=0x04a9 [Canon], product=0x2206 [CanoScan], > > > chip=LM9832/3) at libusb:002:002 > > > > > > ...but scanimage -L found no scanners. This scanner uses the > > > sane-plustek backend, so I added my user to the _saned group, and I had > > > changed the ownership on (in my case) /dev/ugen0.* and /dev/usb2 per the > > > sane-backends pkg-readme. Something else was wrong. > > > > > > Running the the scanimage program under ktrace revealed: > > > > > > 98418 scanimage NAMI "/var/spool/lock/LCK..libusb:002:002" > > > 98418 scanimage RET open -1 errno 13 Permission denied > > > > > > Looking at /ver/spool/lock, it appears that this lockfile should be > > > created in the sane/ subdirectory instead? > > > > > > $ ls -l /var/spool/lock/ > > > total 4 > > > drwxrwxr-x 2 root _saned 512 May 17 16:12 sane > > > > > > I don't see anything in /etc/sane.d/plustek.conf that implies that I can > > > change the lockfile location, so not sure how to correct this? > > > > That comes from libusb, not sane itself I think. > > Scratch that. > It is sane, I will have a look. I've committed a fix. Thanks. -- Antoine
Re: sane-backends permission problems
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:39:34AM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 05:21:16PM -0400, Allan Streib wrote: > > Predrag Punosevac writes: > > > > > predrag@oko$ scanimage -L > > > > > > No scanners were identified. If you were expecting something different, > > > check that the scanner is plugged in, turned on and detected by the > > > sane-find-scanner tool (if appropriate). Please read the documentation > > > which came with this software (README, FAQ, manpages). > > > > Had the same problem today. sane-find-scanner returned... > > > > found USB scanner (vendor=0x04a9 [Canon], product=0x2206 [CanoScan], > > chip=LM9832/3) at libusb:002:002 > > > > ...but scanimage -L found no scanners. This scanner uses the > > sane-plustek backend, so I added my user to the _saned group, and I had > > changed the ownership on (in my case) /dev/ugen0.* and /dev/usb2 per the > > sane-backends pkg-readme. Something else was wrong. > > > > Running the the scanimage program under ktrace revealed: > > > > 98418 scanimage NAMI "/var/spool/lock/LCK..libusb:002:002" > > 98418 scanimage RET open -1 errno 13 Permission denied > > > > Looking at /ver/spool/lock, it appears that this lockfile should be > > created in the sane/ subdirectory instead? > > > > $ ls -l /var/spool/lock/ > > total 4 > > drwxrwxr-x 2 root _saned 512 May 17 16:12 sane > > > > I don't see anything in /etc/sane.d/plustek.conf that implies that I can > > change the lockfile location, so not sure how to correct this? > > That comes from libusb, not sane itself I think. Scratch that. It is sane, I will have a look. -- Antoine
Re: sane-backends permission problems
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 05:21:16PM -0400, Allan Streib wrote: > Predrag Punosevac writes: > > > predrag@oko$ scanimage -L > > > > No scanners were identified. If you were expecting something different, > > check that the scanner is plugged in, turned on and detected by the > > sane-find-scanner tool (if appropriate). Please read the documentation > > which came with this software (README, FAQ, manpages). > > Had the same problem today. sane-find-scanner returned... > > found USB scanner (vendor=0x04a9 [Canon], product=0x2206 [CanoScan], > chip=LM9832/3) at libusb:002:002 > > ...but scanimage -L found no scanners. This scanner uses the > sane-plustek backend, so I added my user to the _saned group, and I had > changed the ownership on (in my case) /dev/ugen0.* and /dev/usb2 per the > sane-backends pkg-readme. Something else was wrong. > > Running the the scanimage program under ktrace revealed: > > 98418 scanimage NAMI "/var/spool/lock/LCK..libusb:002:002" > 98418 scanimage RET open -1 errno 13 Permission denied > > Looking at /ver/spool/lock, it appears that this lockfile should be > created in the sane/ subdirectory instead? > > $ ls -l /var/spool/lock/ > total 4 > drwxrwxr-x 2 root _saned 512 May 17 16:12 sane > > I don't see anything in /etc/sane.d/plustek.conf that implies that I can > change the lockfile location, so not sure how to correct this? That comes from libusb, not sane itself I think. -- Antoine
Re: OpenBSD 6.9 and PHP version
Am 17.05.21 18:20 schrieb Steve Williams: > Hi, > > When I upgraded to OpenBSD 6.9 then did the pkg_add -u, I got php-php-7.4.18 > installed. > > How do I know if it's "safe" to delete the old php-7.3.28 and all the > associated modules? You will have to check the manual (readmes, manpages, homepage whatever) provided by the webapp developers whether the thing runs on php-7.4. And if PHP 7.4 is supported by ALL of your webapps then it is safe to remove PHP 7.3 If PHP 7.4 is supported by all BUT ONE then you should run multiple instances of php-fpm and configure 7.4 for the supported ones and serve 7.3 only for the unsupported webapp. Then you shouldn't remove php-7.3 ;-) > > I know I'll have to migrate my ".ini" file changes to the new version for > both php and php_fpm, but other than that, how do I figure out if anything > is still calling 7.3? > > I have a simple build, roundcubemail, piwigo, nextcloud and a few others. > > Thanks, > Steve W. >
