mplayer fails to compile on amd64 machine
Dear kind folks, Running Amd64 FreeBSD 8.0 updated l/live/groupsock/libgroupsock.a -lm -rpath=/usr/lib:/usr/local/lib -Wl,-rpath=/usr/local/lib/gcc46 -liconv /usr/lib/libncurses.so -lpng -lz -ljpeg -lungif -L/usr/local/lib -lfreetype -lz -lbz2 -lfontconfig -lz /usr/lib/libbz2.so -llzo2 -lmad -lspeex -L/usr/local/lib -ltheora -logg-lstdc++ -L/usr/local/lib -lrtmp -lz -lssl -lcrypto -ldv -pthread -rdynamic -L/usr/local/lib -L/usr/local/lib -L/usr/local/lib -lv4l1 -lv4l2 -lrtmp -lXext -lX11 -pthread -lXss -lXv -lvdpau -lXinerama -lXxf86vm -lXxf86dga -laa -lcaca -lvga -lSDL -lGL -pthread -lgtk-x11-2.0 -lgdk-x11-2.0 -latk-1.0 -lpangocairo-1.0 -lXext -lXrender -lXinerama -lXi -lXrandr -lXcursor -lXcomposite -lXdamage -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lpangoft2-1.0 -lgio-2.0 -lXfixes -lcairo -lX11 -lpango-1.0 -lm -lfreetype -lfontconfig -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -lgthread-2.0 -lglib-2.0 -lglib-2.0 ffmpeg/libavcodec/libavcodec.a(ffv1.o): In function `find_best_state': /usr/ports/multimedia/mplayer/work/mplayer-export-2011-12-18/ffmpeg/libavcodec/ffv1.c:243: undefined reference to `log2' ffmpeg/libavcodec/libavcodec.a(aacsbr.o): In function `sbr_make_f_master': /usr/ports/multimedia/mplayer/work/mplayer-export-2011-12-18/ffmpeg/libavcodec/aacsbr.c:428: undefined reference to `log2f' /usr/ports/multimedia/mplayer/work/mplayer-export-2011-12-18/ffmpeg/libavcodec/aacsbr.c:456: undefined reference to `log2f' ffmpeg/libavcodec/libavcodec.a(aacsbr.o): In function `sbr_make_f_derived': /usr/ports/multimedia/mplayer/work/mplayer-export-2011-12-18/ffmpeg/libavcodec/aacsbr.c:580: undefined reference to `log2f' /usr/ports/multimedia/mplayer/work/mplayer-export-2011-12-18/ffmpeg/libavcodec/aacsbr.c:580: undefined reference to `log2f' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status gmake: *** [mplayer] Error 1 *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/multimedia/mplayer. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/multimedia/mplayer. ===>>> make failed for multimedia/mplayer ===>>> Aborting update ===>>> Update for multimedia/mplayer failed ===>>> Aborting update Terminated /usr/src/UPDATING shows nothing relevant. ideas/suggestions/advice/comments are welcome and appreciated. Regards, Antonio ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
RE: FreeBSD 9
> -Original Message-
> From: 'Frank Shute' [mailto:fr...@shute.org.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:52 PM
> To: Devin Teske
> Cc: 'Chad Perrin'; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Dave Robison
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 02:36:29PM -0800, Devin Teske wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > I believe the "difficulty in maintenance" stems primarily from the
> > > > fact that the existing partition editor MAY have to be entirely
> > > > rewritten to accommodate other root filesystem types (but even
> > > > that's not entirely true -- if done right).
> > > >
> > > > Other than that, it's most likely just FUD and misperception that
> > > > sysinstall(8) is either (a) hard to maintain or (b) hard to
> > > > extend. -- Devin
> > >
> > > To quote the manpage for sysinstall:
> > >
> > > BUGS
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This utility is a prototype which lasted several years past
> > > its expira- tion date and is greatly in need of death.
> > >
> > > There are a (great) number of undocumented variables. UTSL.
> > >
> >
> > Perspective.
> >
> > Let's take a look at the commit history for this manual.
>
> Let's not. Let us discuss the merit of what the manpage says.
>
> "There are a (great) number of undocumented variables."
>
> From my reading of postings to this list and stable@,
yet not -sysinstall@ (?!)
> it was felt that sysinstall
> couldn't be extended without a total re-write, that seems to suggest that the
> manpage is right and is not FUD.
>
I disagree. Just because you document something doesn't make it true.
I've already discussed the fact that the first line you quoted ("in need of
death") is 15+ years old and we have no way of tracking its origin and thus
can't extrapolate why on-Earth it was put into a "release-quality product" in
the first place.
The second line you quote (which was added 2 years 10 months ago via SVN r189754
by grog@) has everything to do with highlighting the fact that sysinstall(8) is
highly scriptable through a large number of under-documented dispatch keywords
and nothing to do with the "total re-write" issue you're discussing.
Plus, the keywords are a lot more documented than you think. If a dispatch word
is not documented, there's probably good cause (a great number of the dispatch
keywords are meant for internal use only and their documentation would merely
invite strangeness only reserved for people that know what they're doing -- i.e.
they can read the code to learn what their function is).
However, I will concede to the fact that the number of dispatch keywords that
are documented versus ones that CAN be used is only about 33%.
Here's how I generated that number...
awk '/VAR_/{sub(/[^"]*"/,"");sub(/"$/,"");print}'
/usr/src/usr.sbin/sysinstall/sysinstall.h | sh -c 'while read var;do zgrep -q
"\<$var\>" /usr/share/man/man8/sysinstall.8.gz &&
varcount=$((${varcount:-0}+1));done;echo $varcount'
This returns the number of variables -- as-defined-as a dispatch keyword in
sysinstall.h -- are present in the manual.
In 9.0-RELEASE, it returns "33" for me.
In contrast with the number of dispatch keywords, obtainable by:
awk '/VAR_/{print}' | wc -l
which returns 105 for me ... minus the "markedly internal keywords" which begin
with "_"...
awk '/VAR_/{print}' | grep -vc '"_'
We see 101 supposedly-usable dispatch keywords which brings us to about 33%
documentation.
However, I will re-iterate...
The first quote you pulled from the man-page was made 15+ years ago, the second
quote you pulled was from 2+ years ago and the two are not related. The first
declares some inferred quality about the code itself and the second simply
states that the variable keywords are under-documented. One not-necessarily
imply the other or vice-versa.
