On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=109277
The problem looks like a lack of proper locking during the operations with
clist (specifically, this causes multiple entry to cblock_alloc()).
I'm ready to provide further debugging information on
Hello!
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Not that it contradicts anything you said, but it's worth
re-emphasizing that there is apparently no-one in the community
interested in maintaining pppd on FreeBSD, which is how it got to the
current sorry state.
I agree that the absence of pp
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 09:31:47PM +0200, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >Not that it contradicts anything you said, but it's worth
> >re-emphasizing that there is apparently no-one in the community
> >interested in maintaining pppd on FreeBS
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> There's information around PPP that's not been communicated or
> documented well. The 'performance' way to do PPP on FreeBSD is to go off
> and run MPD, because it has the right compromise between doing low-level
> packet shunting in the kernel
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 03:06 +0100, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
[ snip ]
> All that your "bug report" accomplishes is broadcasting your bad and
> uninformed attitude to an even bigger audience. It is in your own and the
> FreeBSD community's best interest to backtrack before anyone gets to form a
On Sunday, 11. February 2007 02:43, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> So far so good. The problem is that the BSD magicians and the KDE GUI
> magicians are not sharing their spell-books, and thus, their models of
> how the code operates; the communities have to intersect somehow. That
> could be you, y'kn
Michael Nottebrock wrote:
And yes, if pppd is broken and won't be fixed, it should disappear.
And when that happens, so will kppp (it won't build once the if_ppp.h header
is gone). Which of course would solve the problem in a way. In any case: I
dragged this issue onto -stable precisel
On Saturday, 10. February 2007 07:34, Ian Smith wrote:
> Since once trying (and failing) to debug or even comprehend a spaghetti
> of scripts and configs behind a dialout-only linux pppd setup some years
> ago, compared to the much more straightforward ppp with mgetty setup for
> both dialout and
Hi,
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:24:11 +0100
> Eric Masson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
emss> Right, and an up to date pppd in base would be imho really nice to have.
emss> Kernel pppoe as in Net/Open would be an alternative to net/mpd.
emss> (No, I'm not volunteering to port NetBSD's kernel ppp
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> On Thursday, 8. February 2007 08:38, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 7. February 2007 18:45, Joe Vender wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 07 February 2007 01:59, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> > >
On Friday, 9. February 2007 22:48, John Walthall wrote:
> Because of known problems with
> PPPD, KPPP should provide at least the option of using user land PPP.
> You may of course differ from this view. However, unless a large outcry
> arises, I will not close the bug. I think that it is, in-fac
Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2007-Feb-08 17:16:23 -0500, John Walthall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
functionally obsolete. User PPP provides better service, and several
tangible design benefits. User PPP is very easy to use, Kernel PPP is not.
Actually, kernel PPP has one significant (at least theoret
Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi,
> Actually, kernel PPP has one significant (at least theoretical)
> advantage over user ppp: Network data is not pushed through the
> kernel/userland interface an additional two times. This is irrelevant
> for low-speed modem interfaces but could be
On 2007-Feb-08 17:16:23 -0500, John Walthall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>functionally obsolete. User PPP provides better service, and several
>tangible design benefits. User PPP is very easy to use, Kernel PPP is not.
Actually, kernel PPP has one significant (at least theoretical)
advantage over u
On Thursday, 8. February 2007 23:16, John Walthall wrote:
> Ok, now an editorial:
I should not really dignify this rant by replying to it, but:
> We have a fundamental design difference from Linux here. We chose this
> difference because we believed that it was better. Why would we go back
> now
Ok, now an editorial:
Kernel PPP is certified crap and should be phased out.
In my personal opinion the reason that it is unmaintained and slowly
dissolving into a nonfunctional pool of electrolytes, is that it is
functionally obsolete. User PPP provides better service, and several
tangi
On Thursday, 8. February 2007 08:38, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 7. February 2007 18:45, Joe Vender wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 07 February 2007 01:59, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > There is https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:38:08PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote:
> Not to suggest that any pppd/kernel interaction problems ought not to be
> addressed by those wishing to maintain pppd for linux compatibility or
> other reasons, but the reality is that most FreeBSD users have long
> preferred user ppp
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7. February 2007 18:45, Joe Vender wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 February 2007 01:59, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > There is https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55785 on record, your
> > > description sounds more like y
On Wednesday, 7. February 2007 18:45, Joe Vender wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 February 2007 01:59, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> ...
>
> > There is https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55785 on record, your
> > description sounds more like you're getting a kernel panic in the
> > background though (KPPP
20 matches
Mail list logo
