Re: moving to XFree86-4
I found that pkg_delete -a and make install of all necessary ports is an extremely healthy activity as it removes a extremely big load of crap (read: useless/unused software). Just reinstall it all. You probably don't need that much anyways. ;) For the record, I don't any easy way. A. j mckitrick wrote: > If I have backup up my old /usr/X11R6, is there an easy way to move my apps > to XFree86-4? Or do I need to 'make reinstal' all of my X ports? > > jm > -- Antoine Beaupré Jambala TCM team Ericsson Canada inc. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Yet again changing branch names? (Re: RELENG_4_3 calls itself -RELEASE?)
Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 7:07 PM -0700 8/2/01, Chad R. Larson wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 03, 2001, Andrew Boothman wrote: >> > I prefer -SECURITY, because it makes it clear this is the >> > branch dedicated to security fixes and nothing else. >> >> Yes, but then the newbies would think this was some special >> release with extra security features. And complain when they >> get rooted. We go through "why isn't -STABLE really stable" >> three or four times per year. ?? s/year/month/ ! >> I'd rather a tag that didn't imply some kind of promise. >> >> But I agree, it should be something other than -RELEASE. > > I agree it should change, and should not be -SECURITY or -SECURE. > In the interest of keeping it simple and yet nondescript, I would > prefer something like -RELEASE+ or -RELEASE-PLUS > > While something like BEET or RUTABAGA is also nondescript, I think > that's a little too silly for this branch. I know several sysadmin's > who have been very happy to have this branch around. I could see > changing the *stable* branch to a name like beet, rutabaga, or maybe > rawcarrot (which is then "cooked" for release... :-). Maybe that > would finally get rid of the confusion of people who read too much > into the name "stable". Yah. -stable is really great, but it's gotta go. We have to *force* people to read the doc. It's the bottom line. When I discovered Debian, I heard of Potato, Slinky and stuff like that. I had no clue of what the heck they were talking about. I read. I learned. :) > For that matter, perhaps we should name the "security-fixes" branch > as -stable, and then change the branch we currently call stable to > be -kitchen, and change -current to be -frontier or -scarymovie. hmm... Here's what I think: 1. The security breanch could just be named what it is: -SECURITY_FIXES or -SECFIX. 2. "-stable" gotta go. Any fruit, household item, room, whatever name will fit. The problem we'll find is with the doc and the infrastructure (this list) that we can't change to follow changing names. 3. "-current" should also be renamed. "Evil dark overlord planning to take over the earth" could be a better name (but it might attract too much people). I suggest "-crap". That'll keep wanderers away. :) Not that we don't want people to use -current, we don't want people to use -current without knowing what they're doing. 4. And how about naming our releases? I know there are a lot of them (3/4 a year), but I like the idea of dedicating releases or naming them to funny names. :) > [really, any naming scheme is fine by me personally. I'd just like > to see if we could come up with something so we didn't have to debate > some branch-name every three or four months. So, I hope that by > tossing several disparate ideas out, maybe something will make sense. > Note: 'disparate', not 'desperate' :-) ] Here too. I could stay just like that. But I can't bear the freaking noise of having this thing over and over again. -- Antoine Beaupré Jambala TCM team Ericsson Canada inc. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: moving to XFree86-4
Chuck MacKinnon wrote: > Why not just run xf86cfg. Then you can set up the screens and resolutions > etc. Not too hard to figure out. Sorry people, I didn't know about xf86cfg. :) I *will* try it out. I still have glitches with my old config anyways. I'm definitly getting this thread OT, however. A. -- Antoine Beaupré Jambala TCM team Ericsson Canada inc. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: installworld failure (install of sbin/init)
Shouldn't this mandate a UPDATING entry? Or is it already the case? ;) A Anders Andersson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 09:01:12PM +1000, Tony Maher wrote: > >>Just did buldworld, kernel, installworld cycle but there was one small >>problem in installworld >> >>o---o >>===> sbin/init >>install -c -s -o root -g wheel -m 500 -fschg -b -B.bak init /sbin >>install: illegal option -- b >>usage: install [-CcDpsv] [-f flags] [-g group] [-m mode] [-o owner] file1 >>file2 >> install [-CcDpsv] [-f flags] [-g group] [-m mode] [-o owner] file1 >>... >> fileN directory >> install -d [-v] [-g group] [-m mode] [-o owner] directory ... >>*** Error code 64 >> >>Stop in /usr/src/sbin/init. >>o---o >> >>Checking CVS I thought maybe I had cvsupped and got the init Makefile >>change and not the changes to (x)install but this does not appear to be the >>case. A second cvsup after the install did not get anything for xinstall >>and the manpage for install shows the new -b and -B (as does runningthe new >>install). >> >>Does installworld use the old install? >> >>In any case removing the "-b -B.bak" in sbin/init/Makefile and reinstalling >>solved the problem for me. >> > > Or as I did, > > cd /usr/src/usr.bin/xinstall && make install > > and then installworld works. > > -- Antoine Beaupré Jambala TCM team Ericsson Canada inc. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Problems with new user-ppp ?
