I build out of my UFS-only VM in VMware Fusion from time to time, and
it looks like there's a large chunk of processes that are swapped out when
doing two parallel builds:
last pid: 27644; load averages: 2.43, 0.94, 0.98
On Jun 5, 2012, at 7:10 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 05, 2012 9:27:51 am Matthias Apitz wrote:
>> El día Thursday, May 31, 2012 a las 11:34:55AM -0400, John Baldwin escribió:
>>
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
if_vxn.c: In function 'vxn_load_multicast':
if_vxn.c
On Jun 9, 2012, at 4:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> Ok, never mind the last one ... this patch I've actually tested. :)
This one looks good :) (and fixes the item I briefly mentioned in IRC);
I'll test it one out.
Thanks!
-Garrett___
freebsd-curre
Ok, never mind the last one ... this patch I've actually tested. :)
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Index: kern.post.mk
===
--- kern.post.mk(revision 236818)
+++ kern.post.mk(working copy
TB --- 2012-06-09 19:20:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-06-09 19:20:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
TB --- 2012-06-09 19:20:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-06-09 19:20:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
TB --- 2012-06-09 19:20:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-06-09 19:20:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
Ok, after reading your PR and discussion on IRC I have the following
which incorporates all the suggestions so far. I haven't actually tested
this yet, but if people agree that this is the right direction to go I
will before I commit it of course.
Doug
--
It's always a long day; 8640
On 2012-06-09 21:57, O. Hartmann wrote:
...
> Now, with your patch set installed again, graphics/dri compiles without
> a flaw.
>
> I was wondering why there are not more people/FreeBSD users out there
> having the very same problem.
Most likely because neither WITH_NEW_XORG nor CC=clang are defa
TB --- 2012-06-09 19:20:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-06-09 19:20:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
On 06/09/12 19:34, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2012-06-09 19:00, O. Hartmann wrote:
> ...
>> I try to track down problems on one of our FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT/amd64
>> boxes and therefore, I try recompiling "xorg".
>>
>> One box is constantly failing to compile port graphics/dri with a
>> obviously we
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> On 06/09/2012 10:40, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>> On 09/06/2012 18:26, Chris Rees wrote:
>>> On 9 June 2012 18:15, Doug Barton wrote:
I have recently tried the PORTS_MODULES knob, and f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 06/09/2012 10:40, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 18:26, Chris Rees wrote:
>> On 9 June 2012 18:15, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> I have recently tried the PORTS_MODULES knob, and found a
>>> problem. The ports tree searches for some dependenci
The same one I had problems earlier. I heard
that you shouldn't have boost* ports installed
prior, but when I had problems I didn't.
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Re-Why-Are-You-NOT-Using-FreeBSD-tp5714183p5716943.html
Sent from the freebsd-current mailin
On 09/06/2012 18:26, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 9 June 2012 18:15, Doug Barton wrote:
>> I have recently tried the PORTS_MODULES knob, and found a problem. The
>> ports tree searches for some dependencies by finding a binary in PATH,
>> and that fails since by default /usr/local/ isn't there. The atta
On 2012-06-09 19:00, O. Hartmann wrote:
...
> I try to track down problems on one of our FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT/amd64
> boxes and therefore, I try recompiling "xorg".
>
> One box is constantly failing to compile port graphics/dri with a
> obviously well know error, as "googling" reveals (
> http://l
On 9 June 2012 18:15, Doug Barton wrote:
> I have recently tried the PORTS_MODULES knob, and found a problem. The
> ports tree searches for some dependencies by finding a binary in PATH,
> and that fails since by default /usr/local/ isn't there. The attached
> patch fixes that problem.
>
> It woul
On 06/09/12 18:03, Jakub Lach wrote:
> I just have successfully (*) build LibreOffice by just typing
> # make build in editors/libreoffice...
>
> * Without any manually removed hiccups. Dependencies
> build with clang fine too, as graphics/vigra is updated.
>
>
>
> --
Did you made the built i
I have recently tried the PORTS_MODULES knob, and found a problem. The
ports tree searches for some dependencies by finding a binary in PATH,
and that fails since by default /usr/local/ isn't there. The attached
patch fixes that problem.
It would be more robust to use PREFIX there instead of /usr/
I try to track down problems on one of our FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT/amd64
boxes and therefore, I try recompiling "xorg".
One box is constantly failing to compile port graphics/dri with a
obviously well know error, as "googling" reveals (
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2011-December/016
I just have successfully (*) build LibreOffice by just typing
# make build in editors/libreoffice...
* Without any manually removed hiccups. Dependencies
build with clang fine too, as graphics/vigra is updated.
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Re-Why-Are-Y
On 06/09/12 15:43, Adam Strohl wrote:
> On 6/9/2012 14:50, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> Lucky man! We are "off" from some desktop services (like LibreOffice and
>> Firefox) for more than a week now!
>
> Why did you update to begin with? Bug/security fix?
>
> --
> Adam Strohl
> http://www.ateamsystems.
On 6/9/2012 14:50, O. Hartmann wrote:
Lucky man! We are "off" from some desktop services (like LibreOffice and
Firefox) for more than a week now!
Why did you update to begin with? Bug/security fix?
--
Adam Strohl
http://www.ateamsystems.com/
___
fre
On 06/09/12 14:53, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2012-06-09 14:14, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> My FreeBSD 10-CURRENT/amd64 boxes fail to build Thunderbird 13 compiling
>> with CLANG. The error is very much the same as when I try compiling
>> Firefox 13 on the same box with CLANG.
> ...
>
> I'm not sure thi
On 2012-06-09 14:14, O. Hartmann wrote:
> My FreeBSD 10-CURRENT/amd64 boxes fail to build Thunderbird 13 compiling
> with CLANG. The error is very much the same as when I try compiling
> Firefox 13 on the same box with CLANG.
...
I'm not sure this problem is related to clang at all, see below.
>
My FreeBSD 10-CURRENT/amd64 boxes fail to build Thunderbird 13 compiling
with CLANG. The error is very much the same as when I try compiling
Firefox 13 on the same box with CLANG.
I tried to track down the problem, but I failed. Bot systems are used to
have very similar setups and ports, both boxe
On 06/09/12 11:28, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2012-06-09 09:43, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> On 06/08/12 14:51, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>>> We still have MD5 as our default password hash, even though known-hash
>>> attacks against MD5 are relatively easy these days. We've supported
>>> SHA256 and SHA5
On 2012-06-09 09:43, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On 06/08/12 14:51, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>> We still have MD5 as our default password hash, even though known-hash
>> attacks against MD5 are relatively easy these days. We've supported
>> SHA256 and SHA512 for many years now, so how about making SHA5
On 06/09/12 06:45, Adam Strohl wrote:
> On 6/9/2012 3:34, Steve Franks wrote:
>> Every time libjpeg or
>> perl or python bumps the rev, I have to explain to my boss that I
>> won't be using my computer for 48 hours.
Lucky man! We are "off" from some desktop services (like LibreOffice and
Firefox)
On 06/08/12 14:51, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> We still have MD5 as our default password hash, even though known-hash
> attacks against MD5 are relatively easy these days. We've supported
> SHA256 and SHA512 for many years now, so how about making SHA512 the
> default instead of MD5, like on most
30 matches
Mail list logo
