Re: mergemaster mtree:No such file or directory
On Sunday, March 24, 2002, at 06:48 , Randy Bush wrote: >> I think giving mergemaster(8) a PATH that includes all of the tools it >> needs to run is not a lot to ask. > > it would more normal to this over-attenuated hacker to give commands > explicit paths Or at least have mergemaster extend PATH to include well-known directories if it couldn't find things in the current path that it needed. Joe To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Talk under 4.5
On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 11:26 , Pete French wrote: > Umm, just noticed that since theupgrade to 4.5 "talk" no longer > works between users on the same machine. This was working > fine on 4.4. What I get is Perhaps the problem is that inetd (or the ntalk entry within /etc/inetd.conf) is no longer enabled by default on FreeBSD 4.5. I don't know whether that is the case; I never run inetd anyway, but it seems like that would explain it. Joe To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Waaaarg, we just blew out the kernel again..
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 03:29:53PM -0500, Brandon D. Valentine wrote: > For one thing -CURRENT no longer > supports the 80386. You mean "the GENERIC kernel shipped with -curent-derived releases no longer supports the 80386", right? Joe To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: 127/8 continued
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 06:13:57PM -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: > Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Isn't that when we configure an IP on an interface, it will > > automatically create a route for the corresponding "connected" network? > > Which seems more like a bug than a feature to me. Been giving me all > kinds of grief. Even doing "ifconfig if# up" creates a unwanted network > route which I then have to delete so packets will go to my gateway > instead of out the interface as if there was no gateway. Are you sure you're just not setting your interface netmask incorrectly? If you configure the interface with a netmask of 255.255.255.255 there should be no connected subnet route to add. > It seems to be > designed on the assumption that we have sufficiently large number of IP > addresses to waste a lot of them on subnets. Um :) > I'd think that ifconfig > (or is it the kernel) would at least have auto-routing optional. It is optional. Use 255.255.255.255 as your netmask, and there is no corresponding subnet route to add. goose# ifconfig fxp0 fxp0: flags=8843 mtu 1500 inet6 fe80::2e0:81ff:fe01:790d%fxp0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet6 2001:438:1fff:fffc:2e0:81ff:fe01:790d prefixlen 64 autoconf inet 216.8.159.18 netmask 0xfff0 broadcast 216.8.159.31 ether 00:e0:81:01:79:0d media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT/UTP) status: active goose# netstat -rn -f inet Routing tables Internet: DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire default216.8.159.17 UGSc 39 253 fxp0 127lo0UScB00lo0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 317535lo0 216.8.159.16/28link#1 UC 20 fxp0 216.8.159.17 0:4:76:ba:9c:17UHLW 3994814 fxp0379 216.8.159.18 0:e0:81:1:79:d UHLW0 11lo0 goose# ifconfig fxp0 inet 1.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.255 alias goose# ifconfig fxp0 fxp0: flags=8843 mtu 1500 inet6 fe80::2e0:81ff:fe01:790d%fxp0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet6 2001:438:1fff:fffc:2e0:81ff:fe01:790d prefixlen 64 autoconf inet 216.8.159.18 netmask 0xfff0 broadcast 216.8.159.31 inet 1.1.1.1 netmask 0x broadcast 1.1.1.1 ether 00:e0:81:01:79:0d media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT/UTP) status: active goose# netstat -rn -f inet Routing tables Internet: DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire default216.8.159.17 UGSc 39 253 fxp0 1.1.1.1/32 link#1 UC 00 fxp0 127lo0UScB00lo0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 317535lo0 216.8.159.16/28link#1 UC 20 fxp0 216.8.159.17 0:4:76:ba:9c:17UHLW 3994814 fxp0368 216.8.159.18 0:e0:81:1:79:d UHLW0 11lo0 goose# Joe To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: 127/8 continued
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 04:06:45PM +1200, Juha Saarinen wrote:
> Misunderstood what Lamont was trying to show earlier... but he's right:
> FreeBSD sends 127/8 out on the 'Net:
I don't think FreeBSD is non-compliant for sending packets with
destination 127/8 out onto the net, but I guess it could make it
harder for users to send packets with moronic destinations out.
--- rc.network.orig Mon Sep 24 00:08:17 2001
+++ rc.network Mon Sep 24 00:14:05 2001
@@ -346,6 +346,13 @@
done
fi
+ # Add a blackhole static route for 127/8, since packets with
+ # that destination should be caged up and starved
+ lo0_inet=$(ifconfig lo0 | awk '($1 == "inet") { print $2; exit; }')
+ if [ -n "${lo0_inet}" ]; then
+ route add 127.0.0.0 -netmask 255.0.0.0 ${lo0_inet} -blackhole
+ fi
+
echo -n 'Additional routing options:'
case ${tcp_extensions} in
[Yy][Ee][Ss] | '')
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: so where did the space go?
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 11:29:39AM +0100, Randy Bush wrote: > >> it was vmware under linux emul. > > lsof | grep /var > > # lsof | grep vmware | grep /var > vmware 489 randy txt VREG 116,262148 140673024 16 /var (/dev/ad0s3e) > vmware 489 randy 11u VREG 116,262148 140673024 16 /var (/dev/ad0s3e) > vmware 492 randy txt VREG 116,262148 140673024 16 /var (/dev/ad0s3e) > vmware 492 randy 11u VREG 116,262148 140673024 16 /var (/dev/ad0s3e) > vmware 493 randy txt VREG 116,262148 140673024 16 /var (/dev/ad0s3e) > vmware 493 randy 11u VREG 116,262148 140673024 16 /var (/dev/ad0s3e) > > not a lot of help, or i am not seeing the clue Assuming $2 are process numbers [1], I think you may find killing those processes will release the space. [1] I don't have lsof installed here. ps will surely tell you. Joe To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: pkg/port dependency tool (enclosed)
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 12:54:52PM -0400, Walter Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Jeff Kletsky wrote: > > to dependencies, and am offering back to the project a Perl script that > > provides output that can be run through dot(1) (available in the port > > graphics/graphviz) to produce a dependency graph. > > graphviz depends on X11. What I had to do was take an older version > of graphviz, strip out the X stuff, and only build the two tools I > need, dot and neato. If a FreeBSD port is available to do that and > that alone, without requiring X, I will be incredibly happy, and > willing to upgrade my (slightly buggy) graphviz installation. I was talking to the at&t people recently, and all the patches the current freebsd port applies in order to make the build work on freebsd have now been rolled into their CVS repository; so, if you check out a current set of sources (see www.graphviz.org for details) you should get something that compiles smoothly on freebsd. I meant to ask them whether they might like to roll another release with those patches in so that I could update the freebsd port, but I forgot. I will do that. Joe To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
