Andrew Berg wrote:
> On 2014.09.01 22:09, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>
>> That's my point - there was a patch waiting to submit that knowingly
>> broke pkg_install at midnight on the day after the EOL... the EOL
>> shouldn't be an EOL - because it was really a 'portsnap after this date
>> before y
Andrew Berg wrote:
> On 2014.09.01 21:27, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Actually it's an inconvenience for someone like me and you. Not for
>> many freebsd users, and certainly not for me 6 months ago if I hadn't
>> been writing my own ports oh and what was it, 1.3.6 -> 1.3.7? broke
>> shit
Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> You should try arguing with someone like Bank of Americas security and
> operations
> department
You work for the same company as me?
> some day about whether they want to suddenly upgrade 300 machines
> for no real reason (from their perspective).
>
--
Michelle Sull
Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
>> And for the portsnap users?
>>
>>
>>
> In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
>
Sure about that?
> Portsnap is a tool that used to obtain a copy of the ports tree.
>
try this:
portsnap fetch update && cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg && make
On 2014.09.01 22:09, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> That's my point - there was a patch waiting to submit that knowingly
> broke pkg_install at midnight on the day after the EOL... the EOL
> shouldn't be an EOL - because it was really a 'portsnap after this date
> before you upgrade and you're screwed
Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The ports tree has been modified to only support pkg(8) as package management
> system for all supported version of FreeBSD.
>
> if you were still using pkg_install (pkg_* tools) you will have to upgrade
> your
> system.
>
> The simplest way is
> cd /usr/por
On Sep 1, 2014, at 20:02, Andrew Berg wrote:
> On 2014.09.01 21:27, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>> Actually it's an inconvenience for someone like me and you. Not for
>> many freebsd users, and certainly not for me 6 months ago if I hadn't
>> been writing my own ports oh and what was it, 1.3.6
On 2014.09.01 21:39, Julian Elischer wrote:
> sigh.. when are we as a project, all going to learn that reality in
> business is
> that you often need to install stuff that is old. Its not always your
> choice.
> The custommers require it..
> You should try arguing with someone like Bank of Ameri
On 2014.09.01 21:27, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> Actually it's an inconvenience for someone like me and you. Not for
> many freebsd users, and certainly not for me 6 months ago if I hadn't
> been writing my own ports oh and what was it, 1.3.6 -> 1.3.7? broke
> shit... (badly) ...
There were ins
On 9/1/14, 7:16 PM, Andrew Berg wrote:
On 2014.09.01 20:51, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
And for the portsnap users?
In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
Sure about that?
I'm sure of it. Your issue is with the tree itself, not the tool used to fetch
it.
Corre
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:51:31AM +0200 I heard the voice of
Michelle Sullivan, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then
> install pkg on it... Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken,
> and 9.2 install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS
S
On 9/1/14, 6:39 PM, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
And for the portsnap users?
In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
Portsnap is a tool that used to obtain a copy of the ports tree.
Portsnap is only one way, another way to get a copy of the ports tree is by
using subversion a
On 2014.09.01 20:51, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>>> And for the portsnap users?
>>>
>> In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
>>
> Sure about that?
I'm sure of it. Your issue is with the tree itself, not the tool used to fetch
it.
> Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, i
>
> And for the portsnap users?
>
>
In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
Portsnap is a tool that used to obtain a copy of the ports tree.
Portsnap is only one way, another way to get a copy of the ports tree is by
using subversion and checking it out by using the svn comm
> On Aug 30, 2014, at 22:01, Hiroo Ono (小野寛生)
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> During upgrading world and kernel from r26939 to r270837, I got the
> following problem.
> a) the arch is i386
> b) kernel is of r270837, userland is of r26939 (make kernel is done
> and rebooted, make installworld not yet).
Hello,
2014-09-01 5:34 GMT+09:00 John-Mark Gurney :
> Can you find out what line the filt_soread is on? This will help figure
> out if it's kn or so... If you could get the address of the page fault,
> that would also be helpful...
>
> Ok, a similar fix was committed in r133794, and a quick look
Currently for absolute lookups the kernel vrefs fd_cdir and
immediately unrefs it and vrefs root vnode.
Patch below changes the code to start with vrefing root vnode for
absolute lookups.
In a crap microbenchmark of 16 threads opening /foo file I got a ~6%
speedup.
The code may require further r
Hi all,
The ports tree has been modified to only support pkg(8) as package management
system for all supported version of FreeBSD.
if you were still using pkg_install (pkg_* tools) you will have to upgrade your
system.
The simplest way is
cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg
make install
then run
pkg2n
Hello,
2014/09/01 8:31 "Julian Elischer" :
>
> On 8/30/14, 10:01 PM, Hiroo Ono (小野寛生) wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> During upgrading world and kernel from r26939 to r270837, I got the
>>
>
> r26939 has the wrong number of digits. what was your correct previous
revision?
r269369 is the correct revisi
19 matches
Mail list logo
