> From: Matthias Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:49:41 +0100
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Holger Kipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It violates POLA on 5-STABLE, and it will violate POLA on 6-CURRENT,
> > especially as most perl programmers assume /usr/bin/perl to be
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
wrote Anton Berezin thusly...
>
> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
> plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
> upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2).
> This will ONLY be true
I've been trying to change my email address from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on all my subscriptions at freebsd.org, but the
Change globally option isn't working.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.n
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ulrich Spoerlein writes:
>Hi all,
>
>I just fiddled around with using GBDE for ISO images (it works) and
>stumbled across the need to "guess" the size required for the GBDE
>container.
>
>Looks like the size is not increasing linearly. Here are the numbers of
>512 b
Hi all,
I just fiddled around with using GBDE for ISO images (it works) and
stumbled across the need to "guess" the size required for the GBDE
container.
Looks like the size is not increasing linearly. Here are the numbers of
512 byte blocks available in md0 and md0.bde
md0 | md0.bde | diff.
2
Hi,
can you try the attached patch (relative to RELENG_5). It disables batch
transfers from the system queue to the driver - an optimization introduced
while enabling rl(4) for ALTQ. Please let me know if it improves the
situation. If it does, this is a sign of a more fundamental problem in
Pertti Kosunen wrote:
My READ_DMA timeout problem with 160GB disk partitially solved. Asus
A7A266 southbridge (ALi 1535D+) don't support DMA with LBA48. This is
somehow worked around with Windows drivers, so is same possible in
FreeBSD also?
I guess their "workaround" is to use PIO mode to acces
I had a similar problem on a few boxes, you should check the mailing list
archives for a recent discussion on
how crappy the realtec nic's are.
--
Ísak Ben,
http://www.isak.is
-- Original Message ---
From: "Karl M. Joch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sun, 30
Hi all
Is it possible to install 5.3 on a sparc64 (Ultra 5) without using
serial console, I seem to get garbled consoles when I try to install via
normal screen and keyboard?
Joel
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mai
On Jan 30, 2005, at 12:17, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 02:47:08PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In other words, it's an impossible dream to hope that all scripts
will
conform to this or any of the other possible choices (remember the
perl
'k, waiting for a tech to get at the server to get the server back up ...
its happened before, and I *believe* that a core dump is generated, but,
of course, my /var/crash is link'd onto the file system that I was in the
process of rebuilding, so can't help there :(
Will see if any of the other
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 02:47:08PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In other words, it's an impossible dream to hope that all scripts will
> > conform to this or any of the other possible choices (remember the
> > perl motto). Even making everything
On Sunday, 30 January 2005 at 14:28:47 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> Just got burnt on one of my machines, where I was looking to reconfigure
> my RAID drive ... right now, its down :(
>
> I cleared everything off the drive, unmount'd it and then did a 'vinum
> resetconfig' ... that all worked
Just got burnt on one of my machines, where I was looking to reconfigure
my RAID drive ... right now, its down :(
I cleared everything off the drive, unmount'd it and then did a 'vinum
resetconfig' ... that all worked great, but as soon as I did a 'vinum
create ' to recreate it, the server cras
hello,
after upgrading to 5.3 (cvsup) i have a lot of network problems with realtec
8139 cards. these cards worked fine with 4.x and 5.2.1. the network is
slowing down heavily without seeing any problems reports on console or
syslog (*.* logged). are there any known problems with these card and 5.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 09:24:25PM +0100, Anton Berezin said:
> In practical terms this will mean a one-time sweep of your scripts in
> order to convert them, in a typical case, from #! /usr/bin/perl to
> #! /usr/local/bin/perl.
options under discussion:
1) break *millions* of pieces of Perl sof
Anton Berezin wrote:
In order to keep pkg-install simple, no old symlink chasing and removal
will be done, although the detailed instructions will be posted in
ports/UPDATING and in pkg-message for the ports.
How about leaving it up to the installer? Much like the minicom port
prompts the user if
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 02:44:38PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Hardcoded paths in scripts are a mess. What if I installed Perl into
> >> /opt/mumble on some other machine? /usr/freeware? /what/ever? Changed
> >> $PREFIX and/or $LOCALBASE?
