On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 10:05:27PM -0700, Jos Backus wrote:
That's a good idea, thanks. I just sent an e-mail coining the concept to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fyi, I just sent a patch to to help-make; who knows Paul may accept it.
--- expand.c.orig Mon Jun 19 13:23:35 2000
+++ expand.cSat
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 07:49:52AM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2002-05-31 20:08 -0700, Brooks Davis wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 09:32:26PM -0500, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
Indeed. Brain cells shutting down already. I shouldn't
There is a problem with the mouse in X-Windows in FreeBSD. It
performs far worse than the Windows 2000 mouse. The problem is
due to software losing accuracy of real numbers, and a few bugs
in XFree86.
A way to show the loss of accuracy problem is to observe that
when there is an attempt to
Jos Backus wrote:
Fyi: it appears nobody is really interested in having BSD make and GNU make
converge a little, so I am not going waste any more time on this.
I'm really against GNU-ifying BSD make.
Unless you're getting a lot of off-list hate-mail for the idea,
though, my count is
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 01:14:18AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
Jos Backus wrote:
Fyi: it appears nobody is really interested in having BSD make and GNU make
converge a little, so I am not going waste any more time on this.
I'm really against GNU-ifying BSD make.
I hope you don't see any
Jos Backus wrote:
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 01:14:18AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
Jos Backus wrote:
Fyi: it appears nobody is really interested in having BSD make and GNU make
converge a little, so I am not going waste any more time on this.
I'm really against GNU-ifying BSD make.
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 01:37:43AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
Jos Backus wrote:
I hope you don't see any problems with generally improving compatibility
between the two?
As long as any changes do not conflict with OpenBSD make, NetBSD
make, BSDi make, Darwin make, or OP make.
Well, you
Can anybody get anything out of the compaqdiag port (2301) that I always see
open on a computer? Can I get into it? It's a windows machine...
--
Christopher J. Umina
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.fritzilldo.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Wed, 29 May 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bjoern Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Hello,
:
: OpenBSD has a new interesting feature: systrace. It is a system call
: policy generator for sandboxing untrusted or semi-trusted binaries.
:
: The
Hi All.
I was wondering if there is an alternative to the GFP_NOFS flag provided
in Linux Kernel Malloc [kmalloc() kfree()] for FreeBSD, or is there any
info. I am missing?
Linux calls the kmalloc() system call as:
[ an extract from jfs_dtree.c (jfs4bsd) ]
%%%
ciKey.name =
(wchar_t *)
* Hiten Pandya [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020601 09:35] wrote:
As of now, I have changed this to just use M_WAITOK and malloc() call, but
I was wondering if anyone can guide me on this GFP_NOFS alternative. Also,
Alfred to told me on IRC to just #define M_NOFS 0 for now, and then worry
about it
On 05/31/02 16:53, Peter Haight wrote:
Yeah. I'm in the middle of the Mozilla code base as you probably remember,
trying to fix the problem of these bad DNS servers. I did complain to the
technical administrators for the ones that were giving me problems, but I've
only received form letter
On 05/31/02 19:53, Jos Backus wrote:
Fyi: it appears nobody is really interested in having BSD make and GNU make
converge a little, so I am not going waste any more time on this.
Actually, I think it's a great idea. It should make life much easier for
people creating and maintaining ports.
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 03:53:41PM -0700, Peter Haight wrote:
Any other suggestions? Please don't tell me to complain to the owner of the
DNS servers. I have done that. If you feel that is the proper solution,
please complain yourself to [EMAIL PROTECTED] who is the
Technical Contact for
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 11:45:15AM -0600, Ian wrote:
Actually, I think it's a great idea. It should make life much easier for
people creating and maintaining ports.
My thoughts exactly.
The tone of Terry's reply to your mail seemed to be My opinion is the only
one that counts here and I
On Jun 01, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Use getaddrinfo() instead.
The manpage for getaddrinfo() claims it's not threadsafe, either.
-Clint
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Peter Haight [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I link with libc_r can I use gethostbyname2() at the same time in two
different threads?
Use getaddrinfo() instead.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the
Ian wrote:
On 05/31/02 19:53, Jos Backus wrote:
Fyi: it appears nobody is really interested in having BSD make and GNU make
converge a little, so I am not going waste any more time on this.
Actually, I think it's a great idea. It should make life much easier for
people creating and
Jos Backus wrote:
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 11:45:15AM -0600, Ian wrote:
Actually, I think it's a great idea. It should make life much easier for
people creating and maintaining ports.
My thoughts exactly.
Any port that switches to BSD make because the Makefile uses
this *one* GNU make
On 2002-06-01 10:00 +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote:
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 07:49:52AM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
cvs-all-diff
committers
Nothing changed in cvs-all, but let committers get diffs.
I would like to be able to select the short mail as well (as a committer).
Is that
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Peter Haight [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I link with libc_r can I use gethostbyname2() at the same time in two
different threads?
Use getaddrinfo() instead.
You can't unambiguously treat IP addresses (rather than domain names)
preferentially and correctly with
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 02:56:53PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Netscape for instance needs to execute other binaries, the user should
be allowed to specify which binaries. Netscape needs to write cache
files, any hacker exploiting netscape can use that to create a new
process which isn't
Niels Provos wrote:
I suggest getting over the illusion hackers won't be able to hack the
system if you narrow them a bit, the binaries you run still need
capabilities to correctly function, which are always enough to hack the
system.
This is not correct either. There is no illusion
Áàçû äàííûõ ôèðì è e-mail
http://infobase.com.ru/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
24 matches
Mail list logo
