Re: Please Advise on licencing

[Ingo Schwarze]

Hi Siju,

Siju George wrote on Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 06:50:12AM +0530:

> In a code repository should the licence wording be on every file ?

Best practice is:

 1. To have at least one line containing "Copyright (c) ..."
at the top of each file containing copyrightable content.

 2. Each author (natural person, NOT legal entity like corporations
or foundations) who made copyrightable contributions to the
file of which at least parts are still contained in the
file must be mentioned on such a line.
If an author did transfer their economic rights (which doesn't
really make much sense for ISC or BSD 2-clause licensed code,
but nonetheless, it is occasionally done), you can list the
legal entity that acquired the economic rights, but then it
becomes important to add a line, below the Copyright notice,
reading, for example:
  Parts of this file were written by (name of natural person)
  for (name of legal entity).
The reason is that the actual authors retain some inalienable
rights, even when working for hire or contract, and the right
to be know of as the author is one of these rights that can
neither be sold nor be given away.

 3. Each Copyright line must contain one year number, separated
with commas, for each year in which that author made copyrightable
additions to the file that are still present in the file.  Ranges
of years separated with dashes are only acceptable if that
author also made such contributions in each of the years between
the endpoints of the range.  Usually, only use ranges on lines
that would otherwise become too long.

Look at /usr/src/usr.bin/mandoc/mdoc_term.c for an example
demonstrating all these rules.

The full text of the license should follow this Copyright notice
in each file.


That said, from a legal standpoint, it is sufficient to have one
license for each Work, so having one Copyright notice for the whole
Work (e.g., program or package) is legally sufficient, too.  But
that is not a particularly good idea for several reasons:

 1. It is less clear and can cause doubt as to which files are
covered by the central Copyright notice and license.

 2. It is very hard to maintain correctly.  Care is already needed
when maintaining the notices in individual files, and maintaining
a central notice correctly is even harder because it is no
longer even clear in which files to look for the contributions
of the various authors.

 3. In practice, you will probably sooner or later include files
from third parties that are available under free licenses.  In
that case, leaving the Copyright notices and licenses in place
in those included files is usually required by the third party
licenses, and those licenses often differs slightly from the
one you are using for your own Work.  So you end up with some
files with Copyright notices and licenses and some without,
which exacerbates the problem explained in item 1.

 4. People maintaining other software will occasionally pick files
from your software and copy them to their own package.  If you
failed to add a Copyright notice and license to a file that
gets picked in this way, there is a higher risk that the person
taking the file forgets to copy your Copyright notice and license
into the file before redistributing it.  And worse, how is that
person even supposed to figure out who, and during which years,
contributed to that particular file?  Basically, that poor soul
will be forced to analyze the complete VCS commit history for
the file and reconstruct the Copyright notice from scratch.

> Or just in a file named "Licence" in the root folder ?

Best practice is to do that *in addition*, because with many files,
it can be hard to figure out the full list of Copyright holders and
applicable licenses, and also because you almost certainly want to
state *somewhere* which the preferred license is for new contributions
to the project.

For an example of such an additional central file demonstrating
many useful features of such a central file, refer to

  http://mandoc.bsd.lv/LICENSE


Oh, and very important:  Never add any Copyright or license goo to
the displayed text of any manual page or the stdout or stderr output
of any program.  Copyright notices and licenses belong into the
source code (of programs and documentation), *NEVER UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES* into any text displayed to the user.  I regard
displaying Copyright notices or licenses to the user as exceedingly
impolite, because you are basically slapping the user into the face
with this sneer: i value your time so little that i encumber the
output i show to you with irrelevant text, with text that i know
for sure you will *not* need each and every time you run the program
or open the documentation.

Yours,
  Ingo

Re: Please Advise on licencing

[Siju George]

Thank you In for the detailed explanation. In a code repository should the
licence wording be on every file ? Or just in a file named "Licence" in the
root folder ?

