Daniel Bilik wrote
in <20160205093713.1c1453f9b5d06a6b366c4...@neosystem.cz>:
dd> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:49:37 +0100
dd> Daniel Bilik wrote:
dd>
dd> >> Should I create PR for this?
dd> > Created:
dd> > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206231
dd>
dd> Seems that 10-stable has ju
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:49:37 +0100
Daniel Bilik wrote:
>> Should I create PR for this?
> Created:
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206231
Seems that 10-stable has just entered beta1, so unless some effort is
put into fixing this, 10.3-release is probably gonna ship with broken
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:17:30 +0100
Daniel Bilik wrote:
> Should I create PR for this?
Created:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206231
--
Dan
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
Added hrs@ to CC.
On 1/13/16, Daniel Bilik wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:04:18 +0100
> Daniel Bilik wrote:
>
>> A week ago I upgraded two systems where stf(4) is used. They were running
>> 10-stable from beginning of September, with stf working fine. After
>> upgrade, the address on stf0 stays
On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:04:18 +0100
Daniel Bilik wrote:
> A week ago I upgraded two systems where stf(4) is used. They were running
> 10-stable from beginning of September, with stf working fine. After
> upgrade, the address on stf0 stays "tentative" indefinitely.
I've finally got some time to an
Hi.
Does anybody run recent 10-stable with working 6to4 connectivity?
A week ago I upgraded two systems where stf(4) is used. They were running
10-stable from beginning of September, with stf working fine. After
upgrade, the address on stf0 stays "tentative" indefinitely. So far, I've
not found a
