Re: PATCH src/etc/root : more->less

[Doug Barton]

Max Khon wrote:
> 
> hi, there!
> 
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > What about it for 4.0-ST?
> >
> > Index: src/etc/root/dot.cshrc
> 
> [trim]
> 
> and what's about this?
> 
> --- usr.sbin/mergemaster/mergemaster.sh.origTue Jul 11 21:34:20 2000
> +++ usr.sbin/mergemaster/mergemaster.sh Tue Jul 11 21:37:11 2000

The default for mm will still be more, since that's the default that most
people are comfortable with. I plan to expand (and modify) the whole
"here's your $PAGER" text and menu to clarify the current state of things,
and to make the option of using less more sensible. 

Thanks for your suggestion,

Doug


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: /etc/security -> /etc/periodic/security ?

[Brian Somers]

> Brian Somers wrote:
> 
> >> Well, "periodic security" will work as long as /etc/periodic/security
> >> exists, so I guess you just mean the docs need updating?  I'll get to
> >> that if someone is actually planning on committing this stuff.
> >=20
> > Perhaps the best option is to do with the inline security option and=20
> > just run ``periodic security'' from cron ?  I can commit the changes.
> 
> I don't think there's really a problem with just running security
> from daily.  I can add a note that this is normal practice in the
> manpage, and that security shouldn't be run separately unless you set
> daily_security_enable=3DNO or whatever the option is.

Oops, sorry for the reply latency

I don't think it's appropriate to separate the security script into 
multiple scripts unless the intention is to run ``periodic 
security''.  This is just my personal view though.  If you feel 
strongly about it, you should bring it up on freebsd-arch.  I'll 
certainly back down if the concensus says it should be split.

> --=20
> Ben Smithurst / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0x99392F7D

BTW, congrats on your commit bit !
-- 
Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
     
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: /etc/security -> /etc/periodic/security ?

[Brian Somers]

> > Brian Somers wrote:
> > 
> > >> Well, "periodic security" will work as long as /etc/periodic/security
> > >> exists, so I guess you just mean the docs need updating?  I'll get to
> > >> that if someone is actually planning on committing this stuff.
> > >=20
> > > Perhaps the best option is to do with the inline security option and=20
> > > just run ``periodic security'' from cron ?  I can commit the changes.
> > 
> > I don't think there's really a problem with just running security
> > from daily.  I can add a note that this is normal practice in the
> > manpage, and that security shouldn't be run separately unless you set
> > daily_security_enable=3DNO or whatever the option is.
> 
> Oops, sorry for the reply latency
> 
> I don't think it's appropriate to separate the security script into 
> multiple scripts unless the intention is to run ``periodic 
> security''.  This is just my personal view though.  If you feel 
> strongly about it, you should bring it up on freebsd-arch.  I'll 
> certainly back down if the concensus says it should be split.

Duh!  I didn't realise -arch was already on the cc list :-/

> > --=20
> > Ben Smithurst / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0x99392F7D
> 
> BTW, congrats on your commit bit !
-- 
Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
     
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: /etc/security -> /etc/periodic/security ?

[Ben Smithurst]

Brian Somers wrote:

> Oops, sorry for the reply latency

Don't worry, I've been side-tracked by docs stuff, committing things
then thinking "am I allowed to do that?", etc.  Fortunately I haven't
been forced to wear the pointy hat yet. :-)

> I don't think it's appropriate to separate the security script into 
> multiple scripts unless the intention is to run ``periodic 
> security''.  This is just my personal view though.  If you feel 
> strongly about it, you should bring it up on freebsd-arch.  I'll 
> certainly back down if the concensus says it should be split.

I don't really feel strongly, I just think it would be cleaner to have
it separated out.  Alternatively perhaps /etc/security could be moved
to /etc/periodic/daily/.security, since it's just another daily
script really.  But that would mean a repo-copy and this probably isn't
important enough to justify that, so let's leave it be.  People are
probably used to running '/etc/security' standalone as well.

>> Ben Smithurst / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0x99392F7D
> 
> BTW, congrats on your commit bit !

Thanks.  I took advantage of it to commit a question to the FAQ which
James (on the cc list) asked recently: "what is a repo-copy?", let
me know if it answers your question well enough. (it's in the misc
questions bit.)