> >
>
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 02:49:41PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Holger Kipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It violates POLA on 5-STABLE, and it will violate POLA on 6-CURRENT,
> > especially as most perl programmers assume /usr/bin/perl to be the
> > correct path.
>
> POLA doesn't apply to
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 09:24:25PM +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
> plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
> upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2). This
> will ONLY be true
> Where can I download latest FreeBSD-stable ?
> Thanks!
http://snapshots.se.freebsd.org/
yw
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Dear Sir/Mam,
Where can I download latest FreeBSD-stable ?
Thanks!
Danny Lee.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
TB --- 2005-01-30 13:00:11 - tinderbox 2.3 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2005-01-30 13:00:11 - starting RELENG_5 tinderbox run for alpha/alpha
TB --- 2005-01-30 13:00:11 - checking out the source tree
TB --- 2005-01-30 13:00:11 - cd /home/tinderbox/RELENG_5/alpha/alpha
TB --- 2005-01-
Holger Kipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It violates POLA on 5-STABLE, and it will violate POLA on 6-CURRENT,
> especially as most perl programmers assume /usr/bin/perl to be the
> correct path.
POLA doesn't apply to -CURRENT.
--
Matthias Andree
___
Holger Kipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> a) we had perl at /usr/bin/perl
>=> many scripts are using "#!/usr/bin/perl"
> b) we have a symlink now
>=> many new scripts are using "#!/usr/bin/perl"
> c) many ISPs have even more users who assume "#!/usr/bin/perl" works.
>=> removing a sym
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In other words, it's an impossible dream to hope that all scripts will
> conform to this or any of the other possible choices (remember the
> perl motto). Even making everything perl in the ports collection use
> a uniform style is probably an infeasibl
Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hardcoded paths in scripts are a mess. What if I installed Perl into
>> /opt/mumble on some other machine? /usr/freeware? /what/ever? Changed
>> $PREFIX and/or $LOCALBASE?
>
> Then you would have nobody but yourself to blame.
So ports not heeding PREFI
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Kirill Ponomarew wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 11:47:32AM +0100, Holger Kipp wrote:
> > > I'm fine with this plan for 6-CURRENT. For 5-STABLE, it's a major
> > > user-visible change, and that is something that we promised to avoid
> > > with stable bran
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Xander Damen wrote:
> Why would upgraded systems cause problems? I don't think the
> upgradesystem will delete any existing symlinks?
I don't know about other people, but I use incremental upgrades for only
minor releases on larger multi-user systems, generally. Because of
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
> - Don't change the behaviour on -STABLE (4.x, 5.x), but make an OPTION
> available, that would turn on the "new" behaviour.
>
> - For -CURRENT (6.x and beyond), if the change comes, make an OPTION
> available, to turn on the "old" behaviour.
Holger Kipp wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 05:31:21AM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Sure, assuming there actually was a perl in /usr/bin. I would not choose
to hardcode the path to perl when env is available to properly locate the
interpreter for #!-based scripts via the $PATH.
a) we had perl at /u
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 05:31:21AM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
I do want scripts to use a portable mechanism to invoke Perl regardless of
where the binary happens to be found, but if people are determined to do
otherwise, well, that's up to them. One solution for those people
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Holger Kipp wrote:
> > I'm fine with this plan for 6-CURRENT. For 5-STABLE, it's a major
> > user-visible change, and that is something that we promised to avoid
> > with stable branches.
>
> It violates POLA on 5-STABLE, and it will violate POLA on 6-CURRENT,
> especially a
Hi,
I mounted a write-pretected floppy on 5-STABLE and now I'm not able to
unmount the floppy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /root> mount_msdosfs /dev/fd0 /mnt/tmp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /root> touch /mnt/tmp/test
touch: /mnt/tmp/test: Read-only file system
Exit 1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /root> mount
/dev/ad0s1a on / (
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 12:23:43PM +0100, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> +-le 30/01/2005 12:19 +0100, Kirill Ponomarew ?crivait :
> | On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 09:08:34PM +1000, Mark Sergeant wrote:
> |> > If it's linux tradition to put perl in this path, perl programmers
> |> > should assume another path o
I think the color should be green.
