Re: [Patch] use exit() directly in usage()

2014-10-01 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 05:41:11PM -0500, Kent R. Spillner wrote: > ok kspillner@. It would be nice to replace some of those exit(1) with > exit(EXIT_FAILURE), but that should be a separate diff that also updates the > err/errx's as well. In general EXIT_XXX is frowned upon in OpenBSD.

Re: [patch]lock and unlock like GnuRCS

2014-10-01 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 07:58:16PM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Daniel Dickman wrote: > > posix commands (like ls(1) for example) keep the last option when mutually > > exclusive options are specified. > > does it make sense to keep rcs consistent with that con

Re: [patch]lock and unlock like GnuRCS

2014-10-01 Thread Philip Guenther
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Daniel Dickman wrote: > posix commands (like ls(1) for example) keep the last option when mutually > exclusive options are specified. > does it make sense to keep rcs consistent with that convention? also is a man > page diff needed? RCS predates POSIX and does n

mpe patch: use rt_ifa_{add,del}

2014-10-01 Thread Rafael Zalamena
This new diff aims to simplify the mpe(4) device and also to improve the old code that handled the installation of MPLS interface routes. I followed what mpi@ said: On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:00:25AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > Hello Rafael, > > On 14/09/14(Sun) 23:49, Rafael Zalamena wrote:

Re: [Patch] use exit() directly in usage()

2014-10-01 Thread Kent R. Spillner
ok kspillner@. It would be nice to replace some of those exit(1) with exit(EXIT_FAILURE), but that should be a separate diff that also updates the err/errx's as well. > On Oct 1, 2014, at 13:06, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 06:41:25PM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:

Re: [patch]lock and unlock like GnuRCS

2014-10-01 Thread Nicholas Marriott
OTOH, check out what we do with rcs -L and -U... On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 12:54:13AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote: > Matching GNU RCS seems preferable to me but I don't feel strongly about > it. > > I wouldn't mention this in the man page, it hardly seems like behaviour > anyone should (or wil

Re: [patch]lock and unlock like GnuRCS

2014-10-01 Thread Nicholas Marriott
Matching GNU RCS seems preferable to me but I don't feel strongly about it. I wouldn't mention this in the man page, it hardly seems like behaviour anyone should (or will need to) rely on. On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 07:41:52PM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote: > posix commands (like ls(1) for example) k

Re: [patch]lock and unlock like GnuRCS

2014-10-01 Thread Daniel Dickman
posix commands (like ls(1) for example) keep the last option when mutually exclusive options are specified. does it make sense to keep rcs consistent with that convention? also is a man page diff needed? > On Oct 1, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Nicholas Marriott > wrote: > > The existing behaviour isn'

Re: [patch]lock and unlock like GnuRCS

2014-10-01 Thread Nicholas Marriott
The existing behaviour isn't wildly useful, makes sense to me, ok nicm On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 11:33:33PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote: > Hi tech, > > the OpenRCS rcs command produces the following output if -l and -u is > used in the same command: > > $ rcs -l1.1 -u1.1 foo.txt > RCS file:

Re: [Patch] use exit() directly in usage()

2014-10-01 Thread Nicholas Marriott
Please do not change to EXIT_FAILURE. Original message From: "Kent R. Spillner" Date: 01/10/2014 23:41 (GMT+00:00) To: Fritjof Bornebusch Cc: Nicholas Marriott ,tech@openbsd.org,o...@openbsd.org Subject: Re: [Patch] use exit() directly in usage() ok kspillner@.  It wo

[patch]lock and unlock like GnuRCS

2014-10-01 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
Hi tech, the OpenRCS rcs command produces the following output if -l and -u is used in the same command: $ rcs -l1.1 -u1.1 foo.txt RCS file: foo.txt,v 1.1 locked 1.1 unlocked $ rcs -u1.1 -l1.1 foo.txt RCS file: foo.txt,v 1.1 locked 1.1 unlocked I've looked at GnuRCS and it has another way to h

Re: minor fix in sys/arch/i386/i386/apm.c

2014-10-01 Thread Mike Larkin
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:32:53PM -0400, thev...@openmailbox.org wrote: > i don't know if this is considered a bug, so i sent it here instead. > > found this when compiling with 'option APMDEBUG': > cc -Werror -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-main > -Wno-uninitialized -Wsta

Re: [Patch] use exit() directly in usage()

2014-10-01 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 06:41:25PM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote: > Looks good but you have missed out ident.c and rcsprog.c > Ups, sorry. > > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 11:19:29AM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 07:10:01PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote: > > Hi,

Re: [Patch] use exit() directly in usage()

2014-10-01 Thread Nicholas Marriott
Looks good but you have missed out ident.c and rcsprog.c On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 11:19:29AM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 07:10:01PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote: > Hi, > > > Hi, > > > > after usage() was called, there is no where you can go. > > > > as suggest

Re: openssl.cnf req defaults -> default_md sha256

2014-10-01 Thread Joel Sing
On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2014/10/01 19:05, Joel Sing wrote: > > The following does this, however note that the default_bits of 1024 from > > openssl.cnf trumps the 2048 in the define... we probably should also stop > > making EVP_des_ede3_cbc() the default cipher... > > I th

Re: openssl.cnf req defaults -> default_md sha256

2014-10-01 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2014/10/01 19:05, Joel Sing wrote: > > I should also add that the other obvious/easy "fix" is to initialise digest > > in openssl/req.c to the SHA-256 EVP. That only changes 'openssl req' > > though. > > > > > (and yes, clearly I've spent too much time in this code base recently... > > > :) > >

Re: openssl.cnf req defaults -> default_md sha256

2014-10-01 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2014/10/01 18:41, Joel Sing wrote: > On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > Over the coming months, web browsers will progressively start to first > > warn for certificate chains including SHA-1 hashes, then treat them > > as insecure (including disabling certain content - scripts etc).

Re: [Patch] use exit() directly in usage()

2014-10-01 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 07:10:01PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote: Hi, > Hi, > > after usage() was called, there is no where you can go. > as suggested by otto@ and @nicm, the usage() functions are marked as __dead. > fritjof > fritjof Index: ci.c ===

Re: openssl.cnf req defaults -> default_md sha256

2014-10-01 Thread Joel Sing
> I should also add that the other obvious/easy "fix" is to initialise digest > in openssl/req.c to the SHA-256 EVP. That only changes 'openssl req' > though. > > > (and yes, clearly I've spent too much time in this code base recently... > > :) > > > > > Index: openssl.cnf > > > ===

Re: openssl.cnf req defaults -> default_md sha256

2014-10-01 Thread Joel Sing
On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, Joel Sing wrote: > On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > Over the coming months, web browsers will progressively start to first > > warn for certificate chains including SHA-1 hashes, then treat them > > as insecure (including disabling certain content - scripts etc).

Re: openssl.cnf req defaults -> default_md sha256

2014-10-01 Thread Joel Sing
On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, Stuart Henderson wrote: > Over the coming months, web browsers will progressively start to first > warn for certificate chains including SHA-1 hashes, then treat them > as insecure (including disabling certain content - scripts etc). > Chrome are initially doing this for certs e