On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 01:00:05PM +0900, Yuichiro NAITO wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I have set up OpenBSD as a IPsec gateway and tried to forward IPv6 packets.
> But IPv6 packets are not forwarded via IPsec tunnel.
> IPv4 forwarding via IPsec works for me.
>
> Of course, I set following MIBs.
>
>
>
> Returning a non-zero exit status is generally a sign of some sort of
> failure. Not applying a patch due to already having the patch applied
> is not really a failure.
>
The joys of running Solaris 2.x patches in the late 90s, where "ERROR 02"
means
the above, you already have the patch. And
Hi.
I have set up OpenBSD as a IPsec gateway and tried to forward IPv6 packets.
But IPv6 packets are not forwarded via IPsec tunnel.
IPv4 forwarding via IPsec works for me.
Of course, I set following MIBs.
net.inet.ip.forwarding=1
net.inet6.ip6.forwarding=1
I have confirmed ipsec policies
On December 6, 2020 8:13:26 PM GMT+01:00, Antoine Jacoutot
wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 05:20:31PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> On 2020/12/06 16:39, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> > On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 03:31:19PM +, SW wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 06/12/2020 14:32, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>>
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 05:20:31PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2020/12/06 16:39, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 03:31:19PM +, SW wrote:
> >
> > > On 06/12/2020 14:32, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 02:19:05PM +, SW wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
On 2020/12/06 16:39, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 03:31:19PM +, SW wrote:
>
> > On 06/12/2020 14:32, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 02:19:05PM +, SW wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >> I've been looking to have syspatch give me a quick indication of
> Returning a non-zero exit status is generally a sign of some sort of
> failure. Not applying a patch due to already having the patch applied
> is not really a failure.
Generally agreed, though at the same time, sysupgrade returns non-zero
if there is no upgrade to apply so the same behaviour
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 04:21:10PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Both armv7 and powerpc64 support VTs, so let xenodem take the VT
> reserved for X in /etc/ttys.
>
> ok?
Sure. It will soon be time to invert the test and list machines that
don't support VTs
>
>
> Index:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 02:19:05PM +, SW wrote:
> Hi,
> I've been looking to have syspatch give me a quick indication of whether
> a reboot is likely to be required. As a quick and dirty check, I've just
> been treating "Were patches applied?" as the indicator.
>
> The following diff will
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 03:31:19PM +, SW wrote:
> On 06/12/2020 14:32, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 02:19:05PM +, SW wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> I've been looking to have syspatch give me a quick indication of whether
> >> a reboot is likely to be required. As a quick and
On 06/12/2020 14:32, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 02:19:05PM +, SW wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I've been looking to have syspatch give me a quick indication of whether
>> a reboot is likely to be required. As a quick and dirty check, I've just
>> been treating "Were patches applied?"
Both armv7 and powerpc64 support VTs, so let xenodem take the VT
reserved for X in /etc/ttys.
ok?
Index: app/xenodm/Makefile.bsd-wrapper
===
RCS file: /cvs/xenocara/app/xenodm/Makefile.bsd-wrapper,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 02:19:05PM +, SW wrote:
> Hi,
> I've been looking to have syspatch give me a quick indication of whether
> a reboot is likely to be required. As a quick and dirty check, I've just
> been treating "Were patches applied?" as the indicator.
>
> The following diff will
Hi,
I've been looking to have syspatch give me a quick indication of whether
a reboot is likely to be required. As a quick and dirty check, I've just
been treating "Were patches applied?" as the indicator.
The following diff will cause syspatch to exit when applying patches
with status code 0
14 matches
Mail list logo