--
Devin
> >
> > Try as you might, you can't go back far-enough to find when that
> > message was even added. However, you can see where the message was
> > tweaked slightly by a couple people:
> >
> > SVN r49961 by mpp@ addressing PR docs/13148 and docs/13144
> >
> > Prior to-which the message said "3 years past" (s/3/several/)
> >
> > SVN r40275 by jkh@ (no PR mentioned)
> >
> > Prior to-which the message said "2 years past" (s/2/3/)
> >
> > So, literally for the past 15+ years, the man-page has said
> > essentially the same thing "prototype ... in need of death."
> >
> > I raise the hypothesis that:
> >
> > a. The "prototype ... in need of death" message in the man-page was
> > added by the original author, whom...
> >
> > b. ...had self-esteem issues on that particular day (hence the
> > self-denigrating remark about one's code).
> >
> > I further pontificate that once the original author relinquished
> > control of sysinstall(8) (whomever that may be -- since commit logs
> > don't go back that far) that one of the 2-dozen-plus committers should
> > have removed that message to quell evident propagation of FUD against
> > sysinstall(8)).
> >
> > Afterall, who's to say that sysin
Re: FreeBSD 9
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 02:36:29PM -0800, Devin Teske wrote: > > > > > > > > > I believe the "difficulty in maintenance" stems primarily from > > > the fact that the existing partition editor MAY have to be > > > entirely rewritten to accommodate other root filesystem types > > > (but even that's not entirely true -- if done right). > > > > > > Other than that, it's most likely just FUD and misperception > > > that sysinstall(8) is either (a) hard to maintain or (b) hard to > > > extend. -- Devin > > > > To quote the manpage for sysinstall: > > > > BUGS > > > > > > > > This utility is a prototype which lasted several years past > > its expira- tion date and is greatly in need of death. > > > > There are a (great) number of undocumented variables. UTSL. > > > > Perspective. > > Let's take a look at the commit history for this manual. Let's not. Let us discuss the merit of what the manpage says. "There are a (great) number of undocumented variables." From my reading of postings to this list and stable@, it was felt that sysinstall couldn't be extended without a total re-write, that seems to suggest that the manpage is right and is not FUD. > > Try as you might, you can't go back far-enough to find when that > message was even added. However, you can see where the message was > tweaked slightly by a couple people: > > SVN r49961 by mpp@ addressing PR docs/13148 and docs/13144 > > Prior to-which the message said "3 years past" (s/3/several/) > > SVN r40275 by jkh@ (no PR mentioned) > > Prior to-which the message said "2 years past" (s/2/3/) > > So, literally for the past 15+ years, the man-page has said > essentially the same thing "prototype ... in need of death." > > I raise the hypothesis that: > > a. The "prototype ... in need of death" message in the man-page was > added by the original author, whom... > > b. ...had self-esteem issues on that particular day (hence the > self-denigrating remark about one's code). > > I further pontificate that once the original author relinquished > control of sysinstall(8) (whomever that may be -- since commit logs > don't go back that far) that one of the 2-dozen-plus committers > should have removed that message to quell evident propagation of FUD > against sysinstall(8)). > > Afterall, who's to say that sysinstall(8) was still a prototype when > it was being used for several major releases in production and > enterprise environments. > > But instead, this entry in the man-page was not removed, > year-after-year, but instead maintained (with no apparent rhyme or > reason). > > The situation is the exact opposite of what we're seeing with > bsdinstall. sysinstall(8) was added to the tree as a "prototype" > yet was stable. Now we see bsdinstall added to the tree as a > NON-prototype yet is NOT-stable or free of show-stoppers! > > > > I welcome the new installer. sysinstall was a piece of buggy > > garbage that gave > a > > pretty poor first impression of FreeBSD. > > > > I think we have some very different opinions of what "buggy" is. It didn't do what you asked it to do on occasion. It violated pola wholesale. That didn't bother me much. I'd become familiarised with it and could work round all that to get a minimal system installed but it was a pretty poor experience for newbies. > > > > The new installer will get better with time. > > > > The new installer is buggy, and the above maxim is something I'd > rather not have to deal with when downloading RELEASE software. I don't doubt that the new installer may be buggy in parts but so was sysinstall and nobody was tempted to fix it. At least with bsdinstall people are actively developing it. > > RELEASE software shouldn't be released under the statement "it will > get better with time". Releasing feature-INcomplete software that is > known to be broken hurts the FreeBSD impression far more than > sysinstall ever could/did. I feel your argument is an attempt to > justify the egregious offense of foisting premature software on the > community when in-fact it does NOT replicate even a fraction of the > abilities of sysinstall. > > IMHO. -- Devin It's a chicken/egg situation. Eventually you have to release software that is possibly buggy/feature incomplete or nobody tests it and files pr's. Arguments can be had about whether it was released too soon but I'm not tempted to get into them. It's odd that sysinstall should get support now, it got bugger all support when it was alive. Regards, -- Frank Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html pgpCzji05GI3y.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: FreeBSD 9
> -Original Message- > From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- > questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Devin Teske > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:33 PM > To: 'Chad Perrin'; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Cc: Dave Robison > Subject: RE: FreeBSD 9 > [snip] > > If FreeBSD had decided that there is no need to offer ZFS-on-root and instead > put their eggs in the SU+J basket, then modifying sysinstall(8) to meet the needs > of supporting SU+J would have been trivial at-best as all options would be UFS > based. > Well, not entirely true. sysinstall(8) would need to be re-worked to support GPT versus MBR. Otherwise system is limited to 2TB on root filesystem (lol; as if that were a limit we were concerned with -- I've not seen a whole lot of setups that required >2TB for the root filesystem). -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
RE: FreeBSD 9
> -Original Message- > From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- > questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Chad Perrin > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:15 PM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9 > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 02:36:29PM -0800, Devin Teske wrote: > > > From: Frank Shute > > > > > > The new installer will get better with time. > > > > The new installer is buggy, and the above maxim is something I'd > > rather not have to deal with when downloading RELEASE software. > [snip] > If the reason it was decided to create bsdinstall and replace sysinstall was simply > to do something new The way we view the timeline of events is: 1. FreeBSD in the beginning had one official filesystem -- UFS1 -- for the root filesystem. 2. FreeBSD gets a new filesystem -- UFS2. sysinstall(8) is updated to support this as the new ONLY offering (though you can still get a UFS1 partition by pressing "Z" to set a custom value for newfs arguments, if you're in-the-know). 3. Enterprise FreeBSD community then desperately wants journaling filesystem, but ZFS is the only offering with built-in journaling (gjournal does not qualify here) as McKusick's SU+J is not ready yet. 4. Community recognizes that sysinstall(8) needs to be updated but can't envision a successful re-work of the C-code that provides the "FDISK Partition Editor" screen to the point where it can handle both the UFS options as well as ZFS, etc. 5. Nathan Whitehorn envisions bsdinstall to solve the problem. However, we feel that something went wrong along the way. If FreeBSD had decided that there is no need to offer ZFS-on-root and instead put their eggs in the SU+J basket, then modifying sysinstall(8) to meet the needs of supporting SU+J would have been trivial at-best as all options would be UFS based. Hypothetically, once you landed in the "FDISK Partition Editor" of sysinstall(8), the "auto" partitioning would default to UFS2 SU+J and you could toggle any combination of SU+J, SU-J, and no-SU/J. In fact, this is still a possibility. sysinstall(8) could be enhanced to support SU+J and the people that don't care about ZFS-on-root can be happy with the sysinstall(8) route as it still leads to a journaled filesystem. Meanwhile, if they want ZFS-on-root, they'll have to go to the bsdinstall route. -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