On Aug 5, 2017 12:49 AM, "Ingo Schwarze"  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Reyk Floeter wrote on Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:41:18AM +0200:
> > Am 04.08.2017 um 05:11 schrieb Siju George :
>
> >> I want this information to be available to all without discrimination.
> >> Which is the best licence I can give them?
>
> > the license is your choice ;-)
>
> While that is both true and important, there is also a definitive
> and objective answer to the question, quoting from what i wrote on
>
>   http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
>
>   The above observations regarding moral rights imply that putting
>   code under an ISC or two-clause BSD license essentially makes the
>   code as free as it can possibly get. Modifying the wording of
>   these licenses can only result in one of the three following
>   effects:
>
> 1. making the code less free by adding additional restrictions
>regarding its use, copying, modification or distribution;
> 2. or effectively not changing anything by merely changing the
>wording, but not changing anything substantial regarding the
>legal content;
> 3. or making the license illegal by attempting to deprive the
>authors of rights they cannot legally give away.
>
> Some examples:
>
>  * The GPL is an example of case 1 (not free).
>
>  * Allowing anybody to relicence is an example of case 2
>when added as an additional right to an ISC license.
>At first, it might seem that grants an additional right.
>But that right is utterly useless: The license is already
>as free as it can be, so relicensing cannot grant additional
>rights, and relicensing under more restrictive terms is
>pointless because the code is already available under ISC
>and will remain so.
>Note that relicensing permission is *only* irrelevant for ISC
>and Berkeley 2-clause.  If code is under a not fully free license
>(like GPL or Apache 2.0 or CDDL), then granting the right to
>relicense suddenly makes the code fully free, because anybody
>can then go ahead and (legally and morally legitimately)
>re-release under ISC.
>
>  * "Do whatever you like with this code" is an example of case 3.
>It is misleading in so far as the author *still* retains some
>rights under international law, specifically the Berne Convention,
>and there are things you are *still* prohibited from doing with
>the code, and it is not a good idea to mislead the unwary.
>Besides, it is dangerous because nobody knows whether some judge
>in some obscure jurisdiction might rule that "whatever you like"
>is not specific enough to include "distribute changed versions
>for profit as part of your private business" (or not specific
>enough for whatever might be considered to require *explicit*
>permission in that jurisdiction).  Or some judge might even rule
>that is outright invalid in the first place because of the obvious
>violation of the Berne Convention and consequently grants no
>rights whatsoever.  Using non-standard or fuzzy wording may
>potentially open you up to surprises in some jurisdictions.
>
> Yours,
>   Ingo
>

Re: WARNING: symbol(icudt58_dat) size mismatch, relink your program

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2017-08-04, Paul B. Henson  wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:33:15PM -0400, Predrag Punosevac wrote:
>
>> It is well known issue.
>> 
>> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=149271724912565=2
>> 
>> It seems to be benign at least for my use case.
>
> Yah, I saw that discussion from back in April, but then it just stopped
> with no resolution. I'm not sure what your use case is, but as far as I
> can tell, it's preventing programs linked against libicuuc.so from
> running? So not too benign for me 8-/. But fortunately downgrading to
> the 6.0 version of the port seems to have worked around the issue.
>
> Thanks...
>
>

The ports@ list is a better venue for ports-related queries,
please see this: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports=150157643516239=2

This is not preventing programs from running.

Re: Why is my USB showing as multiple disks (sd1/sd2/sd3) during installation? - OpenBSD 6.1 Release + Updates

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2017-08-04, Zé Loff  wrote:
> P.S.: you might want to search the archives for recent messages
> regarding prontonmail's bad habit of turning plain text messages into
> base64

honestly it's the quoting problems and poor formatting which are what really
makes it unsuitable...

Re: touchpad input driver: testing needed

[Ulf Brosziewski]

Hi Paul,

thanks for your help.  Does tapping work when you use
the synaptics driver?

In the test setup with ws and the internal driver there
are some restrictions on tapping:
1) It is suppressed when the position is an edge area
(presumably the software button area at the bottom
edge in this case).
2) The finger must not move by more than a certain
distance, otherwise, the contact doesn't count as
"tap".
3) It is suppressed when hardware buttons are being
pressed.
Just to be sure, can you exclude that 1), 2), or 3) is
the reason for the problem?  And neither one-, two-, nor
three-finger taps work?

