no boot/loader
No /boot/loader no /boot/kernel/kernel I isntalled FreeBSD 7.0 with the defaults for partiioning. I am using one hard drive in which I followed with the ASQ (auto, tag for boot, quit) command. I choose the standard boot loader option. I installed through the master freebsd site via ethernet. Upon the congratulation screen is asks for a reboot, and to remove the boot disk, I resart to the error message above. I believe it is because a boot loader is not installed, however, it should be. Is it not in the set up, it is one of the first steps. Following the errors I am in put into a boot prompt: boot: Are there any commands I can run from this prompt to manually boot? How can I make the boot work? Will I need to install my own boot loader? How can I install a manul boot loader? How can I check if the boot loader is installed, but just not loading properly? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/no-boot-loader-tp18899421p18899421.html Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to set quota ( as Mbyte ) for a directory?
You may actually use the edquota -u command to set a quota a specific user. I think this is about as specific as you can get. edquota -g is for groups and edquota -f is for a filesystem. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/How-to-set-quota-%28-as-Mbyte-%29--for-a-directory--tp18897426p18899490.html Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ACLs, permission mask and chmod g=
You may consider trying chmod 660 filename. 660 - UGW, user group world. For each read, write, and execute is given a number, 4,2,1 repectively. So, 660 would result in rw-rw, a popluar format is 755, rwxr-xr-x. You would simply replace add the numbers together for each division and place them after chmod and before the file to give the permissions you would like. Svein Halvor Halvorsen-4 wrote: If I have acls enabled on a file, running chmod g=rw on that file, will not change its group permissions, but the acl mask. That is, running the following command: $ chmod g=rw foo ... is equivalent with $ setfacl -m m::rw- ... and not, as I would suspect: $ setfacl -m g::rw- In other words, foo will not be read/writable by its default group after the command have been run (unless it was already). I find this behaviour to be very confusing. It might be the correct bahaviour, but if so maybe the chmod(1) manpage, and possibly chmod(2), should be updated to document this? Svein Halvor -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ACLs%2C-permission-mask-and-chmod-g%3D-tp18893185p18899706.html Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ACLs, permission mask and chmod g=
One last thing have you tried; setfacl -s i notice you have -m in your original post. Other than this, I won't have any other insight. Svein Halvor Halvorsen-4 wrote: acmeinc wrote: You may consider trying chmod 660 filename. It gives the same result. When changing group permission (either way) on a file with acls, you're effectively changing the acl mask instead. Also, if I change acl mask with setfacl, then ls -l will list the permission mask in the group columns in the output. If this is by design, then it isn't documented in chmod(1) (or anywhere else that I can see). It kinda makes sense this way, though. If you chmod the group permission, you change all groups' permissions. But I'd like to see it documented, as it caused me some confusion, and I still think that this isn't obvious. Svein Halvor Halvorsen-4 wrote: If I have acls enabled on a file, running chmod g=rw on that file, will not change its group permissions, but the acl mask. That is, running the following command: $ chmod g=rw foo ... is equivalent with $ setfacl -m m::rw- ... and not, as I would suspect: $ setfacl -m g::rw- In other words, foo will not be read/writable by its default group after the command have been run (unless it was already). I find this behaviour to be very confusing. It might be the correct bahaviour, but if so maybe the chmod(1) manpage, and possibly chmod(2), should be updated to document this? Svein Halvor -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ACLs%2C-permission-mask-and-chmod-g%3D-tp18893185p18900042.html Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