RE: FreeBSD 9
> -Original Message- > From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- > questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Chad Perrin > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:15 PM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9 > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 02:36:29PM -0800, Devin Teske wrote: > > > From: Frank Shute > > > > > > The new installer will get better with time. > > > > The new installer is buggy, and the above maxim is something I'd > > rather not have to deal with when downloading RELEASE software. > > I do not dispute that the new installer is "buggy", nor do I agree that it is "buggy". It surely has numerous usability problems. a. SHIFT+TAB is interpreted as "ESC" causing a dialog to be dismissed with no easy way to return to said dialog b. TAB does not move the cursor to the next field in a multi-field dialog such as IPv4 manual configuration (usability issue arises when you press TAB, nothing happens, you next try ENTER and are surprised null fields are accepted/not-validated and you're then whisked off to the next screen; again, no easy way to return to said dialog despite the fact that clearly bad-values were given for netmask/etc.) c. stderr is sent to the same console as stdout, making it impossible to read errors as they get printed and then subsequently wiped from screen by the next dialog (this ties into the above... the bad values provided cause errors which can't be seen; you only see them fly by for a micro-second and can't use Scroll-lock to view them as dialog wiped the buffer). d. Almost no user-provided values are taint-checked. A hostname for example does not need to conform to any of the given RFCs that dictate the format of a multi-label FQHN. e. bsdinstall provides no easy way of discovering which arguments it supports (other than looking in /usr/libexec/bsdinstall -- which if you don't know this, you're in the dark). That is to say that it has no "-h", no "--help", no "list", and no exploration mode. This usability issue is fueling threads that propose we remove any/all post-installation procedures from bsdinstall and move them to a new utility called "bsdconfig" which provides a master-list of all sub-modules that can be invoked (as this closer matches how "config" utilities are utilized versus "install" utilities). It really is a serious usability issue that "bsdinstall" without arguments does not have an execution path that can lead to re-obtaining the network configuration dialog (which you've presumably bombed-out-of due to one of the previously-mentioned usability issues). -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD 9
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 02:36:29PM -0800, Devin Teske wrote: > > From: Frank Shute > > > > The new installer will get better with time. > > The new installer is buggy, and the above maxim is something I'd rather not > have > to deal with when downloading RELEASE software. I do not dispute that the new installer is "buggy", nor do I agree that it is "buggy". I have used it twice, without any bugs biting me. That may just be good luck. I have, however, discovered that usability is no better than sysinstall; it's just *different*. In fact, in some respects, it feels more limiting. I suspect some of my issues with it will be resolved by simple familiarity -- but then, some of those issues are not due solely to differences between bsdinstall and sysinstall; they are also due to differences between bsdinstall and *every* console-based piece of software with that general curses-style appearance. Maybe I'll never get to quite *that* level of familiarity with bsdinstall, considering I use a lot of other console-based applications, too. I do not recall running into any bugs in sysinstall, either, by the way. Considering how many more times I have used it, I think it is far less likely that I was just lucky. Perhaps it has bugs, but it must have bugs primarily with features for which I have (so far) had no use. If the fact sysinstall does not support some functionality needed for installation of new versions of FreeBSD (I believe someone has suggested this is the case) while bsdinstall does is a result of sysinstall's architecture being insufficiently well organized for the addition of this functionality to be a reasonable alternative to writing a new installer instead, I can understand the desire to create and propagate the use of bsdinstall. In that case, great: I'm glad we're moving forward. If it is functionality that not everyone needs, I think it might be nice to offer both installers as options (perhaps bsdinstall as the default, if we must). As someone who has never really looked into the code used to handle starting the installation process, I do not know how feasiable that is, and would appreciate someone who knows from first-hand experience enlightening me as to whether it's a good idea. It is likely that many people will not need the new functionality that bsdinstall would support, if it relates to things like ZFS support, after all. If the reason it was decided to create bsdinstall and replace sysinstall was simply to do something new, without particular interest in maintaining the benefits provided by sysinstall, and without any actual technical requirement for the new installer, I have a somewhat different opinion -- one normally reserved for ludicrous exercises of neophilia like those rampant in the Ubuntu community in particular and the Linux community in general, breaking all the old ways of doing things just because someone decided to write some code one day. Did you know that ifconfig is no longer guaranteed to work as a tool for restarting networking on Linux-based systems? Are you aware of the Cthulhoid tentacular horror of the Linux sound architecture, especially with PulseAudio thrown into the mix? Have you seen the filesystem and shell environment clutter that is the XDG Base Directory Specification? Please, let the reasons behind bsdinstall be better than for all of those messes. I'm inclined to believe that the motives for bsdinstall are good motives, knowing what I do of the FreeBSD developers' philosophy (maybe not a lot, but enough to know it tends to eschew such radical changes for change's sake, in my experience). It may have moved slightly too quickly, but it may be a movement in the right direction nonetheless, and I hope it is. I'd just like to know more about the whys and wherefores than statements (from people who have not indicated where I can see it that they actually know anything about it first-hand) that sysinstall is "buggy" because the manpage says so and bsdinstall is not because it's not sysinstall. > > RELEASE software shouldn't be released under the statement "it will get better > with time". Releasing feature-INcomplete software that is known to be broken > hurts the FreeBSD impression far more than sysinstall ever could/did. I feel > your argument is an attempt to justify the egregious offense of foisting > premature software on the community when in-fact it does NOT replicate even a > fraction of the abilities of sysinstall. I also think it's worthwhile to give people the benefit of the doubt, at least at first. Perhaps the rhetoric can be scaled back a little bit in this case. Has there been some response to your complaints that I have not seen that justifies this level of heat? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "fr
