Well, the ifconfig name parameter is there, probably wouldn't be too
difficult to make something up based on mac address, and just key
off the name...
But yeah, it can be annoying. Too bad interface names can't be hardwired
like SCSI disk ID's can be...
On 10/30/06, Peter Curran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Scott
Neither!! I have deep admiration for you, bill, chris and colin. Not only
for what you have achieved but also for your ability to field some pretty
dumb questions on this list.
I think you SHOULD be less subtle and more upfront with d
Scott
Neither!! I have deep admiration for you, bill, chris and colin. Not only
for what you have achieved but also for your ability to field some pretty
dumb questions on this list.
I think you SHOULD be less subtle and more upfront with daft requests.
"How about porting Open Office to
On 10/30/06, Peter Curran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Be my guest, I don't plan on going through FreeBSD or Darwin driver
> code to figure out what Apple does or does not do behind the scenes.
> Frankly _all_ open source BSD's behave this way and it's of no
> interest to me to fix it.
>
Bill
I
On 10/30/06, Peter Curran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think you are being too subtle - why don't you tell it the way it is?
You volunteering to do the work or simply trying to throw grease on a fire?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On Monday 30 October 2006 20:12, Bill Marquette wrote:
> On 10/30/06, Pierre Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > Now that 1.0 is out what is the idea for moving to kernel 6.2? Any
> > idea of the time frame?
> > Could we find a solution to keep the interface numbering stable i.e.
On 10/30/06, Pierre Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Bill,
Now that 1.0 is out what is the idea for moving to kernel 6.2? Any
idea of the time frame?
Could we find a solution to keep the interface numbering stable i.e.
when adding a NIC not have all interfaces renumbered? This is really
anno
On 10/30/06, Pierre Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Bill,
Now that 1.0 is out what is the idea for moving to kernel 6.2? Any
idea of the time frame?
6.2 is not even out yet. We'll discuss once it is out and it can be evaluated.
Scott
Hi Bill,
Now that 1.0 is out what is the idea for moving to kernel 6.2? Any
idea of the time frame?
Could we find a solution to keep the interface numbering stable i.e.
when adding a NIC not have all interfaces renumbered? This is really
annoying, MacOSX which also uses FreeBSD, does do no
On 9/6/06, Pierre Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So if I understand correctly you are porting pfsense to 6.2 instead
of back porting the driver? That looks like a fabulous solution and
quite a bit more sustainable for the future.
Exactly. And takes the risk out of a backport (which looked l
So if I understand correctly you are porting pfsense to 6.2 instead
of back porting the driver? That looks like a fabulous solution and
quite a bit more sustainable for the future.
Thank you
Pierre
On 5-Sep-06, at 9:28 PM, Bill Marquette wrote:
I'm currently working on updating our patch
I'm currently working on updating our patches against RELENG_6. That
branch should be locked shortly pending the tagging of RELENG_6_2 -
we'd like to be able to start building that branch shortly after
release (there are no plans to delay 1.0 release for this). It
shouldn't take me more than a d
Let me know your conclusions and will talk.PierreOn 1-Sep-06, at 4:17 PM, Bill Marquette wrote:If all it takes is $50 I would be happy to oblige the board did cost me $500 and it is worthless without a driver. Understood, they aren't cheap boards. To be clear, what I'm offering is to provide a re
On 9/1/06, Pierre Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If all it takes is $50 I would be happy to oblige the board did cost
me $500 and it is worthless without a driver.
Understood, they aren't cheap boards. To be clear, what I'm offering
is to provide a replacement kernel (that can be uploaded a
If all it takes is $50 I would be happy to oblige the board did cost
me $500 and it is worthless without a driver.
That being said there very few 4 port cards and I could not get hold
of one of the "old" ones that are supported so this may become a
problem very rapidly well before the 12 mo
On 9/1/06, Pierre Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Bill,
How much was the bounty?
Not sure...probably only $50 or so. The thread was removed from the
forum at some point.
I guess I don't understand the problem. Why had the driver got to be
backported for each version? How is pfsense bui
On 9/1/06, Pierre Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Understood.
Does this mean that in practice it will not be included in 1.0?
Yes, it will not be included in 1.0.
What about 1.1.
Not sure, I am more worried about 1.0 right now, not 1.1.
Scott
---
Understood.
Does this mean that in practice it will not be included in 1.0? What
about 1.1.
Thanks
Pierre
On 1-Sep-06, at 10:39 AM, Scott Ullrich wrote:
On 9/1/06, Pierre Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Bill,
I guess I don't understand the problem. Why had the driver got to be
backp
On 9/1/06, Pierre Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Bill,
I guess I don't understand the problem. Why had the driver got to be
backported for each version? How is pfsense built? Is this a problem
with FreeBSD or with pfsense?
pfSense runs on RELENG_6_1. The newer driver was in RELENG_6 (sta
Hi Bill,
How much was the bounty?
I guess I don't understand the problem. Why had the driver got to be
backported for each version? How is pfsense built? Is this a problem
with FreeBSD or with pfsense?
Thanks
Pierre
On 1-Sep-06, at 10:00 AM, Bill Marquette wrote:
On 9/1/06, Pierre Fris
On 9/1/06, Pierre Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What is the status support of the Intel PWLA8494MT. I had it working
with a special build sent by Bill Marquette including Intel driver
6.0.5. However this has disappeared from the latest update. Is it
going to come back with the next one?
The
On 9/1/06, Pierre Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What is the status support of the Intel PWLA8494MT. I had it working
with a special build sent by Bill Marquette including Intel driver
6.0.5. However this has disappeared from the latest update. Is it
going to come back with the next one?
The
What is the status support of the Intel PWLA8494MT. I had it working
with a special build sent by Bill Marquette including Intel driver
6.0.5. However this has disappeared from the latest update. Is it
going to come back with the next one?
I also have a problem with interface numbering. The
Is Intel PWLA8494MT supported with the current build (1.0RC2)? I have
installed this card on a system with 2 Gb Intel port on the mother
board and the system does not appear to recognize it. Any idea?
Thanks
Pierre
-
To uns
24 matches
Mail list logo
