The correct unicode codepoint would be U+00FC, not U+FC00. 'accum'
already contained the correct value _before_ byteswapping.
Code review and testing confirmed that this analysis is completely
correct. So i have committed this part of the patch.
Thanks!
2. The code in
Hallo,
ісh hаbе hеutе Іhrе Іntеrnеtsеіtе noqqe.de еntdесkt, und mіr sіnd еіnіgе
Flüсhtіgkеіtsfеhlеr аufgеfаllеn. Ісh zеіgе Іhnеn zwеі Веіsріеlе:
Fehlerhaftes Wort: eigenens
Auf dieser Seite: noqqe.de
Fehlerhaftes Wort: garnicht
Auf dieser Seite: noqqe.de
Klicken Sie bitte
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:48:11PM -0300, Rafael Zalamena wrote:
The following mails will contain patchs that implement the VPLS datapath
in OpenBSD. Applying all patchs should allow people to configure a
network using VPLS manually.
--- snipped diffs descriptions ---
How to use:
*
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 12:33:11PM -0300, Rafael Zalamena wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:51:07PM -0300, Rafael Zalamena wrote:
The following patch implements the basics of the wire network interface.
--- snipped ---
I've added support for tcpdump'ing the wire interface, it will get
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 12:43:09PM -0300, Rafael Zalamena wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:52:22PM -0300, Rafael Zalamena wrote:
Adds support for wire configuration and status printing.
--- snipped ---
This patch fixes the ifconfig(8) default encapsulation to 'ethernet',
as it should
On 14 November 2014 17:26, Rafael Zalamena rzalam...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:48:11PM -0300, Rafael Zalamena wrote:
The following mails will contain patchs that implement the VPLS datapath
in OpenBSD. Applying all patchs should allow people to configure a
network using VPLS
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:41:32PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
On 14 November 2014 17:26, Rafael Zalamena rzalam...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:48:11PM -0300, Rafael Zalamena wrote:
The following mails will contain patchs that implement the VPLS datapath
in OpenBSD.
On 14.11.2014. 18:24, Rafael Zalamena wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:41:32PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
On 14 November 2014 17:26, Rafael Zalamena rzalam...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:48:11PM -0300, Rafael Zalamena wrote:
The following mails will contain patchs that
On 2014/11/14 15:24, Rafael Zalamena wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:41:32PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
is it possible to call it something other than just wire(4)?
vpls maybe?
pseudowire(4) then? (looks long to me)
I wouldn't call vpls as it may be expanded later to do also VPWS.
Hello,
I'm a user of mg(1) and I'm not a user of OpenBSD.
According to known resources mg(1) [1] is currently maintained
in OpenBSD's tree.
As maintaining local patches or forking mg(1) for plain compatibility
is doubtful, I'm going to send you a set of patches.
I don't want to make noise with
The vi editor contains code for two different file locking methods -
one using flock(), the other using fcntl(). The fcntl method is unused
and has severe limitations (as described in a code comment). Let's
remove it for sake of readibility.
See the diff below; no binary change.
cheers,
natano
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 21:16, Martin Natano wrote:
nitems() from sys/param.h works just fine.
See diff below; no binary change.
Thanks for all the diffs, applied the other three.
I'm not sure what our current policy is on nitems in userland. For a
while we were trying to avoid it, and then
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Kamil Rytarowski n...@gmx.com wrote:
As maintaining local patches or forking mg(1) for plain compatibility
is doubtful, I'm going to send you a set of patches.
I don't want to make noise with a mail per patch, so I'm attaching all
patches to this mail.
Anyone into reviewing? Or suggestions?
In short, this diff verifies that we don't try to write lines into
the file buffer which are longer than the longest one allowed.
Tobias
Index: inp.c
===
RCS file:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 20:29, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
Hello,
I'm a user of mg(1) and I'm not a user of OpenBSD.
According to known resources mg(1) [1] is currently maintained
in OpenBSD's tree.
As maintaining local patches or forking mg(1) for plain compatibility
is doubtful, I'm
Hello,
Thank you for your comments. Please see my comments below.
With regards,
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 at 8:48 PM
From: Philip Guenther guent...@gmail.com
To: Kamil Rytarowski n...@gmx.com
Cc: tech-openbsd tech@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: mg(1) comaptibility patches
On Fri, Nov 14,
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 at 9:10 PM
From: Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com
To: Kamil Rytarowski n...@gmx.com
Cc: tech@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: mg(1) comaptibility patches
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 20:29, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
0001-Define-strtonum-3-for-the-NetBSD-target.patch
I
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 at 9:10 PM
From: Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com
To: Kamil Rytarowski n...@gmx.com
Cc: tech@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: mg(1) comaptibility patches
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 20:29, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
0001-Define-strtonum-3-for-the-NetBSD-target.patch
I
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 at 9:59 PM
From: Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org
To: n...@gmx.com, t...@tedunangst.com
Cc: tech@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: mg(1) compatibility patches
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 at 9:10 PM
From: Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com
To: Kamil
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:51:14PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
In downstream (except FreeBSD and libbsd consumers) there is missing
strtonum(3). To enhance mg(1) and catch its bugs in general I need to
start with improvement of its portability to other unsupported systems
(as I'm a consumer
20 matches
Mail list logo