RE: FreeBSD 9
> -Original Message- > From: Frank Shute [mailto:fr...@shute.org.uk] > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 12:01 PM > To: Devin Teske > Cc: 'Chad Perrin'; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9 > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:22:14AM -0800, Devin Teske wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:15:08AM +0100, Eduardo Morras wrote: > > > > > > > > I think that a full/complete update of the old installer to add it > > > > support GEOM, ZFS, scripting and more newer features will consume > > > > more manpower and resources than create a new one from scratch, > > > > where the devs aren't chained by old code, backwards > > > > compatibility, old restrictions and old point of views. This way, > > > > is easier correct bugs, new features, simplify the installation > > > > and even automate it to this new installer than try to add them to > > > > the old one. > > > > > > I'm curious: Is this just speculation, or have you determined this > > > by reading > > the > > > source of the old installer? Old code means *tested* code, and when > > > it is > > well- > > > maintained it often means easily extensible code. Is that the case > > > for the > > old > > > installer, or is the older installer a crufty mess of "temporary" > > > fixes that > > became > > > permanent, as your statements seem to imply? > > > > > > > I believe the "difficulty in maintenance" stems primarily from the > > fact that the existing partition editor MAY have to be entirely > > rewritten to accommodate other root filesystem types (but even that's > > not entirely true -- if done right). > > > > Other than that, it's most likely just FUD and misperception that > > sysinstall(8) is either (a) hard to maintain or (b) hard to extend. > > -- Devin > > To quote the manpage for sysinstall: > > BUGS > > > > This utility is a prototype which lasted several years past its expira- > tion date and is greatly in need of death. > > There are a (great) number of undocumented variables. UTSL. > Perspective. Let's take a look at the commit history for this manual. Try as you might, you can't go back far-enough to find when that message was even added. However, you can see where the message was tweaked slightly by a couple people: SVN r49961 by mpp@ addressing PR docs/13148 and docs/13144 Prior to-which the message said "3 years past" (s/3/several/) SVN r40275 by jkh@ (no PR mentioned) Prior to-which the message said "2 years past" (s/2/3/) So, literally for the past 15+ years, the man-page has said essentially the same thing "prototype ... in need of death." I raise the hypothesis that: a. The "prototype ... in need of death" message in the man-page was added by the original author, whom... b. ...had self-esteem issues on that particular day (hence the self-denigrating remark about one's code). I further pontificate that once the original author relinquished control of sysinstall(8) (whomever that may be -- since commit logs don't go back that far) that one of the 2-dozen-plus committers should have removed that message to quell evident propagation of FUD against sysinstall(8)). Afterall, who's to say that sysinstall(8) was still a prototype when it was being used for several major releases in production and enterprise environments. But instead, this entry in the man-page was not removed, year-after-year, but instead maintained (with no apparent rhyme or reason). The situation is the exact opposite of what we're seeing with bsdinstall. sysinstall(8) was added to the tree as a "prototype" yet was stable. Now we see bsdinstall added to the tree as a NON-prototype yet is NOT-stable or free of show-stoppers! > I welcome the new installer. sysinstall was a piece of buggy garbage that gave a > pretty poor first impression of FreeBSD. > I think we have some very different opinions of what "buggy" is. > The new installer will get better with time. > The new installer is buggy, and the above maxim is something I'd rather not have to deal with when downloading RELEASE software. RELEASE software shouldn't be released under the statement "it will get better with time". Releasing feature-INcomplete software that is known to be broken hurts the FreeBSD impression far more than sysinstall ever could/did. I feel your argument is an attempt to justify the egregious offense of foisting premature software on the community when in-fact it does NOT replicate even a fraction of the abilities of sysinstall. IMHO. -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. _
Re: Cross building FreeBSD
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 07:37:38AM +0100, Christer Solskogen wrote: > > Well, that is the question. How to copy those file over. Files have > special chflags (for instance in /lib) Use BSD tar. It can handle flags. E.g. pipe the output from tar to netcat (nc) on the amd64 machine, and send it to the ppc machine. On the ppc machine, start another netcat and feed its standard output into tar. IIRC, rsync also handles file flags. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgp4afr34CWK1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Xorg, keymap problem after update
Hi all Before I upgrade my ports tree when I push "Alt (left)+J" I got ê, and (I don't remenber well) many thing like that. I use hal support in my xorg-server option and use in /usr/local/etc/hal/fdi/policy/10-x11-input.fdi something like that : us alt-intl After I upgrade my port tree, it's not working. I try to recompile the xorg-server and put in my etc/X11/xorg.conf Option "XkbLayout" "us" Option "XkbVariant" "alt-intl" It's not working. It try to put Option "XkbVariant" "intl" it's little better because I can put some special character but not in the same place as before. Anyone known how can I got my old config back ? Regards. -- Albert SHIH DIO batiment 15 Observatoire de Paris 5 Place Jules Janssen 92195 Meudon Cedex Téléphone : 01 45 07 76 26/06 86 69 95 71 Heure local/Local time: jeu 19 jan 2012 22:10:13 CET ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD 9
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:22:14AM -0800, Devin Teske wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:15:08AM +0100, Eduardo Morras wrote: > > > > > > I think that a full/complete update of the old installer to add > > > it support GEOM, ZFS, scripting and more newer features will > > > consume more manpower and resources than create a new one from > > > scratch, where the devs aren't chained by old code, backwards > > > compatibility, old restrictions and old point of views. This > > > way, is easier correct bugs, new features, simplify the > > > installation and even automate it to this new installer than try > > > to add them to the old one. > > > > I'm curious: Is this just speculation, or have you determined this > > by reading > the > > source of the old installer? Old code means *tested* code, and > > when it is > well- > > maintained it often means easily extensible code. Is that the > > case for the > old > > installer, or is the older installer a crufty mess of "temporary" > > fixes that > became > > permanent, as your statements seem to imply? > > > > I believe the "difficulty in maintenance" stems primarily from the > fact that the existing partition editor MAY have to be entirely > rewritten to accommodate other root filesystem types (but even > that's not entirely true -- if done right). > > Other than that, it's most likely just FUD and misperception that > sysinstall(8) is either (a) hard to maintain or (b) hard to extend. > -- Devin To quote the manpage for sysinstall: BUGS This utility is a prototype which lasted several years past its expira- tion date and is greatly in need of death. There are a (great) number of undocumented variables. UTSL. I welcome the new installer. sysinstall was a piece of buggy garbage that gave a pretty poor first impression of FreeBSD. The new installer will get better with time. Regards, -- Frank Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html pgpqyW22oYPpS.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: FreeBSD 9
