On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Xin LI wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2010/03/11 20:33, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> I've done a few RELENG_8_0 to STABLE-8 to 9-CURRENT upgrades lately
>> and mergemaster was goofing up the contents a bit based on the RCS
>> versions.
On 2010.03.11 23:41, Xin LI wrote:
> On 2010/03/11 20:33, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> I've done a few RELENG_8_0 to STABLE-8 to 9-CURRENT upgrades lately
>> and mergemaster was goofing up the contents a bit based on the RCS
>> versions. I had to hand-edit a crapload of stuff going from 8 to 9,
>> and
On 2010.03.11 23:33, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>> On 2010.03.11 22:54, Xin LI wrote:
>>> Weird, it seems that RELENG_8_0 do contain the correct file... What
>>> does 'ident /etc/defaults/devfs.rules' show?
>>
>> ...not necessarily 8_0:
>>
>> %g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2010/03/11 20:33, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> I've done a few RELENG_8_0 to STABLE-8 to 9-CURRENT upgrades lately
> and mergemaster was goofing up the contents a bit based on the RCS
> versions. I had to hand-edit a crapload of stuff going from 8 to 9,
On 2010.03.11 23:30, Xin LI wrote:
> On 2010/03/11 20:26, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>> On 2010.03.11 22:54, Xin LI wrote:
>>> Weird, it seems that RELENG_8_0 do contain the correct file... What
>>> does 'ident /etc/defaults/devfs.rules' show?
>
>> ...not necessarily 8_0:
>
>> %grep tag /etc/supfile
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> On 2010.03.11 22:54, Xin LI wrote:
>> Weird, it seems that RELENG_8_0 do contain the correct file... What
>> does 'ident /etc/defaults/devfs.rules' show?
>
> ...not necessarily 8_0:
>
> %grep tag /etc/supfile
>
> *default tag=RELENG_8
>
> f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2010/03/11 20:26, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> On 2010.03.11 22:54, Xin LI wrote:
>> Weird, it seems that RELENG_8_0 do contain the correct file... What
>> does 'ident /etc/defaults/devfs.rules' show?
>
> ...not necessarily 8_0:
>
> %grep tag /etc/sup
On 2010.03.11 22:54, Xin LI wrote:
> Weird, it seems that RELENG_8_0 do contain the correct file... What
> does 'ident /etc/defaults/devfs.rules' show?
...not necessarily 8_0:
%grep tag /etc/supfile
*default tag=RELENG_8
fwiw:
%ident /etc/defaults/devfs.rules
/etc/defaults/devfs.rules:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Weird, it seems that RELENG_8_0 do contain the correct file... What
does 'ident /etc/defaults/devfs.rules' show?
Cheers,
- --
Xin LI http://www.delphij.net/
FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Ve
Sorry for the cross-post, but this is a 'thank-you', not a request for help.
I want to express my sincere appreciation for all of those who made
FreeBSD jails a viable virtual server solution for us who required
multiple IPs, particularly those who demand/require IPv6 support:
%jls -v
JID Hos
On 2010.03.11 21:49, Xin LI wrote:
> Sounds like you have something wrong with devfs.rules in jail section?
Heh, Thanks Xin LI, I knew the cluebat would work ;)
This line:
"add path pts unhide"
...I had added to the jails, but NOT to the host /etc/defaults/devfs.rules.
It took me sending a cat
On 2010.03.11 22:14, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> I had even used diff(8) earlier,
err, diff(1)
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@
On 2010.03.11 22:14, Xin LI wrote:
> Looks like you have a stale configuration. DId you done mergemaster?
Yes. I performed it as such:
# mergemaster -Uia
under the host OS, and then subsequently within each jail.
I'm not very familiar with mergemaster, so could my use of the args been
incorrec
Looks like you have a stale configuration. DId you done mergemaster?
Cheers,
--
Xin LI http://www.delphij.net
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebs
On 2010.03.11 16:41, Kenneth Hatteland wrote:
> suddenly after a while my FreeBSD 8.0 stable machine always fails make
> installworld. it has rarely been a problem before and when I appeared I
> just rebooted into multi user, csup and build it all once again and then
> success.