Have you tried removing the set mru and set mtu lines? A. Fabio Vilan wrote: > Hi. > > Since my latest make world (today), my PPPoE connection trough user-ppp > doesn't work anymore. I've been using it for a time, no problems whatsoever > before. > > show version in the new (broken) ==> 2.3.2 - Jul 24 2001 > show version in the old (working) ==> 2.3.1 - Jun 26 2001 > > *Seems* to be a problem in the ppp program iteself (/usr/sbin/ppp), > as if I get back to the older version, everything works again. > > The /var/log/ppp.log shows : > ... > deflink: login -> lcp > deflink: Too many LCP REQs sent - abandoning negotiation > deflink: Disconnected! > ... > > My /etc/ppp/ppp.conf (that works with the old version) > ... > default: > set device PPPoE:ed0:ISP > enable lqr > enable tcpmssfixup > > set lqrperiod 6 > set mru 1492 > set mtu 1492 > set timeout 0 > set log phase tun > nat enable yes > add default HISADDR > > set authname * > set authkey * > ... > > I've also noticed that many other people have already found some other > problems > with this new ppp program in this very same list (freebsd-stable), saw many > tricks > to try to fix the problem, but none of them worked with me. > > Btw I haven't found any change in the PPP(8) manpage with this new version, > so > I don't believe it to be a configuration problem (may be... but...) > > Thanks > Duwde > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > -- Antoine Beaupré Jambala TCM team Ericsson Canada inc. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Problem with user-pppoe after upgrade, fixed
Brian Somers wrote: > Hi, > > I said your ppp.conf was censored because you didn't attach it - you > just attached an error message that said it couldn't read it :*P LOL! ok.. I see. Darn mozilla. :) Ok, here goes a url, that should be fine: http://anarcat.dyndns.org/ftp/pub/FreeBSD/local_info/ppp.conf Also check the parent dir for dmesg. > The right fix is to simply remove these lines. Then a workaround is to change them to 1492. :) But ok, I'll kill the line. > What do your logs say when you enable LCP logging and the negotiation > fails ? I'm sorry, I forgot to check yesterday night. But we have another nice test case here that cross-posted -stable and -questions. :) I'll try to do it via remote and a nice script, but this is mad, I could really fsck up my connection here. Hmm... Let's be mad. ;) A. -- Antoine Beaupré Jambala TCM team Ericsson Canada inc. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Tracking -stable remotely/colocated
Kenneth W Cochran wrote: >>From: "Drew Derbyshire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "Kenneth W Cochran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: Tracking -stable remotely/colocated >>Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 11:41:13 -0400 >> >>- Original Message - >>From: "Kenneth W Cochran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>>Hmmm, so in that case, what would be the difference between single-user >>>mode & "multiuser" with lotsa daemons shut-down? >>> >>I don't *think* kernel behavior changes (someone correct me >>here!) as you go single user, so the answer is not much. > > Need to do more research... I don't think there's anything different in the *kernel* when switching single user. However, key programs such as init, are *not* running as single user mode. And, indeed all daemons and gettys are shut down, so the only process running should be your sh'ell, given that you have not started the make world process. The thing with multi-user, is that it's made to keep a lot of stuff running. Just having getty running on a port might be a problem on a major system upgrade, if this port is connected to a modem where a user connects and starts a shell etc... The other thing is that to "shutdown lotsa daemon" is often equivalent to "shutdown now" (switch to single user) A. -- Antoine Beaupré Jambala TCM team Ericsson Canada inc. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