Regards,
Ulf

On 08/04/2017 11:24 AM, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
> 
> This really helps a lot on my touchpad.  I used to have the following
> config:
> 
> Section "InputClass"
> Identifier  "Sony VAIO touchpad"
> MatchIsTouchpad "on"
> Option "TapButton1" "1"
> Option "HasSecondarySoftButtons" "true"
> Option "ClickPad" "true"
> Option "TouchpadOff" "1"
> Option "AreaTopEdge" "20%"
> Option "SoftButtonAreas" "60% 0 82% 0 40% 60% 82% 0"
> Option "SecondarySoftButtonAreas" "60% 0 0 20% 40% 60% 0 20%"
> EndSection
> 
> All from some experimentation with a bunch of buttons to try to get
> sane behaviour out of my touchpad.  Without a config, there was no
> scrolling and no right button (and probably other problems I now
> forget).  With your wsmouse touchpad stuff, I can scroll and have
> right click again.  Speed seems also fine.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:02:28PM +0200, Ulf Brosziewski wrote:
> | For now, X will treat the device like a mouse, please don't look for
> | touchpad-specific configuration options there.  Tapping can be enabled
> | by the command
> | # wsconsctl mouse.tp.tapping=1
> 
> This doesn't work on my touchpad.  Also, I can't click-and-drag (never
> worked, in any combination I while playing with the driver settings).
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Paul
> 
> [weerd@drop] $ wsconsctl mouse
> mouse.type=synaptics
> mouse.rawmode=0
> mouse.scale=1472,5768,1408,4748,0,66,66
> mouse.tp.tapping=1
> mouse.tp.scaling=0.169
> mouse.tp.swapsides=0
> mouse.tp.disable=0
> 
> OpenBSD 6.1-current (GENERIC.MP) #3: Fri Aug  4 07:49:26 CEST 2017
> we...@drop.weirdnet.nl:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP
> real mem = 8485335040 (8092MB)
> avail mem = 8221806592 (7840MB)
> mpath0 at root
> scsibus0 at mpath0: 256 targets
> mainbus0 at root
> bios0 at mainbus0: SMBIOS rev. 2.6 @ 0xe6020 (18 entries)
> bios0: vendor INSYDE version "R1010H5" date 07/28/2011
> bios0: Sony Corporation VPCZ23C5E
> acpi0 at bios0: rev 2
> acpi0: sleep states S0 S3 S4 S5
> acpi0: tables DSDT FACP TCPA ASF! HPET APIC MCFG SLIC WDAT SSDT BOOT SSDT 
> ASPT SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT
> acpi0: wakeup devices EHC1(S3) EHC2(S3) HDEF(S0) WLAN(S0) RP01(S0) RMSC(S0) 
> RP02(S0) NXUC(S3) RP03(S3) RLAN(S3) RP04(S3) RP07(S3) PEG0(S0) PEGP(S0)
> acpitimer0 at acpi0: 3579545 Hz, 24 bits
> acpihpet0 at acpi0: 14318179 Hz
> acpimadt0 at acpi0 addr 0xfee0: PC-AT compat
> cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor)
> cpu0: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2640M CPU @ 2.80GHz, 2794.06 MHz
> cpu0: 
> FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE,SSE3,PCLMUL,DTES64,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,PCID,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,x2APIC,POPCNT,DEADLINE,AES,XSAVE,AVX,NXE,RDTSCP,LONG,LAHF,PERF,ITSC,SENSOR,ARAT
> cpu0: 256KB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache
> cpu0: TSC frequency 2794061280 Hz
> cpu0: smt 0, core 0, package 0
> mtrr: Pentium Pro MTRR support, 10 var ranges, 88 fixed ranges
> cpu0: apic clock running at 99MHz
> cpu0: mwait min=64, max=64, C-substates=0.2.1.1.2, IBE
> cpu1 at mainbus0: apid 1 (application processor)
> cpu1: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2640M CPU @ 2.80GHz, 2793.66 MHz
> cpu1: 
> FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE,SSE3,PCLMUL,DTES64,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,PCID,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,x2APIC,POPCNT,DEADLINE,AES,XSAVE,AVX,NXE,RDTSCP,LONG,LAHF,PERF,ITSC,SENSOR,ARAT
> cpu1: 256KB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache
> cpu1: smt 1, core 0, package 0
> cpu2 at mainbus0: apid 2 (application processor)
> cpu2: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2640M CPU @ 2.80GHz, 2793.66 MHz
> cpu2: 
> FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE,SSE3,PCLMUL,DTES64,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,PCID,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,x2APIC,POPCNT,DEADLINE,AES,XSAVE,AVX,NXE,RDTSCP,LONG,LAHF,PERF,ITSC,SENSOR,ARAT
> cpu2: 256KB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache
> cpu2: smt 0, core 1, package 0
> cpu3 at mainbus0: apid 3 (application processor)
> cpu3: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2640M CPU @ 2.80GHz, 2793.66 MHz
> cpu3: 
> 

Re: Random boot seed cron job for unclean shutdowns?

[Alexander Hall]

On August 4, 2017 9:03:17 PM GMT+02:00, Kevin Chadwick  
wrote:
>
>I've noticed disk checks on a colleagues system many times and will ask
>why on Monday and advise that whilst OpenBSD is rock solid it should
>still be shutdown gracefully.
>
>I am sure this has already been considered but I shall ask anyway just
>in case. Despite running RO root systems in some cases I am now
>wondering if a Cron job to update the random boot seed every ? minutes
>might be a good idea to limit the chance of random boot seed re-use?