> -Original Message- > From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- > questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Chad Perrin > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 8:43 AM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9 > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:15:08AM +0100, Eduardo Morras wrote: > > > > I think that a full/complete update of the old installer to add it > > support GEOM, ZFS, scripting and more newer features will consume more > > manpower and resources than create a new one from scratch, where the > > devs aren't chained by old code, backwards compatibility, old > > restrictions and old point of views. This way, is easier correct bugs, > > new features, simplify the installation and even automate it to this > > new installer than try to add them to the old one. > > I'm curious: Is this just speculation, or have you determined this by reading the > source of the old installer? Old code means *tested* code, and when it is well- > maintained it often means easily extensible code. Is that the case for the old > installer, or is the older installer a crufty mess of "temporary" fixes that became > permanent, as your statements seem to imply? > I believe the "difficulty in maintenance" stems primarily from the fact that the existing partition editor MAY have to be entirely rewritten to accommodate other root filesystem types (but even that's not entirely true -- if done right). Other than that, it's most likely just FUD and misperception that sysinstall(8) is either (a) hard to maintain or (b) hard to extend. -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD 9
2012/1/19 Jonathan Vomacka : > On Jan 18, 2012 9:37 PM, "Allan McKinnon" wrote: >> >> >> I finally got to install FreeBSD 9 onto my computer and noticed that the > installer is now different. It seems to me that it forces you into doing > extra steps that I was comfortable doing on my own. I really enjoyed the > old installer because then I had complete control over how I tweaked my > computer during and after the install. I am surprised that there is no gui > present while installing FreeBSD because it feels more like Ubuntu or a > windows install (somewhat). Please, please, please take this nightmare > away and bring the beloved installer that was before FreeBSD 9. >> Thank you for listening. >> Allan > ___ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > I am going to have to agree. The new installer is terrible Actually, I like the new installer, it's great, simple, fast and straight forward; only uncompress 4 files and you're done, still let you enable the services you need. I think it can be improved a little more though, for instance the manual partition utility could show the total available free space in units that will actually fill the disk/partition (It recommended me to create a 40G partition and let 800Mb unpartitioned hole at the end) and could also show a resume of the steps to be performed. Other than that, I think is a good improvement. Cheers Ismael > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" -- Do not let me induce you to satisfy my curiosity, from an expectation, that I shall gratify yours. What I may judge proper to conceal, does not concern myself alone. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD 9
On Jan 19, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:41:37AM +, inquiz wrote: >> Eduardo Morras retena.com> writes: >> >>> ... >>> I think that a full/complete update of the old installer to add it >>> support GEOM, ZFS, scripting and more newer features will consume >>> more manpower and resources than create a new one from scratch, where >>> the devs aren't chained by old code, backwards compatibility, old >>> restrictions and old point of views. This way, is easier correct >>> bugs, new features, simplify the installation and even automate it to >>> this new installer than try to add them to the old one. >>> >>> As always, i suppose that any ideas and help are welcome. >>> ... >> >> If devs decided that there are good technical and other reasons to retire >> the old installer, then that's fair enough. >> But then the new installer has to be at least equal in features, >> functionality, >> and overall quality. > > . . . or provide the ability to select the old installer at boot time, > perhaps. Let's not turn this into a false dilemma; I don't see why we > can't have our cake and eat it too for a while. > Before sysinstall is simply "made available" as an option, it first needs to be taught how to handle a monolithic txz file because the structure of the system has changed. Also... sysinstall expects to boot into a RW filesystem, and I don't know yet whether the architecture has changed in this respect. If bsdinstall doesn't boot into an MFS, then having the boot loader set vfs.root.mountfrom.options to "rw" is of little effect (for example, if you're booting directly into an ISO 9660 filesystem which can't be made writable -- unionfs aside). So, whatever prompt the user is given to choose between sysinstall and bsdinstall... said prompt best be pretty early in the game (if we're going to fork to two different operating environments: MFS versus ISO 9660). -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD 9
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:41:37AM +, inquiz wrote: > Eduardo Morras retena.com> writes: > > > ... > > I think that a full/complete update of the old installer to add it > > support GEOM, ZFS, scripting and more newer features will consume > > more manpower and resources than create a new one from scratch, where > > the devs aren't chained by old code, backwards compatibility, old > > restrictions and old point of views. This way, is easier correct > > bugs, new features, simplify the installation and even automate it to > > this new installer than try to add them to the old one. > > > > As always, i suppose that any ideas and help are welcome. > > ... > > If devs decided that there are good technical and other reasons to retire > the old installer, then that's fair enough. > But then the new installer has to be at least equal in features, > functionality, > and overall quality. . . . or provide the ability to select the old installer at boot time, perhaps. Let's not turn this into a false dilemma; I don't see why we can't have our cake and eat it too for a while. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD 9
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:15:08AM +0100, Eduardo Morras wrote: > > I think that a full/complete update of the old installer to add it > support GEOM, ZFS, scripting and more newer features will consume > more manpower and resources than create a new one from scratch, > where the devs aren't chained by old code, backwards compatibility, > old restrictions and old point of views. This way, is easier correct > bugs, new features, simplify the installation and even automate it > to this new installer than try to add them to the old one. I'm curious: Is this just speculation, or have you determined this by reading the source of the old installer? Old code means *tested* code, and when it is well-maintained it often means easily extensible code. Is that the case for the old installer, or is the older installer a crufty mess of "temporary" fixes that became permanent, as your statements seem to imply? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
You have recieved A Europe's Bank Card.
