On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 16:01, Kip Macy wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2005, David Parfitt wrote:
>
> > Hi -
> > I have been trying to write my own UFS-like filesystem
> > implementation for fun. I had read somewhere that UFS was developed in
> > user space (correct me if I'm wrong on that one) and then m
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 02:01:35PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> > I have been trying to write my own UFS-like filesystem
> > implementation for fun. I had read somewhere that UFS was developed in
> > user space (correct me if I'm wrong on that one) and then moved over
> > to kernel-space. I was wo
> I have been trying to write my own UFS-like filesystem
> implementation for fun. I had read somewhere that UFS was developed in
> user space (correct me if I'm wrong on that one) and then moved over
> to kernel-space. I was wondering if there are any existing facilities
> in the kernel source t
> I have been trying to write my own UFS-like filesystem
> implementation for fun. I had read somewhere that UFS was developed in
> user space (correct me if I'm wrong on that one) and then moved over
> to kernel-space. I was wondering if there are any existing facilities
> in the kernel source t
On Fri, 6 May 2005, David Parfitt wrote:
> Hi -
> I have been trying to write my own UFS-like filesystem
> implementation for fun. I had read somewhere that UFS was developed in
> user space (correct me if I'm wrong on that one) and then moved over
> to kernel-space. I was wondering if there a
Hi -
I have been trying to write my own UFS-like filesystem
implementation for fun. I had read somewhere that UFS was developed in
user space (correct me if I'm wrong on that one) and then moved over
to kernel-space. I was wondering if there are any existing facilities
in the kernel source tree t
How many people do you need Oracle Instant Client a.k.a.
OCI8 on FreeBSD native applications?
I am tring to use FreeBSD native php5-oci8 with Linux
Plugin Wrapper (LPW) technorogy. My attempt succeeded,
but it doesn't work. Because there are many functions
On Sat, 7 May 2005 00:15, Denis Peplin wrote:
> > Like I said before etcmerge's UI is not like mergemaster - it is much
> > more batch oriented.
>
> It is complicated for end-user to move from mergemaster to etcmerge
> (need to install new tool, read manual, perform some additional work...)
Maybe,
Hello!
Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2005 23:18, Denis Peplin wrote:
>
>>But for not modified files etcmerge is too complicated. Updating
>>for not modified files should be done in fully automated mode.
>
>
> hmm, but for unmodified files etcmerge does nothing - you don't have to do
>
On Fri, 6 May 2005 23:18, Denis Peplin wrote:
> But for not modified files etcmerge is too complicated. Updating
> for not modified files should be done in fully automated mode.
hmm, but for unmodified files etcmerge does nothing - you don't have to do
anything unless you want to edit the new fil
Hello!
Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2005 20:18, Denis Peplin wrote:
> You know you can just use etcmerge to do this..
> It does a 3 way merge between your files and the old and new revisions.
>
> The only down side is that it's UI is totally unlike mergemaster so it can be
> a bit stra
On Fri, 6 May 2005 20:18, Denis Peplin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> > Mergemaster could keep checksums of known revisions.
> >
> > it wouldn't take much to have just one file with the last 35 checksums
> > of each file. (maybe with the $FreeBSD$ line removed if it differs..)
>
> Jus
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 09:39:21AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> >Halil Demirezen wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> First of all, I am not sure if this is the correct mail list with posting
> >this
> >> mail. I apologize for that.. Second, I may seem to have little
> >> C knowledge, though
Hello!
Juergen Unger wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:15:51AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
>>files that I have not touched are at default state and I wnat them to move
>>to teh new default state. Files I have touched, I want to look at by hand.
>
>
> so do I. And to go a step further: why
Hello!
Julian Elischer wrote:
> Mergemaster could keep checksums of known revisions.
>
> it wouldn't take much to have just one file with the last 35 checksums
> of each file. (maybe with the $FreeBSD$ line removed if it differs..)
Just implemented both variants (but second is not by count)
1. F
here is the output of fsck :
** /dev/ad0s3a (NO WRITE)
** Last Mounted on /
** Root file system
** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
** Phase 2 - Check Pathnames
** Phase 3 - Check Connectivity
** Phase 4 - Check Reference Counts
** Phase 5 - Check Cyl groups
2671 files, 44960 used, 1937879 free (7
>Halil Demirezen wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> First of all, I am not sure if this is the correct mail list with posting
>this
>> mail. I apologize for that.. Second, I may seem to have little
>> C knowledge, though I am using C for about 5 years and plus.
>>
>> Let's start with the question. I am diggi
17 matches
Mail list logo
