On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:33:58PM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:
Here's a silly ed(1) session:
$ ed -p :
: P
P
*q
$
Notice how the prompt string changed from the custom prompt : to
the default prompt *.
This behavior seems to contradict both the man page and POSIX:
From ed(1):
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:25:13PM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:
Index: usr.bin/openssl/openssl.1
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/openssl/openssl.1,v
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -p -r1.13 openssl.1
--- usr.bin/openssl/openssl.1
The net80211 stack assumes drivers will switch IEEE80211_S_* states in
interrupt context. iwm(4) does not follow this rule. Since it insists on
responses from firmware commands to look for success or failure and it
uses tsleep() to wait for responses it cannot switch state in interrupt
context.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 03:56:15PM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:
From looking at the source code, I'm quite sure that the other BSD's
behavior is the same as the current behavior in OpenBSD.
I agree that the formulations in the manpages and POSIX aren't explicit,
let alone unambiguous, as to
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:16:08PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:33:58PM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:
Here's a silly ed(1) session:
$ ed -p :
: P
P
*q
$
Notice how the prompt string changed from the custom prompt : to
the default prompt *.
This
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Jason McIntyre j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 03:56:15PM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:
From looking at the source code, I'm quite sure that the other BSD's
behavior is the same as the current behavior in OpenBSD.
I agree that the formulations
On 06/18/15 15:18, Jason McIntyre wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 03:56:15PM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:
From looking at the source code, I'm quite sure that the other BSD's
behavior is the same as the current behavior in OpenBSD.
I agree that the formulations in the manpages and POSIX aren't
On Wednesday 17 June 2015, Karel Gardas wrote:
Hello,
I'm curious if anybody is working on implementing block-level
checksumming on softraid?
Not that I'm aware of.
Backgroud: I'm comming from Solaris 11/ZFS world and I like ZFS's
focus on data integrity from drive level up to the RAM.
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:53:57 +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
*edp1* and *edp2* could be used uninitialized, if *goto closem;* is called.
I don't think so. If dirp1 is non-NULL, so must edp1 be. Likewise
for dirp2 and edp2. The compiler just doesn't know that scandir()
does not modify its
If an application (say, named) is removed from base, but still included
in ports, it it the policy to remove references to that application from
base applications' manpages?
If yes, diff below.
Index: dig.1
===
RCS file:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:50:48PM -0500, Dutch Ingraham wrote:
If an application (say, named) is removed from base, but still included
in ports, it it the policy to remove references to that application from
base applications' manpages?
generally, yes. but in this case i'm less sure...the
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 01:22:31PM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
I think Theo's proposed change is correct.
ok daniel@
just to be clear, i'm not looking for oks for theo's patch. i am waiting
to see what happens, and then i'll decide if we need to do anything to
the docs.
as i said, i'm
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Joel Sing j...@sing.id.au wrote:
Re adding some form of checksumming, it only seems to make sense in the case
of RAID 1 where you can decide that the data on a disk is invalid, then fail
the read and pull the data from another drive. That coupled with block
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:49:32PM +0200, Pablo Méndez Hernández wrote:
Hi,
El 18/6/2015 22:46, Fritjof Bornebusch frit...@alokat.org escribiA^3:
Hi tech@,
*logins is omitted* sounds a little strange, doesn't it?
logins as a keyword?
Yes, but if you read it,
What about this comma.
I saw a few manpages, having it at this location.
Regards,
--F.
Index: merge.1
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/merge.1,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.3 merge.1
--- merge.1 28 Oct 2010
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 09:48:23PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:33:53PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Hi tech@,
isn't there a comma missing?
depends how you like your commas. if i were writing it, i'd have the
comma. but many wouldn;t, and it's
Hi tech@,
isn't there a comma missing?
Regards,
--F.
Index: ci.1
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/ci.1,v
retrieving revision 1.38
diff -u -p -r1.38 ci.1
--- ci.112 Aug 2013 14:19:53 - 1.38
+++ ci.118 Jun
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:33:53PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Hi tech@,
isn't there a comma missing?
depends how you like your commas. if i were writing it, i'd have the
comma. but many wouldn;t, and it's certainly not wrong.
the reason i like that last comma is demonstrated with
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:59:37PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
What about this comma.
I saw a few manpages, having it at this location.
Regards,
--F.
Index: merge.1
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/merge.1,v
Hi tech@,
*logins is omitted* sounds a little strange, doesn't it?
Regards,
--F.
Index: rlog.1
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/rlog.1,v
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -p -r1.24 rlog.1
--- rlog.1 3 Sep 2010 11:09:29 -
Joel,
yes, I will work on your recommended RAID1 with checksumming of
course. Just forgotten to add that.
Thanks,
Karel
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Karel Gardas gard...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Joel Sing j...@sing.id.au wrote:
Re adding some form of checksumming,
Hi,
El 18/6/2015 22:46, Fritjof Bornebusch frit...@alokat.org escribió:
Hi tech@,
*logins is omitted* sounds a little strange, doesn't it?
logins as a keyword?
Regards.
Pablo
Regards,
--F.
Index: rlog.1
===
RCS file:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:44:07PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Hi tech@,
*logins is omitted* sounds a little strange, doesn't it?
it does, because in your head you're thinking of logins as being the
plural of login (i.e. more than one login). but you can also - correctly -
think of
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 09:57:13PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:44:07PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Hi tech@,
*logins is omitted* sounds a little strange, doesn't it?
it does, because in your head you're thinking of logins as being the
plural of login
On 2015-06-13, Alexandre Ratchov a...@caoua.org wrote:
Many thanks to all who tested, below is an updated diff with the
missing i386 bits and working uaudio.
I have run into a serious problem on sparc64 (but I haven't tested
elsewhere).
I've added -L- to the sndiod flags and I'm streaming
Sweet. I'll knockup a patch and send it upstream shortly.
Ian McWilliam
From: Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas [j...@wxcvbn.org]
Sent: Thursday, 18 June 2015 8:11 PM
To: Ian Mcwilliam
Cc: Stuart Henderson; Mark Kettenis; tech@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: samba4 slow
Ian Mcwilliam i.mcwill...@uws.edu.au writes:
Curiously from
--- samba-4.0.3/wscript Tue Dec 4 21:07:44 2012
+++ samba-4.0.26/wscript Mon Dec 8 18:46:38 2014
-if sys.platform != openbsd4:
+if not sys.platform.startswith(openbsd):
conf.env.asneeded_ldflags =
Index: usr.bin/openssl/openssl.1
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/openssl/openssl.1,v
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -p -r1.13 openssl.1
--- usr.bin/openssl/openssl.1 28 Feb 2015 21:51:56 - 1.13
+++
Here's a silly ed(1) session:
$ ed -p :
: P
P
*q
$
Notice how the prompt string changed from the custom prompt : to
the default prompt *.
This behavior seems to contradict both the man page and POSIX:
From ed(1):
-p string Specifies a command prompt. This may be toggled on and off
29 matches
Mail list logo