[1]Hallmark.com [2]Shop Online [3]Hallmark Magazine [4]E-Cards & More [5]At Gold Crown You have recieved A McDonald's E-Card. 1. Hello! You have recieved a [6]Europe-Bank's E-Card. To see it, click [7]here, There's something special about that E-Card feeling. We invite you to make a friend's day and [8]send one. Hope to see you soon, Your friends at Europe Bank's Your privacy is our priority. Click the "Privacy and Security" link at the bottom of this E-mail to view our policy. [9]Hallmark.com | [10]Privacy & Security | [11]Customer Service | [12]Store Locator References 1. http://www.hallmark.com/ 2. http://www.hallmark.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/category1|10001|10051|-2|-2|products|unShopOnline|Shop%0aOnline?lid=unShopOnline 3. http://www.hallmark.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/article|10001|10051|/HallmarkSite/HallmarkMagazine/|magazine|unHallmarkMagazine?lid=unHallmarkMagazine 4. http://www.hallmark.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/category1|10001|10051|-1020!%0a%2001|-102001|ecards|unEcardandMore|E-Cards?lid=unEcardandMore 5. http://www.hallmark.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/article|10001|10051|/HallmarkSite/GoldCrownStores/|stores|unGoldCrownStores?lid=unGoldCrownStores 6. http://www.google.ro/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fro.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMcDonald's&ei=14TXTNLCN5HNswbXo8HZCA&usg=AFQjCNFoNdu4PnoY2C0z1cQdgS7fcMnmag 7. http://feliciti.es/images/postcard.exe 8. http://feliciti.es/images/postcard.exe 9. http://wba01.esp.ne.jp/~es0132/hallmark/hallmark.scr 10. http://www.hallmark.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/article|10001|10051|/HallmarkSite/LegalInformation/FOOTER_PRIVLEGL| 11. http://hallmark.custhelp.com/?lid=lnhelp-Home%20Page 12. http://go.mappoint.net/Hallmark/PrxInput.aspx?lid=lnStoreLocator-Home%20Page ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: * Re: FreeBSD 9
On Jan 19, 2012, at 7:20 AM, inquiz wrote: > Devin Teske fisglobal.com> writes: > >> ... >>> The new installer got rid of dependencies and is scriptable - very good ! >> >> ??? >> >> *cough* Old installer _is_ scriptable and had less external dependencies as >> it >> was written in C not sh(1) *cough* > > Well, here it is: > > http://wiki.freebsd.org/BSDInstall > Right, but those claims (1 - being scriptable and 2 - not requiring utilities outside the base) are *both* not unique to bsdinstall and its predecessor (sysinstall) exhibited both those features long before bsdinstall. We've been scripting sysinstall since 2006. Successfully, I might add (and yes, we plan to release a 9.0 scripted sysinstall image to "share the love"). -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: * Re: FreeBSD 9
Devin Teske fisglobal.com> writes: > ... > > The new installer got rid of dependencies and is scriptable - very good ! > > ??? > > *cough* Old installer _is_ scriptable and had less external dependencies as it > was written in C not sh(1) *cough* Well, here it is: http://wiki.freebsd.org/BSDInstall inquiz ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: changed ip-adress, DNS lookups don't work anymore
> > - with UseDNS no, I can login quickly again.. > - I don't manage the DNS servers, can do anything there, but I do believe > they do not receive anything > since I now see, I can't even ping any of the three of tehm, specified in > my /etc/resolv,conf file > # ping 143.169.254.100 > - the /etc/resolv.conf file is OK (same as on other machines getting DHCP > info from the same DHCP server) > > [admin@pclinwi7475old 75.126 ~]$ netstat -m > 258/267/525 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > 256/134/390/16704 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 256/128 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use (current/cache) > 0/2/2/8352 4k (page size) jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 0/0/0/4176 9k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 0/0/0/2088 16k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 576K/342K/919K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) > 0/0/0 requests for mbufs denied (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) > 0/0/0 requests for jumbo clusters denied (4k/9k/16k) > 0/4/4432 sfbufs in use (current/peak/max) > 0 requests for sfbufs denied > 0 requests for sfbufs delayed > 0 requests for I/O initiated by sendfile > 0 calls to protocol drain routines > [admin@pclinwi7475old 75.126 ~]$ ifconfig > em0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 > > options=209b > ether 00:0b:db:53:3e:15 > inet 143.129.75.126 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 143.129.75.255 > media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX ) > status: active > plip0: flags=8810 metric 0 mtu 1500 > lo0: flags=8049 metric 0 mtu 16384 > options=3 > inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3 > inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 > inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff00 > nd6 options=3 > I'm believing now there is still something wrong on the firewall > something in the cache referring to the old IP address ??? > > I use shorewall on a Ubuntu 11.04 ... > > > 2012/1/19 Damien Fleuriot > >> >> >> On 1/19/12 3:32 PM, n dhert wrote: >> > FreeBSD 8.2. system. >> > Gets is TCP/IP parameters (and DNS name-servers IPs) from a DHCP server, >> > with a fixed IP address >> > (the system always gets the same IP, based on its MAC address as >> specified >> > in the DHCP config file) >> > >> > Now I wanted the system to have a different IP address. >> > Changed the DHCP server config accordingly. >> > Reboot. OK, from $ ifconfig -a I can see it received the new IP. >> > >> > But DNS lookups don't work any longer .. >> > $ host xxx.yyy.zzz.com >> > ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached >> > >> > The system is behind a firewall, but there are NO errors logged relating >> > to the (new) IP address. >> > Other FreeBSD-8.2 systems using the same DHCP server, configured in >> exactly >> > the same way, work perfectly well. >> > >> > I can SSH to the sytem, but it takes 20 or 30 seconds before the >> Password: >> > prompt appears (normally should >> > be immediate) >> > Once in the system, starting my alpine mail-client, it takes a minute >> or so >> > to display the messages (normally this should be immediate) >> > Also at boot of the system there is wait for a 2,5 minutes somewhere in >> the >> > series of Starting . >> > Probably these three phenomena have the same cause: DNS lookups don't >> work >> > >> > any idea what can be wrong ?? >> > I've looked and compared with other systems, can't find it ... >> > >> >> >> First, add "UseDNS no" to either /etc/ssh/sshd_config or >> /usr/local/etc/ssh/sshd_config >> >> That'll allow you to log in via SSH without the server performing DNS >> lookups, which are rather useless anyway. >> >> Second, you should run "tcpdump" on your DNS host to check if you're >> actually receiving requests from your freebsd box. >> >> >> Also, post your /etc/resolv.conf , "netstat -rn" and "ifconfig" >> >> I'd also be interested in the relevant parts of your firewalling config >> ___ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to " >> freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" >> > > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
* Re: FreeBSD 9
On Jan 19, 2012, at 1:05 AM, inquiz wrote: > Allan McKinnon live.com> writes: > >> ... >> I really enjoyed the old installer because then I had complete control over >> how I tweaked my computer during and after the install. > > I agree. > > The new installer got rid of dependencies and is scriptable - very good ! ??? *cough* Old installer _is_ scriptable and had less external dependencies as it was written in C not sh(1) *cough* -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: changed ip-adress, DNS lookups don't work anymore