Not entirely sure what you're asking, but please realize that a new seed is 
generated already on bootup. Not sure a periodic update would add any 
substantial value. 

/Alexander

Re: event.3: libevent no longer prints to stderr

[Rob Pierce]

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 07:53:19PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> 
> thanks for looking at libevent documentation.  It is in dire need
> of improvements in multiple respects.
> 
> Rob Pierce wrote on Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 10:21:16AM -0400:
> 
> > As of the last commit to src/lib/libevent/log.c the library
> > no longer prints to stderr.  Update man page accordingly.
> > 
> > Ok?
> 
> But honestly, i'm not convinced that this patch is right.
> 
> Look at event.c.  EVENT_SHOW_METHOD is still inspected (line 154),
> and if it is set, the library does issue a message.
> 
> But looking at the code and at the documentation, i instantly
> see lots and lots of issues that need fixing.  Unsorted:
> 
>  * EVENT_SHOW_METHOD ought to be documented in the ENVIRONMENT
>section.  The section name "ADDITIONAL NOTES" is bogus.
> 
>  * If you document an ENVIRONMENT variable, you should also say
>which value(s) it is supposed to have (in this case, the value
>is ignored, and even an empty value counts as "set", which is
>not at all obvious).
> 
>  * The information is missing that that the variable is ignored
>in setuid and setgid programs as defined by issetugid(2).
> 
>  * Talking about "displaying" something is useless in library
>documentation.  You also have to explain where the message
>will appear.  Certainly not on stdout, right?
> 
>  * In this case, the message won't appear anywhere at all by default,
>not even in the system logs.
> 
>  * To make *any* messages from libevent appear anywhere at all,
>the application program has to supply a logging callback
>function using the public interface function
>event_set_log_callback(3).  Unfortunately, man -k tells me
>that function isn't documented anywhere at all.
>A classic case of user-level RTFS...  :-(

... and there it is! Thanks Ingo. I didn't go deep enough.

>  * Don't you dare add yet more functions to event(3).
>It is already of excessive size and conflating documentation for
>classes of functions almost unrelated to each other - like,
>what's the point of having signal_set(3) and bufferevent_read(3)
>in the same manual page?
> 
> I dimly remeber that somebody tried and started to clean this mess
> up some years ago, but wasn't persistent enough to go anywhere with
> it.  If you want to look at that and don't find it instantly, i can
> dig it up for you.  Or you can simply start from scratch, the old
> discussion didn't go so far that much would be lost starting over.
> 
> If you want to tackle this, expect several days of work,
> involving much reading of code.

I will put it on my list!

Regards,

Rob

> Yours,
>   Ingo
> 
> 
> > Index: event.3
> > ===
> > RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libevent/event.3,v
> > retrieving revision 1.53
> > diff -u -p -r1.53 event.3
> > --- event.3 29 Jun 2017 01:25:59 -  1.53
> > +++ event.3 4 Aug 2017 14:08:44 -
> > @@ -517,10 +517,6 @@ by setting the environment variable
> >  or
> >  .Va EVENT_NOSELECT ,
> >  respectively.
> > -By setting the environment variable
> > -.Va EVENT_SHOW_METHOD ,
> > -.Nm libevent
> > -displays the kernel notification method that it uses.
> >  .Sh RETURN VALUES
> >  Upon successful completion
> >  .Fn event_add

Re: Please Advise on licencing

[Ingo Schwarze]

Hi,

Reyk Floeter wrote on Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:41:18AM +0200:
> Am 04.08.2017 um 05:11 schrieb Siju George :

>> I want this information to be available to all without discrimination.
>> Which is the best licence I can give them?

> the license is your choice ;-)

While that is both true and important, there is also a definitive
and objective answer to the question, quoting from what i wrote on

  http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html

  The above observations regarding moral rights imply that putting
  code under an ISC or two-clause BSD license essentially makes the
  code as free as it can possibly get. Modifying the wording of
  these licenses can only result in one of the three following
  effects:

1. making the code less free by adding additional restrictions
   regarding its use, copying, modification or distribution;
2. or effectively not changing anything by merely changing the
   wording, but not changing anything substantial regarding the
   legal content;
3. or making the license illegal by attempting to deprive the
   authors of rights they cannot legally give away.

Some examples:

 * The GPL is an example of case 1 (not free).