>
> Now It always f
On 2010.03.11 21:49, Xin LI wrote:
> Sounds like you have something wrong with devfs.rules in jail section?
Did I miss or fsck something up by not reading UPDATING properly?
Here is what I have on the host OS:
%cat /etc/defaults/devfs.rules | grep -v "^#"
[devfsrules_hide_all=1]
add hide
[devf
Sounds like you have something wrong with devfs.rules in jail section?
On Mar 11, 2010 6:46 PM, "Steve Bertrand" wrote:
Hi all, please forgive the verbosity, but I wanted to include as much
detail as possible (without including config files) up front.
Summary: SSH works to the jail box host OS,
Hi all, please forgive the verbosity, but I wanted to include as much
detail as possible (without including config files) up front.
Summary: SSH works to the jail box host OS, but not to the jails themselves.
On a box that is dedicated to jails, I source upgraded from 7.2 to:
FreeBSD jail.eagle.
suddenly after a while my FreeBSD 8.0 stable machine always fails make
installworld. it has rarely been a problem before and when I appeared I
just rebooted into multi user, csup and build it all once again and then
success.
Now It always fails with an error saying this or that directory is
on 11/03/2010 20:25 Mark Atkinson said the following:
> On 03/11/10 04:39, Kai Gallasch wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I have some trouble with an opteron server locking up spontaneously. It
>> looses
>> all networks connectivity and even through console I can get no shell.
>>
>> Lockups occur mostly under d
On 03/11/10 04:39, Kai Gallasch wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I have some trouble with an opteron server locking up spontaneously. It looses
> all networks connectivity and even through console I can get no shell.
>
> Lockups occur mostly under disk load (periodic daily, bacula backup
> running, make buildwor
On Mar 11, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>>> Borja, can you confirm that the CPU is correctly announced in FreeBSD (just
>>> look at "dmesg | grep CPU:" output, if it tells you it is a AMD or Intel
>>> XXX CPU it is correctly detected by the BIOS)?
>>
>> A CPU bug? Weird. Very.
TB --- 2010-02-12 20:14:26 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-legacy.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-02-12 20:14:26 - starting RELENG_6 tinderbox run for amd64/amd64
TB --- 2010-02-12 20:14:26 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-02-12 20:15:02 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-02-12 20:15:02 - /usr/
TB --- 2010-02-12 20:33:34 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-legacy.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-02-12 20:33:34 - starting RELENG_6 tinderbox run for i386/i386
TB --- 2010-02-12 20:33:34 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-02-12 20:34:04 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-02-12 20:34:04 - /usr/bi
On 03/11/10 15:09, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Quoting Ivan Voras (from Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:59:01
+0100):
On 03/11/10 09:54, Borja Marcos wrote:
I don't know about the rest but this:
CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5420 @ 2.50GHz (2496.25-MHz K8-class CPU)
does not agree with this:
FreeBSD/S
Quoting Ivan Voras (from Thu, 11 Mar 2010
11:59:01 +0100):
On 03/11/10 09:54, Borja Marcos wrote:
I don't know about the rest but this:
CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5420 @ 2.50GHz (2496.25-MHz
K8-class CPU)
does not agree with this:
FreeBSD/SMP: 1 package(s) x 8 core(s)
T
Quoting Borja Marcos (from Thu, 11 Mar 2010
09:54:47 +0100):
On Mar 11, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Quoting Pawel Jakub Dawidek (from Wed, 10 Mar
2010 18:31:43 +0100):
There is a 4th possibility, if you can rule out everything else:
bugs in the CPU. I stumbled upon t
On Mar 11, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Quoting Pawel Jakub Dawidek (from Wed, 10 Mar 2010
> 18:31:43 +0100):
>
> There is a 4th possibility, if you can rule out everything else: bugs in the
> CPU. I stumbled upon this with ZFS (but UFS was exposing the problem much
> faste
28 matches
Mail list logo