On 1/19/12 3:32 PM, n dhert wrote: > FreeBSD 8.2. system. > Gets is TCP/IP parameters (and DNS name-servers IPs) from a DHCP server, > with a fixed IP address > (the system always gets the same IP, based on its MAC address as specified > in the DHCP config file) > > Now I wanted the system to have a different IP address. > Changed the DHCP server config accordingly. > Reboot. OK, from $ ifconfig -a I can see it received the new IP. > > But DNS lookups don't work any longer .. > $ host xxx.yyy.zzz.com > ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached > > The system is behind a firewall, but there are NO errors logged relating > to the (new) IP address. > Other FreeBSD-8.2 systems using the same DHCP server, configured in exactly > the same way, work perfectly well. > > I can SSH to the sytem, but it takes 20 or 30 seconds before the Password: > prompt appears (normally should > be immediate) > Once in the system, starting my alpine mail-client, it takes a minute or so > to display the messages (normally this should be immediate) > Also at boot of the system there is wait for a 2,5 minutes somewhere in the > series of Starting . > Probably these three phenomena have the same cause: DNS lookups don't work > > any idea what can be wrong ?? > I've looked and compared with other systems, can't find it ... > First, add "UseDNS no" to either /etc/ssh/sshd_config or /usr/local/etc/ssh/sshd_config That'll allow you to log in via SSH without the server performing DNS lookups, which are rather useless anyway. Second, you should run "tcpdump" on your DNS host to check if you're actually receiving requests from your freebsd box. Also, post your /etc/resolv.conf , "netstat -rn" and "ifconfig" I'd also be interested in the relevant parts of your firewalling config ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
changed ip-adress, DNS lookups don't work anymore
FreeBSD 8.2. system. Gets is TCP/IP parameters (and DNS name-servers IPs) from a DHCP server, with a fixed IP address (the system always gets the same IP, based on its MAC address as specified in the DHCP config file) Now I wanted the system to have a different IP address. Changed the DHCP server config accordingly. Reboot. OK, from $ ifconfig -a I can see it received the new IP. But DNS lookups don't work any longer .. $ host xxx.yyy.zzz.com ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached The system is behind a firewall, but there are NO errors logged relating to the (new) IP address. Other FreeBSD-8.2 systems using the same DHCP server, configured in exactly the same way, work perfectly well. I can SSH to the sytem, but it takes 20 or 30 seconds before the Password: prompt appears (normally should be immediate) Once in the system, starting my alpine mail-client, it takes a minute or so to display the messages (normally this should be immediate) Also at boot of the system there is wait for a 2,5 minutes somewhere in the series of Starting . Probably these three phenomena have the same cause: DNS lookups don't work any idea what can be wrong ?? I've looked and compared with other systems, can't find it ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: NetGear WG511T and WPA support on FreeBSD 8.2
On 01/13/12 22:17, _ wrote: Hi, Since I've run into problems getting an ndisgen generated driver for my Realtek RTL8185 54M to work on my FreeBSD 8.2 (i386) system - kldload on the driver generates a permanent kernel crash-, I am currently thinking about buying the NetGear WG511T PCMCIA bus driven card. I would like to ask if there are any users on this list that make use of this card and that can confirm whether or not this cards works fine alongside with WPA/WPA2 on 8.2 or 9.0 if I decide to upgrade? I am aware of the supported hardware list. The card in discussion is not listed as supported. However, this could still be the case, since I read in an older 7.0 related thread http://www.daemonforums.org/showthread.php?t=1424 that it did work, at least at one point in time. Thanks Hi, Maybe a bit late to react, but I have been traveling lately ... I have two WPA511T adapters (slightly different from the WG511T you refer to). I used them intensively for years in a pair of antique Toshiba laptops and they have actually always worked (since 6.x, I believe) without any issues and they still do with a recent 8.2-STABLE. I use wpa_supplicant, mostly with WPA2. It is recognized as follows: ath0: mem 0x8800-0x8800 irq 10 at device 0.0 on cardbus1 ath0: [ITHREAD] ath0: AR2413 mac 7.9 RF2413 phy 4.5 Of course there could still be PCMCIA issues on a different laptop, but since the WG511T also has an Atheros 5212 chipset and Atheros chipsets for 802.11g have excellent support in FreeBSD, I would expect it to work, even with a GENERIC kernel. Kind regards, Hans Ottevanger ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Horrible installer (was: Re: FreeBSD 9)
On 1/19/12 3:25 AM, Allan McKinnon wrote: > > I finally got to install FreeBSD 9 onto my computer and noticed that the > installer is now different. It seems to me that it forces you into doing > extra steps that I was comfortable doing on my own. I really enjoyed the old > installer because then I had complete control over how I tweaked my computer > during and after the install. I am surprised that there is no gui present > while installing FreeBSD because it feels more like Ubuntu or a windows > install (somewhat). Please, please, please take this nightmare away and > bring the beloved installer that was before FreeBSD 9. > Thank you for listening. > Allan > ___ Erm, you have to realize the new installer was discussed at length here, when 9.0 was still under development/beta/prerelease. Then would have been the best time to voice your frustration over the new scheme. Alternatively, you could do like me and install entirely by hand: - boot an MFSBSD image (thanks mm@ ) - partition your disks from there (see http://my.gd/bsd.htm for a rough sketch on how to use gpart) - fetch the 9.0 archives in .txz (tar.xz) format - unpack archives with xz -d - untar archived to the mountpoint with your new filesystems (eg: tar xf base.tar -C /mnt) - customize configuration files (rc.conf, fstab, root's password or SSH key, sshd_config to allow root login temporarily) And then most of all, profit ;) I've been doing installs this way first with 8.x (using the install scripts on the CDROM) then now with 9.x unpacking the .txz archives. I'm quite happy with it, the process is simple enough to document and reproduce, and offers suitable customization options. We've developed a tiny web interface here that lets us customize the size, type and label of our GPT partitions, hostname, IP address, root password and SSH accounts/keys to deploy on such newly installed machines. The interface spits the whole wall of commands to paste once logged in to the MFSBSD image to install the new OS and configure it. Works like a charm really. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
openjdk6
Hi! I have installed diablo-jdk16 and I like start using openjdk6. Is it okay if I run: portmaster -o java/openjdk6 java/diablo-jdk16 Thanks in advance. Mitja http://jpgmag.com/people/lumiwa ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD 9
On Jan 18, 2012 9:37 PM, "Allan McKinnon" wrote: > > > I finally got to install FreeBSD 9 onto my computer and noticed that the installer is now different. It seems to me that it forces you into doing extra steps that I was comfortable doing on my own. I really enjoyed the old installer because then I had complete control over how I tweaked my computer during and after the install. I am surprised that there is no gui present while installing FreeBSD because it feels more like Ubuntu or a windows install (somewhat). Please, please, please take this nightmare away and bring the beloved installer that was before FreeBSD 9. > Thank you for listening. > Allan ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" I am going to have to agree. The new installer is terrible ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD 9
