Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

On Jul 4, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 07/04/2012 15:01, Mike Meyer wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:19:38 -0700 >> Doug Barton wrote: >>> On 07/04/2012 11:51, Jason Hellenthal wrote: What would be really nice here is a command wrapper hooked into the shell so that when yo

Re: install-prompt for missing features (Was: Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?)

Doug Barton wrote: > ... something like this would be *really* valuable to ease > the transition for people coming from a Linux background. I'm sure some folks here would count this as a reason *not* to provide it >:-> ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org m

Re: GAS AT&T linkage issue

On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 04:32:02PM -0700, Colin Barnabas wrote: > movl $ebx, 28(%edi) ^ this should be %ebx, $ means a literal (immediate) value Joerg ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebs

Re: install-prompt for missing features (Was: Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?)

On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 11:11:10AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2012-Jul-04 19:10:08 -0400, Mike Meyer wrote: > >My first thought was to suggest it be a port as well, but I'm not sure > >that can be done sanely. > > The easiest way is probably to implement some form of generic "command > not

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

At 04:03 PM 7/4/2012, Doug Barton wrote: >Other than that, if whoever actually pushes all the rocks uphill to make >the installer more modular in this regard decides to include djbdns, >more power to them. :) I'm not suggesting that everyone will prefer djb, and the last thing I want to do is st

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

On 07/04/2012 21:08, Brett Glass wrote: > At 04:03 PM 7/4/2012, Doug Barton wrote: > >> Other than that, if whoever actually pushes all the rocks uphill to make >> the installer more modular in this regard decides to include djbdns, >> more power to them. :) > > I'm not suggesting that everyone

Re: install-prompt for missing features (Was: Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?)

On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 04:44:48PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 07/04/2012 16:41, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 03:59:29PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > >> On 07/04/2012 15:55, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > >>> Seeing as sudo plays a big part of this > >> > >> No ... n

Re: Better error messages for command not found (was Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?)

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 19:02:11 -0700 Tim Kientzle wrote: > On Jul 4, 2012, at 6:42 PM, Mike Meyer wrote: > > bash and zsh already have command_not_found handlers. I don't really > > object to that functionality to sh and tcsh. Just *don't turn it on by > > default*. I don't think I'd even object to s

Re: Better error messages for command not found (was Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?)

On Jul 4, 2012, at 6:42 PM, Mike Meyer wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 18:03:05 -0700 > Tim Kientzle wrote: >> I'm curious whether the earlier objections were due to >> misunderstandings about auto-install. Auto-install would >> be problematic, but the feature being discussed here does not >> requi

Re: Better error messages for command not found (was Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?)

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 18:03:05 -0700 Tim Kientzle wrote: > I'm curious whether the earlier objections were due to > misunderstandings about auto-install. Auto-install would > be problematic, but the feature being discussed here does not > require installation. Just better error messages. My object

Re: install-prompt for missing features (Was: Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?)

On 2012-Jul-04 19:10:08 -0400, Mike Meyer wrote: >My first thought was to suggest it be a port as well, but I'm not sure >that can be done sanely. The easiest way is probably to implement some form of generic "command not found" hook into sh(1) and tcsh(1) - in interactive mode, if a specific fun

Re: Better error messages for command not found (was Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?)

On Jul 4, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Mike Meyer wrote: > On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:34:13 -0700 > Doug Barton wrote: >>> As a first prototype, the database could just be a text file >>> and the look up program could be a shell script that uses >>> grep and sed. >> Right-O. The db should almost certainly be up

Re: Better error messages for command not found (was Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?)

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:34:13 -0700 Doug Barton wrote: > > As a first prototype, the database could just be a text file > > and the look up program could be a shell script that uses > > grep and sed. > Right-O. The db should almost certainly be updated and distributed as > part of the (already auto

Re: Better error messages for command not found (was Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?)

On 07/04/2012 17:30, Tim Kientzle wrote: > On Jul 4, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 03:59:29PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >>> On 07/04/2012 15:55, Jason Hellenthal wrote: Seeing as sudo plays a big part of this >>> >>> No ... not only is sudo not a neces

Better error messages for command not found (was Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?)

On Jul 4, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 03:59:29PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 07/04/2012 15:55, Jason Hellenthal wrote: >>> Seeing as sudo plays a big part of this >> >> No ... not only is sudo not a necessary component, it shouldn't be >> involved at

Re: install-prompt for missing features (Was: Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?)

On 07/04/2012 16:41, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 03:59:29PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 07/04/2012 15:55, Jason Hellenthal wrote: >>> Seeing as sudo plays a big part of this >> >> No ... not only is sudo not a necessary component, it shouldn't be >> involved at all.

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 03:59:29PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 07/04/2012 15:55, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > > Seeing as sudo plays a big part of this > > No ... not only is sudo not a necessary component, it shouldn't be > involved at all. The feature works on debian/ubuntu for regular > users

GAS AT&T linkage issue

I've been dabbling in assembly and decided to try AT&T syntax and the GAS assembler. I'm trying to get a cpuid test program running. It assembles fine if I give the command: as -o cpuid.o cpuid.s But starts complaining when I try to link it with: ld -o cpuid cpuid.o Which produces these error

Re: install-prompt for missing features (Was: Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?)

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:01:40 -0700 Doug Barton wrote: > On 07/04/2012 15:57, Yuri wrote: > > On 07/04/2012 15:08, Doug Barton wrote: > >> First, I agree that being able to turn it off should be possible. But I > >> can't help being curious ... why would you *not* want a feature that > >> tells yo

install-prompt for missing features (Was: Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?)

