Dima Veselov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 02:16:31PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:07:06PM +0300, Dima Veselov wrote:
>> > I have completely no idea why 8.0-STABLE can't take non-integer value.
>> Is there a locale issu involved?
>
> Ahh, magician, how did you
On 18/01/2019 20:38, Chris Hanson wrote:
On Jan 17, 2019, at 10:11 AM, Zachary McGrew wrote:
The RISC-V port is not complete yet. I have the kernel booting to the
point that it wants to mount a root file system, but I am unable to
currently build userland and populate a root filesystem.
On Fri 18 Jan 2019 at 13:00:09 -0600, Robert Nestor wrote:
> , because perl-5.28.1 doesn?t build.
> It errors out with an internal gcc compiler error using the gcc that
> comes with NetBSD 8.0_STABLE.
I built perl-5.28.1 on NetBSD/amd64 8.0, as released (so nothing later
than that), and for me
On Jan 17, 2019, at 10:11 AM, Zachary McGrew wrote:
> The RISC-V port is not complete yet. I have the kernel booting to the
> point that it wants to mount a root file system, but I am unable to
> currently build userland and populate a root filesystem. There is
> ongoing work to import a newer
Did a clean checkout of pkgsrc-2018Q4 and tried building a few of the packages,
mainly xfce4. If fails, along with about 122 others in my build, because
perl-5.28.1 doesn’t build. but perl-5.28.1 is in the binary archives for
amd64/8.0_2018Q4 on the server. So it had to build for someone,
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 2:09 AM Roy Marples wrote:
>
> Hi Fred
>
> On 18/01/2019 06:05, triaxx wrote:
> > I experienced a dhcpcd that cannot connect to a Cisco gateway through a
> > fresh NetBSD 8.0. I tried dhclient which succeed.
> >
> > I didn't see relevant diff between MAIN and netbsd-8.
> >
Date:Fri, 18 Jan 2019 14:45:57 +0100
From:Martin Husemann
Message-ID: <20190118134557.gf13...@mail.duskware.de>
| I think we should set LC_NUMERIC=C in rc.subr or something like that.
LC_ALL not LC_NUMERIC, the latter won't override an external setting
of LC_ALL.
On Jan 18, 2019 8:16 AM, Mayuresh wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 08:03:41AM -0600, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> > > 554 5.7.1
> >
> > Seems like 550 would be a better error code for this situation.
>
> I was trying to set that (as I noticed gmail didn't complain for a mail
> that was bounced
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 08:03:41AM -0600, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> > 554 5.7.1
>
> Seems like 550 would be a better error code for this situation.
I was trying to set that (as I noticed gmail didn't complain for a mail
that was bounced "normally" - such as non existent id).
But struggling to
Am 18. Januar 2019 14:49:15 MEZ schrieb Tobias Ulmer :
>On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 07:50:52AM +0100, Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT
>& Internet) wrote:
>> The security footprint is very good.
>
>https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-10919/product_id-19563/Exim-Exim.html
I know the
On Jan 18, 2019 7:41 AM, Mayuresh wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 06:45:06AM -0600, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> > I think you should post the logs from your postfix test with Gmail
> > issue. I bet someone here knows an option to correct it.
>
> Not much I can see. I think it has more to do with
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 02:49:15PM +0100, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 07:50:52AM +0100, Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT &
> Internet) wrote:
> > The security footprint is very good.
>
> https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-10919/product_id-19563/Exim-Exim.html
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 07:50:52AM +0100, Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT &
Internet) wrote:
> The security footprint is very good.
https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-10919/product_id-19563/Exim-Exim.html
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:42:32PM +0300, Dima Veselov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 02:16:31PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:07:06PM +0300, Dima Veselov wrote:
> > > I have completely no idea why 8.0-STABLE can't take non-integer value.
> > Is there a locale issu
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 06:45:06AM -0600, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> I think you should post the logs from your postfix test with Gmail
> issue. I bet someone here knows an option to correct it.
Not much I can see. I think it has more to do with the error code
interpretation by gmail. For other
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 02:16:31PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:07:06PM +0300, Dima Veselov wrote:
> > I have completely no idea why 8.0-STABLE can't take non-integer value.
> Is there a locale issu involved?
Ahh, magician, how did you got this??? Unbelievable.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:07:06PM +0300, Dima Veselov wrote:
> I have completely no idea why 8.0-STABLE can't take non-integer value.
Is there a locale issu involved?
