Re: Userbase of -current
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 10:30:42AM -0500, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 09:34:41PM -0400, a little birdie told me > that Garance A Drosihn remarked > > At 11:18 PM -0700 7/17/01, Peter Wemm wrote: > > >If I had to guess, I'd put the total [genuine] -current userbase > > >at between 20 and 50 people. And many of those intentionally lag > > >by a few weeks to a month or two. I have a strong feeling that the -CURRENT userbase is quite a bit larger than that, but I have nothing conclusive. > > At the kernel-confab at usenix, I heard some people talking about > > how "current wasn't really as bad as people assume it is". I must > > admit I wonder how much current is actively used. I know I try > > to build a new up-to-date current every two or three weeks, but I > > don't do much more on it than test a few changes. I am certainly > > not "stress-testing" it. Almost all of my real day-to-day work is > > done on machines which are tracking -stable. > > FWIW, without extraordinary reason, I don't run 'production' machines on > -CURRENT (I think the last time I did so was when I ran a news server on > 3.0-CURRENT). However, my workstation runs -CURRENT, and my dialup router > does as well (mainly to make it easier to update), my laptop... come to > think of it, almost all my of personal machines run -CURRENT, except for > one that runs 2.1-STABLE (386SX. 4 MB RAM. 80 meg disk. Last benchmark: > 13 days for a buildworld. Don't think I'll update it any time soon). I'll second this. I do all of my daily work on -CURRENT workstations, and I have had no siginificant problems since I started nearly two years ago. Of course, there is always the slim chance of some rogue (ah hem, un-thoroughly-tested) commit destroying something, but I have faith in the developer community. All my personal boxen (three, at the moment) run -CURRENT. I don't know if I would call my general use "stress testing", but touch a large portion of the functionality on a daily (sometimes the days merge...) basis. > -- > Matthew Fuller (MF4839) |[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unix Systems Administrator |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Daniel M. Kurry -- What, no one sings along with Ricky Martin anymore? My kid sister does (but then, she prefers pico to vi ...) -- Suresh Ramasubramanian, alt.sysadmin.recovery To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: conficting cvs version numbers?
> In the web CVS repository, $FreeBSD$ expands to version 1.16 > In my local version, $FreeBSD$ is expanded to version 1.15 > > What could explain this? As someone already mentioned, you may have -k set for that file. If you don't know, send us the output of cvs status immio.c. gh > Jonathon > -- > Microsoft complaining about the source license used by > Linux is like the event horizon calling the kettle black. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: chgrp broken on alpha systems
> Actually, the growing realization (at least to me) that the problem > probably cannot be solved except via software tools, unless the FreeBSD > community gets more like the NetBSD community in terms of awareness- > which can only happen if it happens. > > I don't know how you feel about it, but I believe that this *is* > productive. We can then spend a lot less time with unmet expectations, > once the expecations are more realistically set, yes? Absolutely, I agree entirely that Something Is Wrong and that the FreeBSD development community would benefit from some modifications to policy and more importantly to attitude The general realization is most productive, but you have to go around all the bickering. Nothing really. We now return to regularly scheduled programming. gh > -matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: chgrp broken on alpha systems
> > I have to laugh. Sorry if you don't that helps. S'long then. I've no > > more time for the likes of you. > > *rolls eyes* Man, some people are hard to work in a team with. You guys are still trying to pass this off as a team?? *boggle* gh (Yeah yeah, unproductive..but what part of this thread /has/ been?) > Kris To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: chgrp broken on alpha systems
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 09:54:50AM +0200, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > Gentlemen, > > Please? I will happily supply you with ample quantities of quality > Dutch mud to sling at one another. But please do so in private? But think of the money we'll save on wrestling tickets. gh > > tnx > Wilko > > > Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> There is, in my mailbox, a grotesque and unforgiveable insult from you > >> from some months back. You deserve no respect whatsoever. > > > > Heh. You're so cute. > > > > DES > > -- > > Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > > > -- > | / o / / _ Arnhem, The Netherlandsemail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > |/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte > http://www.FreeBSD.org > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: convert libgmp to a port?
*snip* > No. We are talking about removing a GPL infected library from the base > tree that is used by a couple of utterly performance irrelevant utilities > and making these couple of utilities (secure-rpc key generation tools) > use the OpenSSL bignum API - where OpenSSL has a BSD-style license. > > This has absolutely no effect on openssl at all. > > > Really? This hardly seems like a good idea. > > No. We can't plug libgmp into openssl anyway due to GPL infection and the > resulting license conflicts. openssl *explicitly* may not be distributed > under GPL. And building libgmp into openssl would require exactly that. *snip* Oh, I see. Nevermind then, sounds good. (Somehow I missed the libgmp<->GPL relationship.) gh (Apologies to the CC's who didn't need this aside.) > Cheers, > -Peter > -- > Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: convert libgmp to a port?
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 01:15:12PM -0700, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 12:44:40PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 01:51:56PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > > > > libbn is already part of OpenSSH; it's a trivial matter to make it >^^^ > I meant to say OpenSSL here, of course. > > > > > into a standalone library. In other words, we already include two > > > > functionally equivalent bignum libraries in FreeBSD, so one of them > > > > should go. > > > > > > I couldn't agree more :) > > > > I'm going to word this strongly, mostly because I feel > > strongly about the underlying issues. > > > > The SSL one is known to be very slow, and was written > > as a proof of concept by the author. Please read the > > release notes; it is seriously slow. Replacing it will > > increase your SSL performance significantly. > > I know of no-one who has developed patches to make OpenSSL work with > an external math library (e.g. libgmp). The OpenSSL guys are very > interested in cleaning up their legacy code; you should work with them > if you are interested. > > In FreeBSD, the only use of the libgmp code is for non-speed-critical > applications, so replacing it with a less efficient library doesn't > cost anything. libgmp will still exist in ports for applications > which want to make use of a more efficient library. > Am I understanding this correctly? We currently have implemented a more efficient library than one you propose expending effort to plug in? You propose that people remove the currently implemented and more efficient library and replace it with a less-efficient library of non-native BSD origin? Really? This hardly seems like a good idea. gh > Kris To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP! bad bug in -current.
