В Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:23:59 +0400
Alex Keda ad...@lissyara.su пишет:
srv5# more /tmp/a.sh
table=24
ipfw table $table flush
for octet3 in `jot - 1 60`
do
for octet4 in `jot - 1 254`
do
echo table $table add 192.168.$octet3.$octet4 /tmp/$$.txt
done
done
ipfw /tmp/$$.txt
rm
В Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:07:56 +0400
Hizel Ildar hi...@vyborg.ru пишет:
В Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:23:59 +0400
Alex Keda ad...@lissyara.su пишет:
srv5# more /tmp/a.sh
table=24
ipfw table $table flush
for octet3 in `jot - 1 60`
do
for octet4 in `jot - 1 254`
do
echo table
12.04.2010 10:07, Hizel Ildar пишет:
В Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:23:59 +0400
Alex Kedaad...@lissyara.su пишет:
srv5# more /tmp/a.sh
table=24
ipfw table $table flush
for octet3 in `jot - 1 60`
do
for octet4 in `jot - 1 254`
do
echo table $table add 192.168.$octet3.$octet4 /tmp/$$.txt
On 12.04.2010 10:07, Hizel Ildar wrote:
Hey! I'm fix this bug :D
patch:
foo# diff -ruN main.c~ main.c
--- main.c~ 2010-03-04 19:54:56.0 +0300
+++ main.c 2010-04-12 09:37:21.0 +0400
@@ -553,7 +553,7 @@
}
while (fgets(buf, BUFSIZ, f)) { /* read
В Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:42:25 +0400
Andrey V. Elsukov bu7c...@yandex.ru пишет:
On 12.04.2010 10:07, Hizel Ildar wrote:
Hey! I'm fix this bug :D
patch:
foo# diff -ruN main.c~ main.c
--- main.c~ 2010-03-04 19:54:56.0 +0300
+++ main.c 2010-04-12 09:37:21.0 +0400
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:15:45AM +0400, Hizel Ildar wrote:
?? Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:42:25 +0400
Andrey V. Elsukov bu7c...@yandex.ru ??:
On 12.04.2010 10:07, Hizel Ildar wrote:
Hey! I'm fix this bug :D
patch:
foo# diff -ruN main.c~ main.c
--- main.c~ 2010-03-04
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Dan Nelson dnel...@allantgroup.com wrote:
In the last episode (Apr 08), Garrett Cooper said:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 8, 2010, at 2:18 PM, krad wrote:
[ ... ]
is that even possible with CDDL?
im not a
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 03:44:37PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 4/11/10 12:20 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:13:12PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 4/11/10 11:44 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:23:33AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 4/11/10
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Tom Evans tevans...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Dan Nelson dnel...@allantgroup.com wrote:
In the last episode (Apr 08), Garrett Cooper said:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 8, 2010, at 2:18
On Friday 09 April 2010 3:09:24 pm Jack Vogel wrote:
Someone else also pointed this out. I'm dubious about its claim.
This happens because there is an RX lock taken in rxeof, its held
thru the call into the stack, it then encounters another lock there
and hence this complaint. I've had the RX
On Saturday 10 April 2010 5:33:35 am Dominic Fandrey wrote:
This morning I took a look at my outstanding PRs. There
is a PR I consider old and trivial:
This one proposes a change that always treats rc script execution
of active services as if service_enable=YES was set.
This ensures, among
On 12/04/2010 16:53, John Baldwin wrote:
On Saturday 10 April 2010 5:33:35 am Dominic Fandrey wrote:
This morning I took a look at my outstanding PRs. There
is a PR I consider old and trivial:
This one proposes a change that always treats rc script execution
of active services as if
On Monday 12 April 2010 11:17:16 am Dominic Fandrey wrote:
On 12/04/2010 16:53, John Baldwin wrote:
On Saturday 10 April 2010 5:33:35 am Dominic Fandrey wrote:
This morning I took a look at my outstanding PRs. There
is a PR I consider old and trivial:
This one proposes a change that
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:52 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Friday 09 April 2010 3:09:24 pm Jack Vogel wrote:
Someone else also pointed this out. I'm dubious about its claim.
This happens because there is an RX lock taken in rxeof, its held
thru the call into the stack, it
John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday 12 April 2010 11:17:16 am Dominic Fandrey wrote:
On 12/04/2010 16:53, John Baldwin wrote:
[...]
Considering that they are the responsible party, do they not
get notified by GNATS whenever I submit a follow-up to the PR?
Ah, in that case they probably do.
On Monday 12 April 2010 12:26:06 pm Jack Vogel wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:52 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Friday 09 April 2010 3:09:24 pm Jack Vogel wrote:
Someone else also pointed this out. I'm dubious about its claim.
This happens because there is an RX lock
On 4/12/2010 9:45 AM, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
I have bad experiences with freebsd-rc mailing list - no responses to my
direct e-mails and no responses for PRs (PR sent more than year ago,
direct e-mails 3 month ago without any reaction).
I don't know who is responsible person for rc system
Doug Barton wrote:
On 4/12/2010 9:45 AM, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
I have bad experiences with freebsd-rc mailing list - no responses to my
direct e-mails and no responses for PRs (PR sent more than year ago,
direct e-mails 3 month ago without any reaction).
I don't know who is responsible person
TB --- 2010-04-13 00:50:00 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-04-13 00:50:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/pc98
TB --- 2010-04-13 00:50:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-04-13 00:50:22 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-04-13 00:50:22 -
TB --- 2010-04-13 00:50:00 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-04-13 00:50:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/i386
TB --- 2010-04-13 00:50:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-04-13 00:50:23 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-04-13 00:50:23 -
TB --- 2010-04-13 00:50:00 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-04-13 00:50:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for amd64/amd64
TB --- 2010-04-13 00:50:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-04-13 00:50:34 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-04-13 00:50:34 -
TB --- 2010-04-13 01:39:41 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-04-13 01:39:41 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for ia64/ia64
TB --- 2010-04-13 01:39:41 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-04-13 01:40:03 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-04-13 01:40:03 -
TB --- 2010-04-13 02:34:19 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-04-13 02:34:19 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for sparc64/sparc64
TB --- 2010-04-13 02:34:19 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-04-13 02:34:38 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-04-13 02:34:38 -
TB --- 2010-04-13 02:55:42 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-04-13 02:55:42 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for sparc64/sun4v
TB --- 2010-04-13 02:55:42 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-04-13 02:55:55 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-04-13 02:55:55 -
В Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:14:54 -0700
David Wolfskill da...@catwhisker.org пишет:
As these things go, this probably isn't as critical as most thinsg
disussed on this list, but I happened to notice it today, built a
debugging world and at least cornered the annoying little varmint.
Sorry; no
25 matches
Mail list logo