-- 
Ben Smithurst / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0x99392F7D
FreeBSD Documentation Project /

 PGP signature

PR 10548: more userful ifconfig behaviour without args

[Neil Blakey-Milner]

Hi,

There are plenty of PRs languishing without comment in the PR database,
and this is one that requires a "implement and close it" or "here's a
good reason not to do this, and close it" response.

Any takers?  Reply-To set to myself.

Neil
-- 
Neil Blakey-Milner
Sunesi Clinical Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Why isn't localhost used by talk?

[Brooks Davis]

On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 11:01:59PM -0400, Joseph Jacobson wrote:
> 
> Local to local talk doesn't work if the hostname for the box doesn't
> match any an ip on any interface.  Although this sounds wierd, consider 
> a non-dedicated ppp link.  Although you can get around this problem with
> 'talk user@localhost', POLA would say talk should default to localhost.
> I couldn't think of any good reason why this shouldn't be the case.

You may be able to work around this by insuring that your hostname maps
to the loop back address in your hosts file.  I did that to get apache
to start up on my laptop when there are no network interfaces.  My host
name is minya and I've got the following entry in my hosts file:

127.0.0.1   minya. minya localhost

-- Brooks

-- 
Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Can anyone recommend a good clustering software?

[Nik Clayton]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 04:17:53PM +0200, Frederik Meerwaldt wrote:
> Can anyone tell me a clustering software for FreeBSD? 

PolyServe?  No URL, as I'm in the air at the moment, but try a general
web search, or look at past announcements on DaemonNews, where it was
mentioned a few weeks back.

N
-- 
Internet connection, $19.95 a month.  Computer, $799.95.  Modem, $149.95.
Telephone line, $24.95 a month.  Software, free.  USENET transmission,
hundreds if not thousands of dollars.  Thinking before posting, priceless.
Somethings in life you can't buy.  For everything else, there's MasterCard.
  -- Graham Reed, in the Scary Devil Monastery


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

RELENG_4 build broken?

[Rene de Vries]

Hello,

Today and yesterday I tried to build a freshly cvsup-ed RELENG_4 source tree,
both builds failed. Did I forget/miss something, or did someone break the
build?

Rene

(build was started with make buildworld)
===> usr.sbin/lptcontrol
rm -f .depend
mkdep -f .depend -a-I/usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/include  
/usr/src/usr.sbin/lptcontrol/lptcontrol.c
/usr/src/usr.sbin/lptcontrol/lptcontrol.c:45: dev/ppbus/lptio.h: No such file or 
directory
mkdep: compile failed
*** Error code 1

-- 
Rene de Vrieshttp://www.tcja.nl mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: RELENG_4 build broken?

[Alan Clegg]

An SMTP stream claimed that Rene de Vries muttered:

> Today and yesterday I tried to build a freshly cvsup-ed RELENG_4 source tree,
> both builds failed. Did I forget/miss something, or did someone break the
> build?

Fixed as of about 9:30am pacific time.  re-cvsup.

AlanC


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: RELENG_4 build broken?

[Chris D. Faulhaber]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Rene de Vries wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Today and yesterday I tried to build a freshly cvsup-ed RELENG_4 source tree,
> both builds failed. Did I forget/miss something, or did someone break the
> build?
> 

You seem to have missed a couple dozen messages regarding this problem and
the working solution(s) provided (though not committed).  In addition,
problems with the -STABLE branch should go to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
not -hackers.

-
Chris D. Faulhaber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

FreeBSD: The Power To Serve   -   http://www.FreeBSD.org



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: /etc/security -> /etc/periodic/security ?

[James Howard]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Ben Smithurst wrote:

> Thanks.  I took advantage of it to commit a question to the FAQ which
> James (on the cc list) asked recently: "what is a repo-copy?", let
> me know if it answers your question well enough. (it's in the misc
> questions bit.)

This is very nice.  I understand the concept completely now.  This is not
too technical for a newbie and is quite nice.

