On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 08:22:08PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Given that wd3e is a name for a disk special file with defined size, it
> would seem that we should change that. It seems to make just as much
> sense to probe wd3[a-p] as it does to probe wd3 (which is wd3d).
You can change the
Paul Ripke writes:
> I just finished an update build for netbsd-10 amd64 - apart from some
> flist shenanigans, it went smoothly.
Thanks. I also removed my tools objdir and restarted, and that didn't
seem to fix it, and then I re-did includes. Now I have succeeeded to
the point of flist
mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst) writes:
> g...@lexort.com (Greg Troxel) writes:
>
>>David Brownlee writes:
>>> https://gnats.netbsd.org/57583
>
>>Do you think this is just a bug that it fails to look at wd3e
>>etc. wrongly if there is /dev/zfs?
>
> The code scans all devices in the
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 02:21:33PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I'm doing an update build, but I did a cleandir in libc. This file
> fails and the rest of gdtoa seems troubled too. (up to date netbsd-10)
>
> ~/NetBSD-10/src/lib/libc > /usr/obj/gdt-10/tools/bin/nbmake-amd64
> # compile
g...@lexort.com (Greg Troxel) writes:
>David Brownlee writes:
>> https://gnats.netbsd.org/57583
>Do you think this is just a bug that it fails to look at wd3e
>etc. wrongly if there is /dev/zfs?
The code scans all devices in the specified device directory, unless
it's /dev/. Then it uses
David Brownlee writes:
> https://gnats.netbsd.org/57583
Do you think this is just a bug that it fails to look at wd3e
etc. wrongly if there is /dev/zfs?
What is the point of /dev/zfs (is that how zpool/zfs control works?) and
is there any reason this should matter? Do you think this is this
I'm doing an update build, but I did a cleandir in libc. This file
fails and the rest of gdtoa seems troubled too. (up to date netbsd-10)
~/NetBSD-10/src/lib/libc > /usr/obj/gdt-10/tools/bin/nbmake-amd64
# compile libc/dtoa.o
/usr/obj/gdt-10/tools/bin/x86_64--netbsd-gcc -O2 -std=gnu99
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 22:16, Jay F. Shachter wrote:
>
> Esteemed Colleagues:
>
> I have a multiboot computer on which Solaris, Linux, and NetBSD 10
> BETA have all been successfully installed (I couldn't install NetBSD
> 9.3) and they are all sharing storage on a ZFS pool, because all three
> of
On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 at 13:32, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> In contemplating bulk builds and resources, I wonder if there are still
> people who:
>
> are running NetBSD/i386 (as opposed to amd64)
>
> are using the binary packges from quarterly branches on ftp.netbsd.org
>
> are running NetBSD 10
Benny Siegert writes:
> I would like to create NetBSD 10 based CI images for Go in the near future.
> Having binary packages for i386 makes this immensely easier.
Thanks. There are been several people who say they'd use them, so that
seems enough not to rock the boat. You just never know
I would like to create NetBSD 10 based CI images for Go in the near future.
Having binary packages for i386 makes this immensely easier.
--
Benny
> Am 13.08.2023 um 14:32 schrieb Greg Troxel :
>
> In contemplating bulk builds and resources, I wonder if there are still
> people who:
>
> are
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 08:32:20AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
In contemplating bulk builds and resources, I wonder if there are still
people who:
are running NetBSD/i386 (as opposed to amd64)
I have an old i386 System that is on 9.3, once 10.0
is released I plan on upgrading that system to
mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst) writes:
> g...@lexort.com (Greg Troxel) writes:
>
>>it was underpowered, that I might or might not ever power up again, and
>>if I did I wouldn't use ftp.n.o packages on it.
>
> What else? Self-compiling on a system you already consider outdated? :)
I would
g...@lexort.com (Greg Troxel) writes:
>it was underpowered, that I might or might not ever power up again, and
>if I did I wouldn't use ftp.n.o packages on it.
What else? Self-compiling on a system you already consider outdated? :)
Binary packages are more important on systems that we consider
Greg Troxel wrote:
> In contemplating bulk builds and resources, I wonder if there are still
> people who:
>
> are running NetBSD/i386 (as opposed to amd64)
>
> are using the binary packges from quarterly branches on ftp.netbsd.org
>
> are running NetBSD 10 already, or who intend to move
In contemplating bulk builds and resources, I wonder if there are still
people who:
are running NetBSD/i386 (as opposed to amd64)
are using the binary packges from quarterly branches on ftp.netbsd.org
are running NetBSD 10 already, or who intend to move to it soon or
after release
If
On Sat, 12 Aug 2023, Kevin Bowling wrote:
Here's a sample, this one is a bit better since the cc1plus processes
stick around for a bit longer but it still shows the WCPU% not adding
up near the global CPU stats. I can annotate it as an image if it is
still not clear.
load averages: 6.15,
17 matches
Mail list logo
