Tomas Hajny wrote:
> The main problem is that there's a lot platform independent
> functionality in Crt unit which is re-implemented for every
> platform again and again. The best solution would be to throw all
> the individual implementations away completely and implement
> cross-platform Crt uni
Hello,
But may have undesirable side effects if no one else is eating the
console events (not sure if this is actually possible, that means a
problem, in console programs).
More testing showed that this is a problem after all. So don't apply it.
> The IDE does not seem to mind though from a short
From: "Thomas Schatzl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FPC developers' list"
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Quick patch for bug 3762
Date: 31.3.2005 - 12:44:20
> Sterling Bates schrieb:
> > In response to Tomas Hajny:
> >
> > I'd certainly be willing to give it a try. Granted, I only
> > have Windows XP, b
Sterling Bates schrieb:
In response to Tomas Hajny:
I'd certainly be willing to give it a try. Granted, I only
> have Windows XP, but if I'm careful it should be a smooth
> transition. No promises on a timeline :)
Another problem with Windows (not sure about other OSs) is in
> bug 2084. (Us
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:51:09 +0200
Micha Nelissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux firewall should have something like:
>
> iptables -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type fragmentation-needed -j ACCEPT
And also in FORWARD and OUTPUT, but it may be that you already have a rule to
allow 'RELATED' traffi
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:18:24 +0200 (CEST)
Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Micha Nelissen wrote:
>
> > Yes, any sensible sysadmin ought to know that ICMP fragment error
> > packets (type 3, code 4?) should always be allowed.
>
> Can you please translate
