On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 02:23:42PM +0100, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
Hello,
Just noticed that pkg.conf(5) is missing in the see also section
of pkg_add(1) and friends.
Regards.
fixed now, thanks.
jmc
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:15:06AM +0200, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
Hello,
Is this working ever?
Yes
Yesterday I was trying to add a certain packages and wanted them to
reside in the very separate base (/usr/opt) so them will be easilly
removed after my trial of them.
I did 'pkg_add -L
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 07:20:33AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
about AddCreateDelete.pm r1.15
1. -L was never there (adding back? had to go through the entire log
for the file to verify adding back)
Of course it was not. you'll have to check the whole history of the tools
to figure out what
about AddCreateDelete.pm r1.15
1. -L was never there (adding back? had to go through the entire log
for the file to verify adding back)
2. PkgCreate.pm declared it separately, and still does
3. PkgDelete.pm doesn't work with -L, and if it ever did, it wasn't documented
is pkg_delete not
Does somebody has an idea, that what kind of iptables/pf rule must i use to
achieve this?:
i only want to allow these connections [on the output chain]:
on port 53 output only allow udp - dns
on port 80 output only allow tcp - http
on port 443 output only allow tcp - https
on port 993 output
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 06:05:49AM -0700, johhny_at_poland77 wrote:
Does somebody has an idea, that what kind of iptables/pf rule must i use to
achieve this?:
i only want to allow these connections [on the output chain]:
on port 53 output only allow udp - dns
on port 80 output only
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:02:38AM +0100, Christophe Etcheverry wrote:
On 22:14 Mon 14 Mar , Stuart Henderson wrote:
I use OpenBSD i386 -current on a Soekris net5501 as a gateway using
pppoe(4) to create only an ipv4 connection. I never had any problem but
since an upgrade last week,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 04:23:54AM -0700, Steve wrote:
Hi,
What I thought was an MTU problem, now looks possibly to be an ospf issue.
I have 4.5 on one side and 4.7 on the other. At the moment this is the only
infrastructure I can test on. I cant see anything obvious in the changelog
that
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:54:58PM -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:46:28 -0500, Stuart Henderson
s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
Make sure your nexthops are valid: bgpctl sh nex
I worked with my coworker on it this afternoon and he discovered the
nexthops issue. We have
On 17 March 2011 05:10, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
On 2011/03/17 00:23, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:45:03PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2011/03/16 19:01, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
On 10 March 2011 19:31, Christiano F. Haesbaert
On 19 March 2011 10:22, Christiano F. Haesbaert haesba...@haesbaert.org wrote:
On 19 March 2011 10:05, johhny_at_poland77 johhny_at_polan...@zoho.com
wrote:
Does somebody has an idea, that what kind of iptables/pf rule must i use to
achieve this?:
iptables is linux thingy, so is out of the
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 2:05 PM, johhny_at_poland77
johhny_at_polan...@zoho.com wrote:
Does somebody has an idea, that what kind of iptables/pf rule must i use to
achieve this?:
i only want to allow these connections [on the output chain]:
on port 53 output only allow udp - dns
on port 80
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 07:20:33AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
about AddCreateDelete.pm r1.15
1. -L was never there (adding back? had to go through the entire log
for the file to verify adding back)
Of course it was not.
Argghhh please ignore this, I typed misc@ instead of tech@.
On 19 March 2011 10:15, Christiano F. Haesbaert haesba...@haesbaert.org wrote:
On 17 March 2011 05:10, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
On 2011/03/17 00:23, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:45:03PM
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:58:59 +
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
I do get a fair increase in cpu usage for a disk at full speed disk with
vnd but it's acceptable. Have people already done cpu usage and
transfer speed comparisons to save me further tests.
Well I was about to run a comparison test on
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 06:05:49AM -0700, johhny_at_poland77 wrote:
Does somebody has an idea, that what kind of iptables/pf rule must i use to
achieve this?:
i only want to allow these connections [on the output chain]:
on port 53 output only allow udp - dns
on port 80 output only allow
On 19 Mar 2011, at 09:05, johhny_at_poland77 wrote:
Does somebody has an idea, that what kind of iptables/pf rule must i use to
achieve this?:
i only want to allow these connections [on the output chain]:
on port 53 output only allow udp - dns
TCP also needs to be allowed for DNS (to allow
http://geekyschmidt.com/2011/01/09/openbsd-drive-encryption-benchmarks
Note that this is done using bonnie. Bonnie isn't very good in figuring
out what I real world load looks like. It does give some insight in cpu
usage.
Crypto is slow, end of story. If you want encrypted disks you'll pay a
On Mar 19, 2011, at 7:49 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:58:59 +
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
I do get a fair increase in cpu usage for a disk at full speed disk with
vnd but it's acceptable. Have people already done cpu usage and
transfer speed comparisons to save me further
Hi,
I am running an OpenBSD 4.8 server whith generic kernel.
The server was unresponsive since yesterday at 22:00 (Eastern Time) and
today I found this (after the server stuck on reboot and run manually fsck
in /var partition):
Mar 19 09:26:03 mail /bsd: mode = 020162, inum = 389775,
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:29:13 -0700
Ben Calvert wrote:
On Mar 19, 2011, at 7:49 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:58:59 +
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
I do get a fair increase in cpu usage for a disk at full speed disk with
vnd but it's acceptable. Have people already done
On 03/14/11 21:06, Scott McEachern wrote:
The problem is that the kernel freezes when booting any of: bsd.rd,
for either amd64 or i386, -current or 4.8-stable; any GENERIC kernel
for amd64/i386 -current or 4.8-stable on an installed system. (partial
dmesgs below).
My apologies for the
* jirib ji...@devio.us [2011-03-19 00:38]:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:21:20 +0100
Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote:
* william dunand william.dun...@gmail.com [2011-02-25 05:26]:
pass out log(matches) quick inet proto tcp from any to
89.176.141.250 port = www rdr-to 127.0.0.1
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 06:05:49AM -0700, johhny_at_poland77 wrote:
Does somebody has an idea, that what kind of iptables/pf rule must i use to
achieve this?:
i only want to allow these connections [on the output chain]:
on port 53 output only allow udp - dns
on port 80 output only allow
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg]
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg]
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg]
I'm using dovecot 2's managesieve plugin, which I downloaded and built.
I'm using -current.
To be precise, I downloaded the latest snapshots [and installed them],
updated my /usr/src sources, and built the plugin. (this isn't the
first time I've done this, I've done this in the past with the
Hi,
I have a USB webcam. No model number on the cam, but looks to be a
Logitech QuickCam Communicate STX.
When I plug it in, I get this:
uaudio0 at uhub1 port 1 configuration 1 interface 1 Logitech Camera rev
2.00/1.00 addr 2
uaudio0: audio descriptors make no sense, error=4
ugen0 at uhub1
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
h...@osvaldobarrera.com.ar wrote:
...
When I try to log in using some managesieve client, /var/log/maillog
outputs the following (each line about 5 or 6 times):
Mar 19 16:11:03 hugo-barrera dovecot: managesieve-login: Error:
Is this email not displaying correctly? Try the web version.
Amar Consulting presents
HRC2011 - Human Resource Conference 2011
Register Now
Strategic HR: A Panacea To Recovery From Recession
Honorable Speakers
Highlights
Professional and Talented HR Speakers from around the
On Sunday, 20 March 2011, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:29:13 -0700
Ben Calvert wrote:
On Mar 19, 2011, at 7:49 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:58:59 +
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
I do get a fair increase in cpu usage for a disk at
30 matches
Mail list logo
