Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
What point? Okay, new rule: if you're going to complain about
something, include some supporting details, and a suggestion on how to
make things better.
Point (I'll sharpen it) -- ../lib is for *what*? Libraries?
Putting entire packages and executables in lib directories
Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
On Sat, 2003-10-11 at 11:23, Michael Sierchio wrote:
Michael Nottebrock wrote:
Such as putting packages in /usr/local/lib/ ?
I don't get it.
Me neither -- the practice of putting entire packages in
/usr/local/lib from the ports, such as Mozilla, etc.
Mozilla do
Michael Nottebrock wrote:
Such as putting packages in /usr/local/lib/ ?
I don't get it.
Me neither -- the practice of putting entire packages in
/usr/local/lib from the ports, such as Mozilla, etc.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebs
Michael Nottebrock wrote:
It's never too late to correct unfortunate decisions. :-)
Such as putting packages in /usr/local/lib/ ?
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail
Peter B wrote:
I have searched for encrypted filesystems for un*x. Is there any better
encrypted filesystems than the ones I have found for *bsd (+freebsd)..?
For per-file encryption, cryptfs/FiST is a good place to start.
I'm looking for something convinient to enrypt cdrom's. Which will also su
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> Yes, I can attest to this an I belive it is actually the case on both
> -current and -releng4 that disabling newreno improves TCP performance.
>
> I belive running an X11 application or scp(1) over a wavelan is a very
> good test-bed for this issue.
Wireless breaks a
Brian T.Schellenberger wrote:
> The existance of this thread merely demonstrates that people don't make use
> the resources that are already out there.
No, the existence of this thread demonstrates that the historical explanation
is less than satisfying as an excuse for the broken nomenclature
Brooks Davis wrote:
>>I'm sure you folks hashed this all over before, but really...calling a
>>branch "-stable" when it really isn't is not good semantic practice
>>IMNSHO.
>
>
> DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER STARTING THIS THREAD!!! It's been hashed over more
> times then are worth counting on various
I notice that there are oblique refs to this in , but
the man page on mlock() is conspicuously missing a reference to mlockall(),
and attempting to compile yields an undefined symbol. Is this not
implemented?
I thought FBSD was closer to POSIX compliance than Linux... ;-)
Thanks in advance,
9 matches
Mail list logo
