On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 22:31:52 -0700
Aaron Bieber wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2020 at 20:29:31 +0100, William Orr wrote:
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> > On recent a snap (04/02/2020), the unpriv'ed process of Xorg seems to hang,
> > becoming totally unresponsive. Running `ktrace` on the process fails to log
> >
Frédéric Dhieux wrote:
> Hi OpenBSD team,
>
> I would like to report a problem I have, we have in production many OpenBSD
> where we remove X*, game* and comp* at the install.
>
> Everything is fine except sysupgrade adds every sets again when I try to
> upgrade my OpenBSD version. Is it
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 07:55:40PM -0500, Bryan Steele wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 03:37:14PM +, Frédéric Dhieux wrote:
> > Hi OpenBSD team,
> >
> > I would like to report a problem I have, we have in production many OpenBSD
> > where we remove X*, game* and comp* at the install.
> >
>
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 03:37:14PM +, Frédéric Dhieux wrote:
> Hi OpenBSD team,
>
> I would like to report a problem I have, we have in production many OpenBSD
> where we remove X*, game* and comp* at the install.
>
> Everything is fine except sysupgrade adds every sets again when I try to
Hi OpenBSD team,
I would like to report a problem I have, we have in production many OpenBSD
where we remove X*, game* and comp* at the install.
Everything is fine except sysupgrade adds every sets again when I try to
upgrade my OpenBSD version. Is it possible for sysupgrade to preserve the
On 2020/02/06 18:03, Master One wrote:
> To whom it may concern,
>
> Please excuse me sending such a questionable bug or feature request
> this way, I'm not subscribed to any OpenBSD mailing list and I'm not an
> OpenBSD user yet but currently evaluating the move from GNU/Linux to
> OpenBSD.
>
>
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 04:46:08PM +0100, Adam Wolk wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 03:19:17PM +1100, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 10:19:44PM -0500, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 12:30:18AM +0100, Adam Wolk wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 02, 2020
Hello,
I tried to post this at sp...@openbsd.org, but it bounced, or rather didn't go
through at all so I apologize in advance.
I was hoping to get decent video (any video at all actually) on my V240 since
my XVR-600 was not displaying anything at all despite everything appearing to
work. I
leeb wrote:
> OK, just rebuilt my kernel:
>
> x230$ grep MC7700 umsm.c
> {{ USB_VENDOR_SIERRA, USB_PRODUCT_SIERRA_MC7700}, 0},
> x230$ diff if_umb.c if_umb.c.~1.31.~
>
> 276,277c276
> < /* return
Gerhard Roth wrote:
> thank you very much for your generous offer. But I don't think this is
> needed. I think the umsm(4) vs. umb(4) attach problem can be attacked
> without having this specific device as it happens with other Sierra
> Wireless devices, too.
Yes, it looks like the testing
To whom it may concern,
Please excuse me sending such a questionable bug or feature request
this way, I'm not subscribed to any OpenBSD mailing list and I'm not an
OpenBSD user yet but currently evaluating the move from GNU/Linux to
OpenBSD.
I have looked into the possibility to use the tools
On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 03:19:17PM +1100, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 10:19:44PM -0500, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 12:30:18AM +0100, Adam Wolk wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 04:06:38PM -0500, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
> > > > A kernel
OK, just rebuilt my kernel:
x230$ grep MC7700 umsm.c
{{ USB_VENDOR_SIERRA, USB_PRODUCT_SIERRA_MC7700}, 0},
x230$ diff if_umb.c if_umb.c.~1.31.~
276,277c276
< /* return UMATCH_IFACECLASS_IFACESUBCLASS_IFACEPROTO; */
<
Hi Lee,
thank you very much for your generous offer. But I don't think this is
needed. I think the umsm(4) vs. umb(4) attach problem can be attacked
without having this specific device as it happens with other Sierra
Wireless devices, too.
Theo had a M7700 that would not attach a umb(4) but as I
I don't know if it is expected behavior. It does not surprise me though.
Since you are asking, what did *you* expect?
On 6 February 2020 00:41:40 CET, jungle Boogie wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>Not sure if this is the expected behavior:
>
>$ ping 1.1.1.1
>PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
>ping:
15 matches
Mail list logo