On 5/05/2016 09:41 PM, Edward Tomasz Napierała wrote:
> On 0505T1847, Graham Menhennitt wrote:
>> On 3/05/2016 07:59 PM, Edward Tomasz Napierała wrote:
>>> On 0503T1922, Graham Menhennitt wrote:
On 3/05/2016 06:42 PM, Edward Tomasz Napierała wrote:
> On 0502T0643, Graham Menhennitt wrote:
Got it now. Reading https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?release%287%29
carefully explained a few things.
On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Lundberg, Johannes <
johan...@brilliantservice.co.jp> wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> However, this is not working so well for me.
>
> Doing make vm-release does absolute
On Saturday, 7 May 2016, David Wolfskill wrote:
>
> > If you list 2 kernels in the KERNCONF variable, why is it astonishing
> that
> > 2 kernels get installed? Even if the old behaviour was to only install 1
> > kernel, if you are listing 2 kernels in KERNCONF presumably that is
> because
> > you
Thanks!
However, this is not working so well for me.
Doing make vm-release does absolutely nothing.
Running release.sh -c release.conf gives me an error that /scratch/usr/src
and /scratch/dev does not exist.
What is the prerequisites for building the images? Do I need to make
install in some de
[Recipient list trimmed a bit -- dhw]
I'm speaking up here because IIRC, I whined to Gleb at what I perceived
to be a POLA violation a while back
On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 09:59:06AM +0200, Ben Woods wrote:
> On 7 May 2016 at 09:48, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya)
> wrote:
>
> > glebius changed the
Thanks for your investigation.
I left comment about this on bugzilla
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209211
and related thread in The FreeBSD Forums.
https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/55989/#post-319345
Regards.
On Sat, 07 May 2016 15:32:11 +0900
"Akinori MUSHA" wrote:
This looks like a bug in file 5.26. I've just filed an issue on the
tracker of file(1):
http://bugs.gw.com/view.php?id=543
File 5.26 turned out to have some other nasty bugs like the following,
so I'd recommend you avoid it.
http://bugs.gw.com/view.php?id=540
Fortunately the po
On CURRENT (r 299215), buildkernel fails due to an error in cxgbe:
[...]
In file included
from /usr/src/sys/modules/cxgbe/iw_cxgbe/../../../dev/cxgbe/iw_cxgbe/cm.c:62:
/usr/src/sys/modules/cxgbe/iw_cxgbe/../../../dev/cxgbe/tom/t4_tom.h:349:55:
error: declaration of 'struct cpl_set_tcb_rpl' will n
Am Sat, 7 May 2016 00:51:25 +
Ed Maste schrieb:
> On 6 May 2016 at 14:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > Buildworld on r299175 fails with the error shown below:
> >
> >
> > [...]
> > error: no such file or directory:
> > '/usr/src/secure/lib/libcrypto/i386/crypt586.S'
>
> If this was with -DNO_C
> On May 7, 2016, at 00:59, Ben Woods wrote:
>
> On 7 May 2016 at 09:48, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya)
> wrote:
> glebius changed the defaults to fix POLA, but the naming per the behavior is
> confusing. Right now the behavior between ^/head and ^/stable/10 before/now
> match -- I just had to wr
> On May 7, 2016, at 00:46, Ben Woods wrote:
>
>
> On 7 May 2016 at 09:41, Glen Barber wrote:
> I think this raises a larger question - did "something" change that
> otherwise violates POLA? The commit recently was intended to revert
> a POLA violation, so maybe I am not entirely clear on wha
On 7 May 2016 at 09:48, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya)
wrote:
> glebius changed the defaults to fix POLA, but the naming per the behavior
> is confusing. Right now the behavior between ^/head and ^/stable/10
> before/now match -- I just had to wrap my mind around the default being the
> affirmative of
On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 09:46:03AM +0200, Ben Woods wrote:
> On 7 May 2016 at 09:41, Glen Barber wrote:
>
> > I think this raises a larger question - did "something" change that
> > otherwise violates POLA? The commit recently was intended to revert
> > a POLA violation, so maybe I am not entire
> On May 7, 2016, at 00:41, Glen Barber wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 12:35:10AM -0700, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya) wrote:
>> (Replying because I kicked the hornet’s nest when my build failed)
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>>> On May 7, 2016, at 00:27, Ben Woods wrote:
>>>
>>> On Saturday, 7 May 2016, Gle
On 7 May 2016 at 09:41, Glen Barber wrote:
> I think this raises a larger question - did "something" change that
> otherwise violates POLA? The commit recently was intended to revert
> a POLA violation, so maybe I am not entirely clear on what branch this
> affects.
>
> Are we talking about head
On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 12:35:10AM -0700, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya) wrote:
> (Replying because I kicked the hornet’s nest when my build failed)
> Hi Ben,
>
> > On May 7, 2016, at 00:27, Ben Woods wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, 7 May 2016, Glen Barber wrote:
> >
> >> With 'installkernel', the firs
(Replying because I kicked the hornet’s nest when my build failed)
Hi Ben,
> On May 7, 2016, at 00:27, Ben Woods wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 7 May 2016, Glen Barber wrote:
>
>> With 'installkernel', the first kernel listed in KERNCONF is installed
>> as the default (/boot/kernel), and subsequent k
On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 09:27:54AM +0200, Ben Woods wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 May 2016, Glen Barber wrote:
>
> > With 'installkernel', the first kernel listed in KERNCONF is installed
> > as the default (/boot/kernel), and subsequent kernels are installed with
> > the kernel name included in the pa
On Saturday, 7 May 2016, Glen Barber wrote:
> With 'installkernel', the first kernel listed in KERNCONF is installed
> as the default (/boot/kernel), and subsequent kernels are installed with
> the kernel name included in the path (/boot/kernel.${INSTKERNNAME}). In
> both cases (source-based upg
19 matches
Mail list logo