 * Allowing anybody to relicence is an example of case 2
   when added as an additional right to an ISC license.
   At first, it might seem that grants an additional right.
   But that right is utterly useless: The license is already
   as free as it can be, so relicensing cannot grant additional
   rights, and relicensing under more restrictive terms is
   pointless because the code is already available under ISC
   and will remain so.
   Note that relicensing permission is *only* irrelevant for ISC
   and Berkeley 2-clause.  If code is under a not fully free license
   (like GPL or Apache 2.0 or CDDL), then granting the right to
   relicense suddenly makes the code fully free, because anybody
   can then go ahead and (legally and morally legitimately)
   re-release under ISC.

 * "Do whatever you like with this code" is an example of case 3.
   It is misleading in so far as the author *still* retains some
   rights under international law, specifically the Berne Convention,
   and there are things you are *still* prohibited from doing with
   the code, and it is not a good idea to mislead the unwary.
   Besides, it is dangerous because nobody knows whether some judge
   in some obscure jurisdiction might rule that "whatever you like"
   is not specific enough to include "distribute changed versions
   for profit as part of your private business" (or not specific
   enough for whatever might be considered to require *explicit*
   permission in that jurisdiction).  Or some judge might even rule
   that is outright invalid in the first place because of the obvious
   violation of the Berne Convention and consequently grants no
   rights whatsoever.  Using non-standard or fuzzy wording may
   potentially open you up to surprises in some jurisdictions.

Yours,
  Ingo

Re: lazy binding failed

[Jason Hunt]

Thanks, I missed the "-D installed" part.

- Jason

On Aug 4, 2017 10:42 AM, "Amit Kulkarni"  wrote:

> > What am I missing that prevents the ports from correcting the issue?
> >
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html
>
> 2017/07/29 - amd64 and i386: update all packages
>

Random boot seed cron job for unclean shutdowns?

[Kevin Chadwick]

I've noticed disk checks on a colleagues system many times and will ask
why on Monday and advise that whilst OpenBSD is rock solid it should
still be shutdown gracefully.

I am sure this has already been considered but I shall ask anyway just
in case. Despite running RO root systems in some cases I am now
wondering if a Cron job to update the random boot seed every ? minutes
might be a good idea to limit the chance of random boot seed re-use?

Re: event.3: libevent no longer prints to stderr

[Ingo Schwarze]

Hi Rob,

thanks for looking at libevent documentation.  It is in dire need
of improvements in multiple respects.

Rob Pierce wrote on Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 10:21:16AM -0400:

> As of the last commit to src/lib/libevent/log.c the library
> no longer prints to stderr.  Update man page accordingly.
> 
> Ok?

But honestly, i'm not convinced that this patch is right.

Look at event.c.  EVENT_SHOW_METHOD is still inspected (line 154),
and if it is set, the library does issue a message.

But looking at the code and at the documentation, i instantly
see lots and lots of issues that need fixing.  Unsorted:

 * EVENT_SHOW_METHOD ought to be documented in the ENVIRONMENT
   section.  The section name "ADDITIONAL NOTES" is bogus.

 * If you document an ENVIRONMENT variable, you should also say
   which value(s) it is supposed to have (in this case, the value
   is ignored, and even an empty value counts as "set", which is
   not at all obvious).

 * The information is missing that that the variable is ignored
   in setuid and setgid programs as defined by issetugid(2).

 * Talking about "displaying" something is useless in library
   documentation.  You also have to explain where the message
   will appear.  Certainly not on stdout, right?

 * In this case, the message won't appear anywhere at all by default,
   not even in the system logs.

 * To make *any* messages from libevent appear anywhere at all,
   the application program has to supply a logging callback
   function using the public interface function
   event_set_log_callback(3).  Unfortunately, man -k tells me
   that function isn't documented anywhere at all.
   A classic case of user-level RTFS...  :-(

 * Don't you dare add yet more functions to event(3).
   It is already of excessive size and conflating documentation for
   classes of functions almost unrelated to each other - like,
   what's the point of having signal_set(3) and bufferevent_read(3)
   in the same manual page?

I dimly remeber that somebody tried and started to clean this mess
up some years ago, but wasn't persistent enough to go anywhere with
it.  If you want to look at that and don't find it instantly, i can
dig it up for you.  Or you can simply start from scratch, the old
discussion didn't go so far that much would be lost starting over.

If you want to tackle this, expect several days of work,
involving much reading of code.