Now please place answers to the following questions in FAQ?  What are
fairings?  Why does it matter what color the bikeshed is?  What does
non-reflexive?  (Can you tell I read the follow question?:)

Jamie



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: PR 10548: more userful ifconfig behaviour without args

[Joe Greco]

> There are plenty of PRs languishing without comment in the PR database,
> and this is one that requires a "implement and close it" or "here's a
> good reason not to do this, and close it" response.

Well, I'm not real thrilled with this particular patch.  It adds no
functionality to ifconfig, yet it eats up the magical "argc == 1" catchall.
It seems to be a keystroke-saver, in which case I propose we change the
name of "ifconfig" to simply "i" :-)
-- 
... Joe

---
Joe Greco - Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Solaria Public Access UNIX - Milwaukee, WI 414/342-4847


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

patch for openssh to work with pty-redir

[Jim Mercer]

i was using pty-redir (from netbsd) and ssh to do VPN (ppp over ssh).

we prefer to use kernel mode ppp for religious reasons.
(userland ppp and netgraph ppp are not options).

under 3.x release, with the ports/ssh, this worked fine.

however, starting with when openssh became part of the system, it stopped
working.

when i did a "pty-redir ssh remhost /usr/sbin/pppd"

the openssh would complain:

"Pseudo-terminal will not be allocated because stdin is not a terminal."

i managed to get it working with the stock openssh using the following patch.
(yes, it is a quick and ugly hack)

(any suggestions for doing pppd over ssh without this hack and/or pty-redir
  would be entertained)

*** ssh.c   Thu Jul 13 11:32:35 2000
--- ssh.c.orig  Fri Jun  9 03:10:21 2000
***
*** 41,47 
  
  /* Flag indicating whether debug mode is on.  This can be set on the command line. */
  int debug_flag = 0;
- int pty_redir = 0;
  
  /* Flag indicating whether a tty should be allocated */
  int tty_flag = 0;
--- 41,46 
***
*** 296,304 
case 'n':
stdin_null_flag = 1;
break;
-   case 'r':
-   pty_redir = 1;
-   break;
case 'f':
fork_after_authentication_flag = 1;
stdin_null_flag = 1;
--- 295,300 
***
*** 470,476 
tty_flag = 1;
  
/* Do not allocate a tty if stdin is not a tty. */
!   if (!pty_redir && !isatty(fileno(stdin))) {
if (tty_flag)
fprintf(stderr, "Pseudo-terminal will not be allocated because 
stdin is not a terminal.\n");
tty_flag = 0;
--- 466,472 
tty_flag = 1;
  
/* Do not allocate a tty if stdin is not a tty. */
!   if (!isatty(fileno(stdin))) {
if (tty_flag)
fprintf(stderr, "Pseudo-terminal will not be allocated because 
stdin is not a terminal.\n");
tty_flag = 0;



-- 
[ Jim Mercer [EMAIL PROTECTED]  +1 416 410-5633 ]
[  Reptilian Research -- Longer Life through Colder Blood  ]
[  Don't be fooled by cheap Finnish imitations; BSD is the One True Code.  ]


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: #include question: requires

[Wilbert de Graaf]

Alfred Perlstein wrote:

> >
> > somewhere in the top of . I want to verify if this is indeed
> > the best way to solve it ?
> 
> No, the proper solution is to do a forward struct declaration like so:
> 
> struct something;
> 
> struct bigger_something {
> struct something foo;
> }

As we discussed offline Alfred,  I would post this didn't work unless it
was

struct bigger_something {
struct something *foo;
}

but I cannot change the structure that had to be added to
. So 
it's probably going to be the #fndef _SYS_SOCKET_H.

Thanks, Wilbert


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: #include question: requires

[Alfred Perlstein]

* Wilbert de Graaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000713 15:59] wrote:
> 
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > somewhere in the top of . I want to verify if this is indeed
> > > the best way to solve it ?
> > 
> > No, the proper solution is to do a forward struct declaration like so:
> > 
> > struct something;
> > 
> > struct bigger_something {
> > struct something foo;
> > }
> 
> As we discussed offline Alfred,  I would post this didn't work unless it
> was
> 
> struct bigger_something {
> struct something *foo;
> }
> 
> but I cannot change the structure that had to be added to
> . So 
> it's probably going to be the #fndef _SYS_SOCKET_H.

you might as well unconditionally include sys/socket.h and let it's
internal #ifndef take care of that problem.

