On Wed, 09/05 16:24, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 08:54:39AM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> > On 8/27/2018 5:05 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:36:30AM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> > > > I very much appreciate the effort to bump up to 6.3 as I was going
>
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 08:54:39AM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> On 8/27/2018 5:05 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:36:30AM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> > > I very much appreciate the effort to bump up to 6.3 as I was going
> > > to suggest doing that at some point. But bumping
On 8/27/2018 5:18 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
On Fri, 08/24 10:36, Brad Smith wrote:
I very much appreciate the effort to bump up to 6.3 as I was going
to suggest doing that at some point. But bumping up to 6.3 at the
moment will fail with the configure script. We've switched from GCC 4.2
to Clang. Th
On 8/27/2018 5:05 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:36:30AM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
I very much appreciate the effort to bump up to 6.3 as I was going
to suggest doing that at some point. But bumping up to 6.3 at the
moment will fail with the configure script. We've switched
On 8/27/2018 5:18 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
On Fri, 08/24 10:36, Brad Smith wrote:
I very much appreciate the effort to bump up to 6.3 as I was going
to suggest doing that at some point. But bumping up to 6.3 at the
moment will fail with the configure script. We've switched from GCC 4.2
to Clang. Th
On Fri, 08/24 10:36, Brad Smith wrote:
> I very much appreciate the effort to bump up to 6.3 as I was going
> to suggest doing that at some point. But bumping up to 6.3 at the
> moment will fail with the configure script. We've switched from GCC 4.2
> to Clang. The TLS check will fail with Clang's
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:36:30AM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> I very much appreciate the effort to bump up to 6.3 as I was going
> to suggest doing that at some point. But bumping up to 6.3 at the
> moment will fail with the configure script. We've switched from GCC 4.2
> to Clang. The TLS check wi
On 8/24/2018 10:46 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 24 August 2018 at 15:43, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:36:30AM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
I very much appreciate the effort to bump up to 6.3 as I was going
to suggest doing that at some point. But bumping up to 6.3 at the
mo
On 24 August 2018 at 15:48, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 03:46:31PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Is emulated TLS a sufficiently complete/performant TLS
>> implementation for our purposes?
>>
>> (I think it would be better if OpenBSD just implemented real TLS
>> like every
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 03:46:31PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 24 August 2018 at 15:43, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:36:30AM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> >> I very much appreciate the effort to bump up to 6.3 as I was going
> >> to suggest doing that at some point. B
On 24 August 2018 at 15:43, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:36:30AM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
>> I very much appreciate the effort to bump up to 6.3 as I was going
>> to suggest doing that at some point. But bumping up to 6.3 at the
>> moment will fail with the configure scri
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:36:30AM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> I very much appreciate the effort to bump up to 6.3 as I was going
> to suggest doing that at some point. But bumping up to 6.3 at the
> moment will fail with the configure script. We've switched from GCC 4.2
> to Clang. The TLS check wi
I very much appreciate the effort to bump up to 6.3 as I was going
to suggest doing that at some point. But bumping up to 6.3 at the
moment will fail with the configure script. We've switched from GCC 4.2
to Clang. The TLS check will fail with Clang's emulated TLS. We've
had a local patch for awhi
On Fri, 08/24 10:06, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 24 August 2018 at 09:52, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Fri, 08/24 09:22, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 09:21:26AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >> > Upgrade OpenBSD to 6.3 using auto_install. Especially, drop SDL1,
> >> > include SDL2.
On 24 August 2018 at 09:52, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Fri, 08/24 09:22, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 09:21:26AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> > Upgrade OpenBSD to 6.3 using auto_install. Especially, drop SDL1,
>> > include SDL2.
>> >
>> > One limitation of this patch is that we ne
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 04:52:20PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Fri, 08/24 09:22, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 09:21:26AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > Upgrade OpenBSD to 6.3 using auto_install. Especially, drop SDL1,
> > > include SDL2.
> > >
> > > One limitation of this
On Fri, 08/24 09:22, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 09:21:26AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > Upgrade OpenBSD to 6.3 using auto_install. Especially, drop SDL1,
> > include SDL2.
> >
> > One limitation of this patch is that we need a temporary HTTP server on
> > host 80 port for a
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 09:21:26AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> Upgrade OpenBSD to 6.3 using auto_install. Especially, drop SDL1,
> include SDL2.
>
> One limitation of this patch is that we need a temporary HTTP server on
> host 80 port for auto_install, because slirp cannot do guest forward on
> "ho
Upgrade OpenBSD to 6.3 using auto_install. Especially, drop SDL1,
include SDL2.
One limitation of this patch is that we need a temporary HTTP server on
host 80 port for auto_install, because slirp cannot do guest forward on
"host addr".
Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng
---
tests/vm/basevm.py | 28 +
19 matches
Mail list logo