Yours,
  Ingo


> Index: event.3
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libevent/event.3,v
> retrieving revision 1.53
> diff -u -p -r1.53 event.3
> --- event.3   29 Jun 2017 01:25:59 -  1.53
> +++ event.3   4 Aug 2017 14:08:44 -
> @@ -517,10 +517,6 @@ by setting the environment variable
>  or
>  .Va EVENT_NOSELECT ,
>  respectively.
> -By setting the environment variable
> -.Va EVENT_SHOW_METHOD ,
> -.Nm libevent
> -displays the kernel notification method that it uses.
>  .Sh RETURN VALUES
>  Upon successful completion
>  .Fn event_add

Re: lazy binding failed

[Amit Kulkarni]

> What am I missing that prevents the ports from correcting the issue?
>

http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html

2017/07/29 - amd64 and i386: update all packages

event.3: libevent no longer prints to stderr

[Rob Pierce]

As of the last commit to src/lib/libevent/log.c the library no longer prints to
stderr. Update man page accordingly.

Ok?

Index: event.3
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libevent/event.3,v
retrieving revision 1.53
diff -u -p -r1.53 event.3
--- event.3 29 Jun 2017 01:25:59 -  1.53
+++ event.3 4 Aug 2017 14:08:44 -
@@ -517,10 +517,6 @@ by setting the environment variable
 or
 .Va EVENT_NOSELECT ,
 respectively.
-By setting the environment variable
-.Va EVENT_SHOW_METHOD ,
-.Nm libevent
-displays the kernel notification method that it uses.
 .Sh RETURN VALUES
 Upon successful completion
 .Fn event_add

Re: Why is my USB showing as multiple disks (sd1/sd2/sd3) during installation? - OpenBSD 6.1 Release + Updates

[Zé Loff]

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:44:42PM -0400, tec...@protonmail.com wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm so confused about this - I'm trying to install OBSD 6.1 to another
> USB from a USB.. This all goes well up until the point of selecting
> the disk to install to.. instead of it showing as I'd expect it to:
> sd1: Generic Storage Device
> it shows as:
> sd1: sd2: sd3: Generic Storage Device
> This same issue has happened with 2 different target USB's and 2
> different target MicroSD cards (which my system can boot from). Can't
> for the life of my figure out what's going on. All of these devices
> have been wiped fully using gparted on my linux system.
> If anyone can point me in the right direction that'd be great, I've
> been scouring search engine for the past couple of hours on this one.
> Thanks

At least show us a dmesg!  How are you attaching the card?  I have a
multi-card reader that attaches 4 different sd* devices:

sd2 at scsibus4 targ 1 lun 0:  SCSI0 0/direct removable
sd3 at scsibus4 targ 1 lun 1:  SCSI0 0/direct removable
sd4 at scsibus4 targ 1 lun 2:  SCSI0 0/direct removable
sd5 at scsibus4 targ 1 lun 3:  SCSI0 0/direct removable

Cheers
Zé

P.S.: you might want to search the archives for recent messages
regarding prontonmail's bad habit of turning plain text messages into
base64

-- 

Re: touchpad input driver: testing needed

[Paul de Weerd]

Hi Ulf,

This really helps a lot on my touchpad.  I used to have the following
config:

Section "InputClass"
Identifier  "Sony VAIO touchpad"
MatchIsTouchpad "on"
Option "TapButton1" "1"
Option "HasSecondarySoftButtons" "true"
Option "ClickPad" "true"
Option "TouchpadOff" "1"
Option "AreaTopEdge" "20%"
Option "SoftButtonAreas" "60% 0 82% 0 40% 60% 82% 0"
Option "SecondarySoftButtonAreas" "60% 0 0 20% 40% 60% 0 20%"
EndSection

All from some experimentation with a bunch of buttons to try to get
sane behaviour out of my touchpad.  Without a config, there was no
scrolling and no right button (and probably other problems I now
forget).  With your wsmouse touchpad stuff, I can scroll and have
right click again.  Speed seems also fine.

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:02:28PM +0200, Ulf Brosziewski wrote:
| For now, X will treat the device like a mouse, please don't look for
| touchpad-specific configuration options there.  Tapping can be enabled
| by the command
| # wsconsctl mouse.tp.tapping=1

This doesn't work on my touchpad.  Also, I can't click-and-drag (never
worked, in any combination I while playing with the driver settings).

Thanks!