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 12:15:34PM -0700, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > Any -current kernel built over the weekend is a likely victim of this bug. > In a nutshell, it will eat your root filesystem at the very least, leaving > you with maybe one or two files in /lost+found. spec_vnops.c rev 1.156 > is should be avoided at all costs. > > BEWARE: there are some snapshots on current.freebsd.org with this bug. They > will self destruct after install. > > --- Forwarded Messages *snip* Say, FreeBSD is usually pretty safe, even in CURRENT. Has something near this magnitude of Really Bad Stuffage snuck into the codebase before? (This is just for my personal knowledge. I don't remeber anything this bad in recent times.) gh To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: faster worlds...
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 06:03:57PM -0800, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > I read something (somewhere) about speeding up buildworlds with a ramdisk > mounted to /usr/obj *IF* you have a lot of RAM but I cant seem to find it > anymore. Any help? What are you guys doing to speed up your worlds? Are I suppose you could do so. I have no experience with that, though. Ram just recently became relatively cheap. ;-) `du -d0 -c /usr/obj` 316617 /usr/obj 316617 total > people still passing -j# option to make or is that old school now? > Passing -j4 to my dual p3-500 didn't speed up buildworld at all but it speed > up the kernel build/install plenty. Unfortunately it broke the installworld > so I just did the installworld without the -j4 and it was fine. C'mon guys, > spit out the tips-n-tricks :) I still pass the -j option, usually a -j4 for a single-proc Athlon 700 with 256MB ram. I have not actually checked to see if it sped stuff up. ;-) Parallelizing installworld's is probably not going to work (as you have seen), and I think that it is even suggested *not* to. Heck, I even ran a -j64 once: 1229962.595u 3178499.752s 7:19:05.10 16733.5% 0+0k 52750+382894io 3616pf+477w That slowed things down a whole bunch, seven hours. I run a make -j4 buildworld/installword of -current on what has become a daily basis. It is probably not a good idea to do so blindly without tracking the lists. dan > OF > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: More on system hangs ... IRQ related?
On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 10:40:37PM -0800, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 11:42:22PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > Okay, are there any known problems with the SB128 cards? Figuring that it > > couldn't hurt to remove it, I did ... so far, X hasn't hung ... not > > Hum... interesting. I also have a PCI SB128 card and one hang when I was > using mpg123 and then started a newfs. The SB128's IRQ isn't shared with > anything else. But I was also having much hangs on heavy disk traffic. > > http://people.freebsd.org/~jhb/intr2.patch has fixed my problems so far. This seems to be my luck: -- The file http://people.freebsd.org/~jhb/intr2.patch does not exist at this server. -- Where can I otherwise get this patch? Does anybody know if/how this affects the SoundBlaster Live!? I have seen XFree86-4 crashes frequently, but only while using the soundcard (specifically, while using xmms). I suspected the X server, originally, because I am running HEAD CVS, but it is seeming more and more like something related to the soundcard could be the culprit. Basically, the machine locks solid and requires a hard reboot. I have no crash dumps, or any log entries, just a big fat hard lock. It usually crashes if I am playing audio (mp3's) and doing something like a buildworld or a make World of XFree86. Thanks for anything, dan > > -- > -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: (no subject)
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 11:27:24AM +0530, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > unsubscribe freebsd-current You need to send messages like this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] By the way, we tell you this at the bottom of every mail from the list. ;-) dan > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: unknown:
> IF and ONLY IF the PNPBIOS code is causing your machine to fail, do the > following: > > - Send me FULL DETAILS; this will need to include the trap messages and, >if the trap is in the kernel, a DDB traceback. > The described situation actually occured to me tonight (5-28-2000) while trying to install. Rather than check the list for a solution, I went back to the 4.0 boot disks (which worked really well) and changed them to setup a snapshot (5.0-2528-CURRENT). If you so desire (which presumably is the case), I can just boot up the current floppies and try to send you the information you request. I apologize for being currently un-helpful, but I will try to help if you still need so. Dan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: Archive pruning
For an opinion from a reasonably new-comer and non-developer, I think at least the main source tree should remain *completely* complete. As someone mentioned, why not have "lite" mirrors? Dan K. gh | On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: | | > On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, you wrote: | > | > > I told myself I wouldn't get into this debate with you again, Richard, but | > > you're not listening. The vast majority (all? I might have missed one) of | > > the other respondants | > | > Actually, I didn't start this. Someone else brought up the idea. | | I did. I wanted to test the opinions. I said I had enough responses, | about 40 messages ago. Damn, people, if you're *really* tired of hearing | from Richard on this, for god's sake control your keyboards, they're | running amuck! | | Let's see if you guys can just let it die, ok? | | > The quiet majority that might benefit are not very likely to speak up when | > they are told some is impossible. | | Quiet majority hehe! Right | | -- -- | Chuck Robey| Interests include C & Java programming, FreeBSD, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | electronics, communications, and signal processing. | | New Year's Resolution: I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up | fictitious words in the dictionary. | -- -- | | | | To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message | To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