On 07/04/2012 15:57, Yuri wrote: > On 07/04/2012 15:08, Doug Barton wrote: >> First, I agree that being able to turn it off should be possible. But I >> can't help being curious ... why would you *not* want a feature that >> tells you what to install if you type a command that doesn't exist on >> t

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

On 07/04/2012 15:55, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > Seeing as sudo plays a big part of this No ... not only is sudo not a necessary component, it shouldn't be involved at all. The feature works on debian/ubuntu for regular userspace commands. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protectio

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

On 07/04/2012 15:08, Doug Barton wrote: First, I agree that being able to turn it off should be possible. But I can't help being curious ... why would you*not* want a feature that tells you what to install if you type a command that doesn't exist on the system? Given the potentially controvers

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 03:08:45PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 07/04/2012 15:01, Mike Meyer wrote: > > On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:19:38 -0700 > > Doug Barton wrote: > >> On 07/04/2012 11:51, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > >>> What would be really nice here is a command wrapper hooked into the > >>> sh

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 15:08 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 07/04/2012 15:01, Mike Meyer wrote: > > On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:19:38 -0700 > > Doug Barton wrote: > >> On 07/04/2012 11:51, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > >>> What would be really nice here is a command wrapper hooked into the > >>> shell so th

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

On 07/04/2012 15:01, Mike Meyer wrote: > On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:19:38 -0700 > Doug Barton wrote: >> On 07/04/2012 11:51, Jason Hellenthal wrote: >>> What would be really nice here is a command wrapper hooked into the >>> shell so that when you type a command and it does not exist it presents >>> y

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

At 06:39 AM 7/3/2012, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: >I'm willing to import and maintain unbound (BSD-licensed validating, >recursive, and caching DNS resolver) if you remove BIND. I've been using djb, and -- despite its quirks -- I'm very happy with it. I'd like to have the option of installing dn

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

On 07/04/2012 14:55, Brett Glass wrote: > At 06:39 AM 7/3/2012, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > >> I'm willing to import and maintain unbound (BSD-licensed validating, >> recursive, and caching DNS resolver) if you remove BIND. > > I've been using djb, and -- despite its quirks -- I'm very happy w

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:19:38 -0700 Doug Barton wrote: > On 07/04/2012 11:51, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > > What would be really nice here is a command wrapper hooked into the > > shell so that when you type a command and it does not exist it presents > > you with a question for suggestions to instal

adding new cipher support to kernel

Hi, My name is Dylan, I want to add support for the AES-GCM cipher to the kernel. I am currently using strongswan for an IPsec build and need ESP to use the AES-GCM algorithm. Any info is appreciated, Thanks for your time, Dylan ___ freebsd-hackers@fr

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

On 07/04/2012 11:51, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > What would be really nice here is a command wrapper hooked into the > shell so that when you type a command and it does not exist it presents > you with a question for suggestions to install somewhat like Fedora has > done. I would also like to see th

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

On 07/04/2012 10:01, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Simon L. B. Nielsen wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >>> On 07/03/2012 05:39, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Doug Barton writes: > The correct solution to this problem is to remove BIND fr

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 17:51:52 +0100 , Simon L. B. Nielsen wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > also be to enable drill so that we have a command-line dns lookup tool > > in the base, but that's trivial once you've got ldns imported. > > Does that means loosing host(1

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 10:01:04AM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Simon L. B. Nielsen wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > >> On 07/03/2012 05:39, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > >>> Doug Barton writes: > The correct solution to this p

Re: DTrace issue (infinite loop)

No it doesn't, I get the same result without -O3 and with -O2 Un saludo, */Chema García/* /SafetyBits | @sch3m4 / On 04/07/12 19:07, Fabian Keil wrote: > Chema García wrote: > >> I've been trying to compile Python 2.7 with dtrace support from >

Re: DTrace issue (infinite loop)

Chema García wrote: > I've been trying to compile Python 2.7 with dtrace support from > https://hg.jcea.es/cpython-2011/ (branch dtrace-issue13405_2.7 ) to test > http://bugs.python.org/issue13405#msg164610. > > I've also recompiled the kernel to enable dtrace support by following > http://www.f

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Simon L. B. Nielsen wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 07/03/2012 05:39, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: >>> Doug Barton writes: The correct solution to this problem is to remove BIND from the base altogether, but I have no ener

Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 07/03/2012 05:39, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: >> Doug Barton writes: >>> The correct solution to this problem is to remove BIND from the base >>> altogether, but I have no energy for all the whinging that would happen >>> if I tried (again) t

DTrace issue (infinite loop)

Hi all, I've been trying to compile Python 2.7 with dtrace support from [1]https://hg.jcea.es/cpython-2011/ (branch dtrace-issue13405_2.= 7 ) to test [2]http://bugs.python.org/issue13405#msg164610.<= br> I've also recompiled the kernel to enable dtrace support by following [3]htt

Re: run_interrupt_driven_hooks: ... xpt_config" delay

This behaviour persist across MAJOR branches. That is, I've tested with RELs: 8.2, 8,3 and 9.0, each with it's custom KERNCONF. They all hang at exacly same "spot"! This is latest test ... 9.0-p3: --- ident FACTORY makeoptions DEBUG=-g cpu HAMMER device acpi device