Paul

[weerd@drop] $ wsconsctl mouse
mouse.type=synaptics
mouse.rawmode=0
mouse.scale=1472,5768,1408,4748,0,66,66
mouse.tp.tapping=1
mouse.tp.scaling=0.169
mouse.tp.swapsides=0
mouse.tp.disable=0

OpenBSD 6.1-current (GENERIC.MP) #3: Fri Aug  4 07:49:26 CEST 2017
we...@drop.weirdnet.nl:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP
real mem = 8485335040 (8092MB)
avail mem = 8221806592 (7840MB)
mpath0 at root
scsibus0 at mpath0: 256 targets
mainbus0 at root
bios0 at mainbus0: SMBIOS rev. 2.6 @ 0xe6020 (18 entries)
bios0: vendor INSYDE version "R1010H5" date 07/28/2011
bios0: Sony Corporation VPCZ23C5E
acpi0 at bios0: rev 2
acpi0: sleep states S0 S3 S4 S5
acpi0: tables DSDT FACP TCPA ASF! HPET APIC MCFG SLIC WDAT SSDT BOOT SSDT ASPT 
SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT
acpi0: wakeup devices EHC1(S3) EHC2(S3) HDEF(S0) WLAN(S0) RP01(S0) RMSC(S0) 
RP02(S0) NXUC(S3) RP03(S3) RLAN(S3) RP04(S3) RP07(S3) PEG0(S0) PEGP(S0)
acpitimer0 at acpi0: 3579545 Hz, 24 bits
acpihpet0 at acpi0: 14318179 Hz
acpimadt0 at acpi0 addr 0xfee0: PC-AT compat
cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor)
cpu0: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2640M CPU @ 2.80GHz, 2794.06 MHz
cpu0: 
FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE,SSE3,PCLMUL,DTES64,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,PCID,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,x2APIC,POPCNT,DEADLINE,AES,XSAVE,AVX,NXE,RDTSCP,LONG,LAHF,PERF,ITSC,SENSOR,ARAT
cpu0: 256KB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache
cpu0: TSC frequency 2794061280 Hz
cpu0: smt 0, core 0, package 0
mtrr: Pentium Pro MTRR support, 10 var ranges, 88 fixed ranges
cpu0: apic clock running at 99MHz
cpu0: mwait min=64, max=64, C-substates=0.2.1.1.2, IBE
cpu1 at mainbus0: apid 1 (application processor)
cpu1: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2640M CPU @ 2.80GHz, 2793.66 MHz
cpu1: 
FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE,SSE3,PCLMUL,DTES64,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,PCID,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,x2APIC,POPCNT,DEADLINE,AES,XSAVE,AVX,NXE,RDTSCP,LONG,LAHF,PERF,ITSC,SENSOR,ARAT
cpu1: 256KB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache
cpu1: smt 1, core 0, package 0
cpu2 at mainbus0: apid 2 (application processor)
cpu2: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2640M CPU @ 2.80GHz, 2793.66 MHz
cpu2: 
FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE,SSE3,PCLMUL,DTES64,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,PCID,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,x2APIC,POPCNT,DEADLINE,AES,XSAVE,AVX,NXE,RDTSCP,LONG,LAHF,PERF,ITSC,SENSOR,ARAT
cpu2: 256KB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache
cpu2: smt 0, core 1, package 0
cpu3 at mainbus0: apid 3 (application processor)
cpu3: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2640M CPU @ 2.80GHz, 2793.66 MHz
cpu3: 
FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE,SSE3,PCLMUL,DTES64,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,PCID,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,x2APIC,POPCNT,DEADLINE,AES,XSAVE,AVX,NXE,RDTSCP,LONG,LAHF,PERF,ITSC,SENSOR,ARAT
cpu3: 256KB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache
cpu3: smt 1, core 1, package 0
ioapic0 at mainbus0: apid 0 pa 0xfec0, version 20, 24 pins
acpimcfg0 at acpi0 addr 0xe000, bus 0-255
acpiprt0 at acpi0: bus 0 (PCI0)
acpiprt1 at acpi0: bus 2 (RP01)
acpiprt2 at acpi0: bus 3 (RP02)
acpiprt3 at acpi0: bus 4 (RP03)
acpiprt4 at acpi0: bus 5 (RP04)
acpiprt5 at acpi0: bus 8 (RP07)
acpiprt6 at acpi0: bus -1 (PEG0)
acpiec0 at acpi0
acpicpu0 at acpi0: C3(350@104 mwait.1@0x20), C1(1000@1 mwait.1), PSS
acpicpu1 at acpi0: C3(350@104 mwait.1@0x20), C1(1000@1 mwait.1), PSS
acpicpu2 at acpi0: C3(350@104 mwait.1@0x20), C1(1000@1 mwait.1), PSS
acpicpu3 at acpi0: C3(350@104 mwait.1@0x20), C1(1000@1 mwait.1), PSS
acpitz0 at acpi0: critical temperature is 98 degC

Re: Please Advise on licencing

[Siju George]

Thank you Reyk . I will use ISC :-)