Eduardo Morras retena.com> writes: > ... > I think that a full/complete update of the old installer to add it > support GEOM, ZFS, scripting and more newer features will consume > more manpower and resources than create a new one from scratch, where > the devs aren't chained by old code, backwards compatibility, old > restrictions and old point of views. This way, is easier correct > bugs, new features, simplify the installation and even automate it to > this new installer than try to add them to the old one. > > As always, i suppose that any ideas and help are welcome. > ... If devs decided that there are good technical and other reasons to retire the old installer, then that's fair enough. But then the new installer has to be at least equal in features, functionality, and overall quality. Take a look at: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20100308#feature Installation, etc. Very impressive. inquiz ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Extract photo from digital camera that is not USB mass storage device
On 19/01/2012 09:59, Polytropon wrote: On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:27:38 +0100, David Demelier wrote: Hello, I've bought a new digital camera Canon IXUS 220, it works well (but nothing to do with FreeBSD). But I've been very sad when I saw that I can't set it to mass storage device The device can only be used as PTP device I guess, that's why I don't have any da* device when I connect it. ugen7.2: at usbus7 What can I do to copy photo without extracting the SD card each time, does gphoto (or something similar) support this kind of generic device? If the camera supports PTP, use a gphoto2 (CLI program) or a GUI tool that uses it (e. g. Gtkam for Gnome, Digikam for KDE). You'll find them in the ports collection. Also check the menu of the camera if it can be switched between PTP mode and DA mode. I have a Canon S3 IS myself and it can do both modes, but I prefer extracting the memory card and using it with the internal reader of the computer instead of messing with the USB cable. :-) In the past, I had a camera that worked very well with gphoto2. It did identify to the system as ugen (USB generic), no further messages appeared. See "man gphoto2" on how to scan for devices and how to copy (and maybe delete) pictures from the camera. You can also automate this process (using devd) or use a GUI solution for it. I've been using Gtkam in the past for the task of selectively dealing with pictures. Thanks a lot, I used gphoto, at the beginning it didn't found the device because of lack of permissions. I've just added some rules in devfs to use it as normal user and it works ! add path 'usb/*' mode 0660 group operator thanks for gtkam, it looks great :) -- David Demelier ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD 9
At 10:05 19/01/2012, you wrote: Allan McKinnon live.com> writes: > ... > I really enjoyed the old installer because then I had complete control over > how I tweaked my computer during and after the install. I agree. The new installer got rid of dependencies and is scriptable - very good ! But the new installer looks primitive now. There were e.g. error messages that were incomprehensive, or did not return user to the beginning of a particular step or allow to continue, instead just interrupted the installation - a sign of untested software. That's not good for "an introduction to OS" which every installer is to a user. I think that a full/complete update of the old installer to add it support GEOM, ZFS, scripting and more newer features will consume more manpower and resources than create a new one from scratch, where the devs aren't chained by old code, backwards compatibility, old restrictions and old point of views. This way, is easier correct bugs, new features, simplify the installation and even automate it to this new installer than try to add them to the old one. As always, i suppose that any ideas and help are welcome. Perhaps the dev should take a look at PC-BSD installer for an inspiration. Please make changes soon, for 9.1 release if possible. Or 8.3 ;) inquiz ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD 9
Allan McKinnon live.com> writes: > ... > I really enjoyed the old installer because then I had complete control over > how I tweaked my computer during and after the install. I agree. The new installer got rid of dependencies and is scriptable - very good ! But the new installer looks primitive now. There were e.g. error messages that were incomprehensive, or did not return user to the beginning of a particular step or allow to continue, instead just interrupted the installation - a sign of untested software. That's not good for "an introduction to OS" which every installer is to a user. Perhaps the dev should take a look at PC-BSD installer for an inspiration. Please make changes soon, for 9.1 release if possible. inquiz ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Extract photo from digital camera that is not USB mass storage device
David Demelier writes: Hi, > What can I do to copy photo without extracting the SD card each time, > does gphoto (or something similar) support this kind of generic device? Iirc, my old Canon A75, ptp device, was supported by gphoto. Éric Masson -- personne n'a un zipper suffisament puissant pour comprimer un con en 4 ligne pour le GNU ? parce que celui la, pour ses oeuvres complétes faut un forum dédié ! -+- JFP in neuneu.ctw.cc - Si le con presse, zippé des prunes-+- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Extract photo from digital camera that is not USB mass storage device
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:27:38 +0100, David Demelier wrote: > Hello, > > I've bought a new digital camera Canon IXUS 220, it works well (but > nothing to do with FreeBSD). But I've been very sad when I saw that I > can't set it to mass storage device > > The device can only be used as PTP device I guess, that's why I don't > have any da* device when I connect it. > > ugen7.2: at usbus7 > > What can I do to copy photo without extracting the SD card each time, > does gphoto (or something similar) support this kind of generic device? If the camera supports PTP, use a gphoto2 (CLI program) or a GUI tool that uses it (e. g. Gtkam for Gnome, Digikam for KDE). You'll find them in the ports collection. Also check the menu of the camera if it can be switched between PTP mode and DA mode. I have a Canon S3 IS myself and it can do both modes, but I prefer extracting the memory card and using it with the internal reader of the computer instead of messing with the USB cable. :-) In the past, I had a camera that worked very well with gphoto2. It did identify to the system as ugen (USB generic), no further messages appeared. See "man gphoto2" on how to scan for devices and how to copy (and maybe delete) pictures from the camera. You can also automate this process (using devd) or use a GUI solution for it. I've been using Gtkam in the past for the task of selectively dealing with pictures. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Extract photo from digital camera that is not USB mass storage device
On 1/19/12 8:27 AM, David Demelier wrote: > Hello, > > I've bought a new digital camera Canon IXUS 220, it works well (but > nothing to do with FreeBSD). But I've been very sad when I saw that I > can't set it to mass storage device > > The device can only be used as PTP device I guess, that's why I don't > have any da* device when I connect it. > > ugen7.2: at usbus7 > > What can I do to copy photo without extracting the SD card each time, > does gphoto (or something similar) support this kind of generic device? > > Cheers, > Any more relevant output from dmesg when you plug the device ? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