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:24:25 +0100, Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
> plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
> upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) an
+-le 30/01/2005 12:19 +0100, Kirill Ponomarew écrivait :
| On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 09:08:34PM +1000, Mark Sergeant wrote:
|> > If it's linux tradition to put perl in this path, perl programmers
|> > should assume another path on FreeBSD, so it isn't an argument for
|> > the proposed change.
|> >
|
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 09:11:34PM +1000, Mark Sergeant wrote:
> >find /some/directory -type f -print0 | \
> > xargs -0 perl -pi -e 's,^#! ?/usr(/local)?/bin/perl,#!/usr/bin/env
> >perl'
> >
>
> One problem I always had with "env" or equivalents... what happens if
> someone manages to polute
HANKS!
Don't despair, ironically Perl itself can solve this problem for you,
using
something like
find /some/directory -type f -print0 | \
xargs -0 perl -pi -e 's,^#! ?/usr(/local)?/bin/perl,#!/usr/bin/env
perl'
One problem I always had with "env" or equivalents... what happens if
someone man
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 05:31:21AM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 11:51:36PM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> >>Andrew McNaughton wrote:
> >>#!/usr/bin/env PERL5OPT='-w' perl
> >
> >"#!/usr/bin/perl -w" sounds much easier.
>
> Sure, assuming there actual
On Sunday 30 January 2005 11:44, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> AB> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
> AB> plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
> AB> upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2).
>
> AB> In practical
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Kirill Ponomarew wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 11:47:32AM +0100, Holger Kipp wrote:
> > > I'm fine with this plan for 6-CURRENT. For 5-STABLE, it's a major
> > > user-visible change, and that is something that we promised to avoid
> > > with stable bran
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 05:31:21AM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> I do want scripts to use a portable mechanism to invoke Perl regardless of
> where the binary happens to be found, but if people are determined to do
> otherwise, well, that's up to them. One solution for those people might be
> t
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 11:47:32AM +0100, Holger Kipp wrote:
> > I'm fine with this plan for 6-CURRENT. For 5-STABLE, it's a major
> > user-visible change, and that is something that we promised to avoid
> > with stable branches.
>
> It violates POLA on 5-STABLE, and it will violate POLA on 6-CUR
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 10:51:37PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
> Anton Berezin wrote:
>
> >Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
> >plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
> >upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2).
Hello Anton,
Saturday, January 29, 2005, 11:24:25 PM, you wrote:
AB> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
AB> plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
AB> upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2).
AB> In practi
Edwin Groothuis wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 11:51:36PM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Andrew McNaughton wrote:
#!/usr/bin/env PERL5OPT='-w' perl
"#!/usr/bin/perl -w" sounds much easier.
Sure, assuming there actually was a perl in /usr/bin. I would not choose to
hardcode the path to perl when env i
Why would upgraded systems cause problems? I don't think the
upgradesystem will delete any existing symlinks?
Xander
Lupe Christoph wrote:
On Saturday, 2005-01-29 at 21:24:25 +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), ...
"don't do that"
On Saturday, 2005-01-29 at 21:24:25 +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), ...
"don't do that", ever.
Eben postponing this to the time 6.0 comes out does not change it. Any
upgraded system will fail in interesting and mysterious ways.
I s
Hello.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 09:24:25PM +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
> plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
> upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2). This
> will ONLY
Hello,
As the topic says, I've experienced some unusual sshd behavior after I moved
some of my systems from RELENG_5_3 to RELENG_5 recently. The unusuality of the
behavior is illustrated by the following exerpt from the /var/log/auth.log on
the RELENG_5 system:
Jan 29 14:53:38 mail sshd[699]: log
> While I agree that correct ports shouldn't be affected, I think that this
> will make a difference in how FreeBSD is looked at as a whole. I know that
> when I write stuff for other people in perl, it is presumed that perl is in
> /usr/bin, not /usr/local/bin because most of these people are
52 matches
Mail list logo