On Aug 4, 2017 12:11 PM, "Reyk Floeter"  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the license is your choice ;-)
>
> But we use ISC for new code in OpenBSD and I also use for all other open
> source code these days.
>
> See:
> http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/misc/
> license.template?rev=1.3=text/x-cvsweb-markup
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html
>
> And:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license
>
> Note that the mentioned Atheros drivers in the Linux kernel are
> ISC-licensed because they were derived from my ar5k drivers in OpenBSD.
> Long time ago.
>
> http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/Atheros/#Licensing
>
> Reyk
>
> Am 04.08.2017 um 05:11 schrieb Siju George :
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a git repo
>
> https://github.com/sgeorge
>
> where I populate mainly contents about docker.
>
> I want this information to be available to all without discrimination.
>
> Which is the best licence I can give them?
>
> BSD or ISC or MIT or any other?
>
> Heard Reyk is not using BSD licence for his drivers but ISC
>
> Thus the confusion in my mind.
>
> Please advise
>
> Thank you :-)
>
> Siju Oommen George
>
>
>

Re: Supporting OpenBSD

[Alexander Hall]

On August 2, 2017 10:03:13 AM GMT+02:00, Mike Burns 
 wrote:
>On 2017-08-02 13.21.44 +0930, Radoslav Mirza wrote:
>> Are there any resources that point to where I can begin to help with
>> the project?
>
>- Use OpenBSD to get your work done. When something breaks, fix it and
>  send in a patch. When something is sub par, improve it and send in
>  that patch.

This. And the rest. But, really. This.

/Alexander

>- Join #openbsd-daily on irc.freenode.net to get a walkthrough of how
>  code is written for the project.
>- Follow tech@. When someone sends a patch asking for an OK, try
>  applying it to make sure it works as intended.
>- Follow bugs@.
>- Donate hardware: https://www.openbsd.org/want.html
>- Donate money: https://www.openbsd.org/donations.html

Re: Please Advise on licencing

[Gareth Nelson]

My usual rule is this:

If you want it copyleft, GPLv2
If you don't want it copyleft, BSD

Since you're asking on the OpenBSD mailing list, most people will recommend
the license OpenBSD is using

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Reyk Floeter  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the license is your choice ;-)
>
> But we use ISC for new code in OpenBSD and I also use for all other open
> source code these days.
>
> See:
> http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/misc/
> license.template?rev=1.3=text/x-cvsweb-markup
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html
>
> And:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license
>
> Note that the mentioned Atheros drivers in the Linux kernel are
> ISC-licensed because they were derived from my ar5k drivers in OpenBSD.
> Long time ago.
>
> http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/Atheros/#Licensing
>
> Reyk
>
> > Am 04.08.2017 um 05:11 schrieb Siju George :
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a git repo
> >
> > https://github.com/sgeorge
> >
> > where I populate mainly contents about docker.
> >
> > I want this information to be available to all without discrimination.
> >
> > Which is the best licence I can give them?
> >
> > BSD or ISC or MIT or any other?
> >
> > Heard Reyk is not using BSD licence for his drivers but ISC
> >
> > Thus the confusion in my mind.
> >
> > Please advise
> >
> > Thank you :-)
> >
> > Siju Oommen George
> >
> >
>

Re: Please Advise on licencing

[Reyk Floeter]

Hi,

the license is your choice ;-)

But we use ISC for new code in OpenBSD and I also use for all other open source 
code these days.

See:
http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=1.3=text/x-cvsweb-markup

http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html

And:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license

Note that the mentioned Atheros drivers in the Linux kernel are ISC-licensed 
because they were derived from my ar5k drivers in OpenBSD. Long time ago.

http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/Atheros/#Licensing

Reyk

> Am 04.08.2017 um 05:11 schrieb Siju George :
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have a git repo 
> 
> https://github.com/sgeorge
> 
> where I populate mainly contents about docker.
> 
> I want this information to be available to all without discrimination.
> 
> Which is the best licence I can give them?
> 
> BSD or ISC or MIT or any other?
> 
> Heard Reyk is not using BSD licence for his drivers but ISC
> 
> Thus the confusion in my mind.
> 
> Please advise
> 
> Thank you :-)
> 
> Siju Oommen George
> 
> 

Re: Lenovo T440s

[Stefan Wollny]

Am 08/04/17 um 06:38 schrieb Bryan Linton:
> A few extra lines of harmless dmesg spam are a small price to pay
> for having all the work the developers put in to bring newer drm
> code and Skylake support to OpenBSD.
> 
> I extend my own thanks to all those involved in such a feat.

+1