On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:33:15PM -0500, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> > system32 <- 64 bit dll + apps
> > sysWOW <- 32 bit dll + apps
> >
> > How's that for backwards compatibility.
> >
>
> That's utterly ridiculous. The guy responsible for such things should
> be fired :)
It works and the users don't
> system32 <- 64 bit dll + apps
> sysWOW <- 32 bit dll + apps
>
> How's that for backwards compatibility.
>
That's utterly ridiculous. The guy responsible for such things should
be fired :)
On 05/10/2011 09:18 AM, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
I fear opening tickets for all of the above would cause an
awful amount of work. Any better ideas how to handle this?
I can scan it and turn it into bugs. I'm probably more familiar with
what might be duplicates, so it probably makes more sense fo
Hi Jeff,
Jeff Licquia wrote on Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:33:27PM -0400:
> (Sorry if this isn't the proper list for this discussion. If not,
> please point me in the right direction.)
Since your enquiry is not backed up by a patch proposing specific
changes to the OpenBSD operating system, this wi
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:33:27PM -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> (Sorry if this isn't the proper list for this discussion. If not,
> please point me in the right direction.)
This is the proper list.
> Despite all the "Linux" in the names above, we're wanting to make
> sure that the FHS remains in
On Tue, 10 May 2011 09:05:13 +0200
Landry Breuil wrote:
> Some parts of FHS won't apply on OpenBSD, like /srv, /opt,
Linux ignores security mechanisms like noexec on /tmp, /home and then
pointlessly adds /opt seemingly just to annoy people who care about
partitioning!!
And DON'T try spinning me
On 10/05/2011 5:34 PM, Artur Grabowski wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Jeff Licquia wrote:
My question to you is: do you consider the FHS to be relevant to current
and
future development of OpenBSD? If not, is this simply due to lack of
maintenance; would your interest in the FHS be
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> My question to you is: do you consider the FHS to be relevant to current
and
> future development of OpenBSD? If not, is this simply due to lack of
> maintenance; would your interest in the FHS be greater with more consistent
> updates?
Mor
* Jeff Licquia [2011-05-10 05:36]:
> My question to you is: do you consider the FHS to be relevant to
> current and future development of OpenBSD? If not, is this simply
> due to lack of maintenance; would your interest in the FHS be
> greater with more consistent updates?
we'll happilly adopt F
Many UNIX systems include a hier(7) man page, OpenBSD is no exception.
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=hier&manpath=OpenBSD+Current&format=html
-Bryan.
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:33:27PM -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> (Sorry if this isn't the proper list for this discussion. If not,
> please point me in the right direction.)
>
> The Linux Foundation's LSB workgroup has taken over maintenance of
> the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, and is working o
> Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 23:21:23 -0500
> From: Marco Peereboom
>
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:33:27PM -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > (Sorry if this isn't the proper list for this discussion. If not,
> > please point me in the right direction.)
> >
> > The Linux Foundation's LSB workgroup has ta
On Tue, 10 May 2011 01:21:
wrote:
>On 05/10/2011 12:28 AM, Kamo Hiroyasu wrote:
>> I do not understand the benefits of FHS for Unixen other than Linux.
>> Most Unixen, including OpenBSD, are older than FHS and have their own
>> historical constraints. What do we obtain except for switching costs
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 01:21:15AM -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> The standard itself claims to apply to any UNIX-like system, and to
> not be Linux-specific; I'm wanting to find out if that's true.
Perhaps then you would be interested in item 14 of the OpenBSD porting
checklist:
http://www.openbsd
On 05/10/2011 12:28 AM, Kamo Hiroyasu wrote:
I do not understand the benefits of FHS for Unixen other than Linux.
Most Unixen, including OpenBSD, are older than FHS and have their own
historical constraints. What do we obtain except for switching costs
if we accept FHS?
It is not we but FHS peo
explanation is available and acceptable, we can accept FHS.
Otherwise, we neet not consider FHS.
Kamo Hiroyasu
[Kamo is the family name and Hiroyasu the given name.]
From: Jeff Licquia
Subject: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) and OpenBSD
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 23:33:27 -0400
> (Sorry if t
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:33:27PM -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> (Sorry if this isn't the proper list for this discussion. If not,
> please point me in the right direction.)
>
> The Linux Foundation's LSB workgroup has taken over maintenance of
> the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, and is working o
On Mon, 9 May 2011, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> (Sorry if this isn't the proper list for this discussion. If not, please
> point me in the right direction.)
>
> The Linux Foundation's LSB workgroup has taken over maintenance of the
> Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, and is working on a number of updates
(Sorry if this isn't the proper list for this discussion. If not,
please point me in the right direction.)
The Linux Foundation's LSB workgroup has taken over maintenance of the
Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, and is working on a number of updates
needed since its last release in 2004.
Despi
19 matches
Mail list logo
