Re: Problem with re(4) Ethernet driver has resurfaced in 11-STABLE and HEAD

On Mon, 22 May 2017 10:55:46 +0900 YongHyeon PYUN wrote: Just for my curiosity: do you have "options FLOWTABLE" defined in your kernel config? > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 09:29:42AM +, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > from YongHyeon PYUN: > > > > > [removed stable@ from CC] >

Re: Problem with re(4) Ethernet driver has resurfaced in 11-STABLE and HEAD

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 09:29:42AM +, Thomas Mueller wrote: > from YongHyeon PYUN: > > > [removed stable@ from CC] > > > > I recently updated my 10.1-STABLE to 11.0-STABLE and find I can no longer > > > connect with the Ethernet. > > > > dhclient re0 produces > > > > DHCPDISCOVER on re0

Re: The future of the roff toolchain

On 21 May 2017, at 15:36, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 02:57:33PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: What I want to propose now, it to render them as PDF (html?) once and push them somewhere (to be defined) as static document on our documentation website. Please doceng@

Re: The futur of the roff toolchain

I like all of this. Thanks for your very thorough research and effort. Eric On 05/21/2017 07:57, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > Hi all, > > I have been working for a while to try to import a modern roff toolchain into > base. > > I didn't like the initial approach that consisted in simply

Re: 64-bit inodes (ino64) Status Update and Call for Testing

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 05:25:35PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 04:03:55PM +0200, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 03:31:18PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 02:14:56PM +0200, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > > > > We have

Re: The future of the roff toolchain

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 02:57:33PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > What I want to propose now, it to render them as PDF (html?) once and push > them > somewhere (to be defined) as static document on our documentation website. > Please doceng@ provide me a location where to push them. > >

Re: The futur of the roff toolchain

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 02:57:33PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > I would like to change this approach and get back to the initial approach > taken > by others before I jumped in and I would like just entirely remove the roff > toolchain from base and let people rely on GNU roff from

Re: 64-bit inodes (ino64) Status Update and Call for Testing

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 04:03:55PM +0200, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 03:31:18PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 02:14:56PM +0200, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > > > We have another type in this area which is too small in some situations: > > > uint8_t

Re: 64-bit inodes (ino64) Status Update and Call for Testing

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 03:31:18PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 02:14:56PM +0200, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > > We have another type in this area which is too small in some situations: > > uint8_t for struct dirent.d_namlen. For filesystems that store filenames > > as

The futur of the roff toolchain

Hi all, I have been working for a while to try to import a modern roff toolchain into base. I didn't like the initial approach that consisted in simply removing all roff toolchain in base. Recap of the situation in base: * We have GNU roff version 1.19.2 in base (latest GPLv2 version). Lots of

Re: 64-bit inodes (ino64) Status Update and Call for Testing

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 02:14:56PM +0200, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > We have another type in this area which is too small in some situations: > uint8_t for struct dirent.d_namlen. For filesystems that store filenames > as upto 255 UTF-16 code units, the name to be stored in d_name may be > upto 765

Re: 64-bit inodes (ino64) Status Update and Call for Testing

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:43:14PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > Inodes are data structures corresponding to objects in a file system, > such as files and directories. FreeBSD has historically used 32-bit > values to identify inodes, which limits file systems to somewhat under > 2^32

Re: Problem with re(4) Ethernet driver has resurfaced in 11-STABLE and HEAD

On 05/21/17 05:29, Thomas Mueller wrote: from YongHyeon PYUN: [removed stable@ from CC] I recently updated my 10.1-STABLE to 11.0-STABLE and find I can no longer connect with the Ethernet. dhclient re0 produces DHCPDISCOVER on re0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 4 DHCPDISCOVER

Re: Problem with re(4) Ethernet driver has resurfaced in 11-STABLE and HEAD

from YongHyeon PYUN: > [removed stable@ from CC] > > I recently updated my 10.1-STABLE to 11.0-STABLE and find I can no longer > > connect with the Ethernet. > > dhclient re0 produces > > DHCPDISCOVER on re0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 4 > > DHCPDISCOVER on re0 to 255.255.255.255 port

Bug in make setting wrong MAKESYSPATH

I tried building ports, starting with ports-mgmt/synth, on HEAD (12-current) and ran into difficulties with syntax error in bsd.compiler.mk . With PORTSDIR on another partition, mounted as /BETA1, I got these errors, but not when I null-mounted /BETA1/usr/ports as /usr/ports. I shouldn't have

Re: Maintainershjip status regarding re(4) Ethernet driver?

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 04:38:46AM +, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > Who is the maintainer, if any, for re(4) Ethernet driver that is again giving > me trouble on Intel Ivy Bridge computer with MSI Z77 MPOWER motherboard? > > I remember Kevin Lo, but have checked the web archives for