Martin
Hi,
is there an undocumented way to deal with dhcpcd lifetime overflows?
So far I have been restarting the network and wpa_supplicant services,
and sometimes just the wpa_supplicant service to get a quick fix.
On Jan 18, 2019 2:08 AM, Mayuresh wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 07:50:52AM +0100, Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT &
> Internet) wrote:
> > We use EXIM since decades now from small satellite mailer setups to very
> > large ISP setups after migrated from sendmail and postfix as they brought
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 01:23:12PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 03:17:57PM +0300, Dima Veselov wrote:
> > > The rc scripts use "sleep 0.05" but not all versions of sleep
> > > support non-integral values.
> >
> > I never replaced original one. The only replacement was
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:25:46PM +, Stephen Borrill wrote:
> > > > The rc scripts use "sleep 0.05" but not all versions of sleep
> > > > support non-integral values.
> > >
> > > I never replaced original one. The only replacement was done -
> > > upgrading via build.sh distribution sets.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:25:46PM +, Stephen Borrill wrote:
> The sleep is coming form rc.subr, not the rc.d script itself:
>
> # We want this to be a tight loop for a fast exit
> sleep 0.05
Ooops - overlooked that our sleep does handle it.
Martin
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 03:17:57PM +0300, Dima Veselov wrote:
The rc scripts use "sleep 0.05" but not all versions of sleep
support non-integral values.
I never replaced original one. The only replacement was done -
upgrading via build.sh
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 03:17:57PM +0300, Dima Veselov wrote:
> > The rc scripts use "sleep 0.05" but not all versions of sleep
> > support non-integral values.
>
> I never replaced original one. The only replacement was done -
> upgrading via build.sh distribution sets. Just checked cvsweb -
>
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 06:52:51PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> | Looks like kind a silly problem, but I can't find where it
> | happen.
>
> Do you happen to have some non-standard (ie: not netbsd)
> sleep command installed?
>
> The rc scripts use "sleep 0.05" but not all versions of sleep
>
Date:Fri, 18 Jan 2019 14:00:54 +0300
From:Dima Veselov
Message-ID: <20190118110054.GA6665@laura>
| Looks like kind a silly problem, but I can't find where it
| happen.
Do you happen to have some non-standard (ie: not netbsd)
sleep command installed?
The rc
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:30:18AM +, Stephen Borrill wrote:
> > > > After some 8.0-STABLE upgrades all my NetBSD boxes have problem
> > > > with rc.d scripts. They are definitely working, but when script
> > > > have to wait for a process it contantly prints that:
> > > >
> > > >
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Dima Veselov wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:13:52PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 02:00:54PM +0300, Dima Veselov wrote:
Greetings!
After some 8.0-STABLE upgrades all my NetBSD boxes have problem
with rc.d scripts. They are definitely working,
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:13:52PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 02:00:54PM +0300, Dima Veselov wrote:
> > Greetings!
> >
> > After some 8.0-STABLE upgrades all my NetBSD boxes have problem
> > with rc.d scripts. They are definitely working, but when script
> > have to
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 02:00:54PM +0300, Dima Veselov wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> After some 8.0-STABLE upgrades all my NetBSD boxes have problem
> with rc.d scripts. They are definitely working, but when script
> have to wait for a process it contantly prints that:
>
> [root@almaz src]$
Greetings!
After some 8.0-STABLE upgrades all my NetBSD boxes have problem
with rc.d scripts. They are definitely working, but when script
have to wait for a process it contantly prints that:
[root@almaz src]$ /etc/rc.d/php_fpm restart
Stopping php_fpm.
usage: sleep seconds
usage: sleep seconds
Hi Fred
On 18/01/2019 06:05, triaxx wrote:
I experienced a dhcpcd that cannot connect to a Cisco gateway through a
fresh NetBSD 8.0. I tried dhclient which succeed.
I didn't see relevant diff between MAIN and netbsd-8.
I would like to send a PR but I'm interesting to know what informations
I'm away from home for a few days and will try to fix my system as soon as
possible.
Still, I believe that something went wrong with the builds for the Q4
release.
This a screenshot over firefox for the Q3 list of packages,
https://imgur.com/GV71xgT
and here is the same for Q4,
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 07:50:52AM +0100, Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT &
Internet) wrote:
> We use EXIM since decades now from small satellite mailer setups to very
> large ISP setups after migrated from sendmail and postfix as they brought our
> hardware down in performance with heavy mail
34 matches
Mail list logo