I'm not sure why you don't just make your own new header file for
this struct unless you're adding to an existing structure in
socket.h, even if you are you can put whatever it is that you added
to netinet/in.h into a seperate header or sys/socket.h itself.

-Alfred


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: #include question: requires

[Wilbert de Graaf]

Hi Alfred,

> you might as well unconditionally include sys/socket.h and let it's
> internal #ifndef take care of that problem.

you're right and i'll change it

> I'm not sure why you don't just make your own new header file for
> this struct unless you're adding to an existing structure in
> socket.h, even if you are you can put whatever it is that you added
> to netinet/in.h into a seperate header or sys/socket.h itself.

The reason is that the structures, socket options have to be in 
whenever  is included, since that's what's specified by 
that draft (which is good for portable code).

- Wilbert


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: patch for openssh to work with pty-redir

[Tony Finch]

Jim Mercer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>i was using pty-redir (from netbsd) and ssh to do VPN (ppp over ssh).
>under 3.x release, with the ports/ssh, this worked fine.
>however, starting with when openssh became part of the system, it stopped
>working.
>when i did a "pty-redir ssh remhost /usr/sbin/pppd"
>the openssh would complain:
>"Pseudo-terminal will not be allocated because stdin is not a terminal."
>
>i managed to get it working with the stock openssh using the following patch.
>(yes, it is a quick and ugly hack)

Hmm, I was confused for a while there by your reversed patch, but I know
where we are now :-)

I had a similar problem with user-ppp over ssh talking to an sshd on
OpenBSD.  The problem turned out to be that if sshd gives you a pty then
stdin and stdout are the same bidirectional descriptor (so ppp works)
but if that isn't the case then sshd uses two pipes in a unidirectional
fashion. FreeBSD's sshd (since March in -CURRENT and April in 4.x) has
a tweaked includes.h that doesn't #define USE_PIPES, so stdin is always
bidirectional and ppp over ssh works. If your sshd is compiled in this
way then you shouldn't need pty-redir either (although I can't find
the source to check that it does what I think it does).

Thanks to Brian "ppp over ssh over httptunnel" Somers for the explanation!

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
404 the crinkley caress of crenulated crevice clips


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: #include question: requires

[Alfred Perlstein]

* Wilbert de Graaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000713 17:11] wrote:
> 
> Hi Alfred,
> 
> > you might as well unconditionally include sys/socket.h and let it's
> > internal #ifndef take care of that problem.
> 
> you're right and i'll change it
> 
> > I'm not sure why you don't just make your own new header file for
> > this struct unless you're adding to an existing structure in
> > socket.h, even if you are you can put whatever it is that you added
> > to netinet/in.h into a seperate header or sys/socket.h itself.
> 
> The reason is that the structures, socket options have to be in 
> whenever  is included, since that's what's specified by 
> that draft (which is good for portable code).

So effectively the standard mandates this? You might as well get rid
of netinet/in.h then and include it all in sys/socket.h... or...

wrap your stuff in sys/socket.h like so:

#ifdef _NETINET_IN_H_
/* stuff that depends on netinet/in.h */
#endif 

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Interrupt Handler?

[Brandon Fosdick]

Where/How does one implement a hardware interrupt handler? I haven't done this
sort of thing since the days of DOS. I imagine its a lot different in *nix. :)

-Brandon

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Lead, follow, or get run over"
"In life there are those who steer, and those who push"
"I'm not impatient, the world is too slow"
"Life is short, so have fun, play hard, and leave a good looking corpse"


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: patch for openssh to work with pty-redir

[Jim Mercer]

On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 01:35:25AM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> Hmm, I was confused for a while there by your reversed patch, but I know
> where we are now :-)

yeah, sorry, i should have verified i got the polarity right.

> I had a similar problem with user-ppp over ssh talking to an sshd on
> OpenBSD.  The problem turned out to be that if sshd gives you a pty then
> stdin and stdout are the same bidirectional descriptor (so ppp works)
> but if that isn't the case then sshd uses two pipes in a unidirectional
> fashion. FreeBSD's sshd (since March in -CURRENT and April in 4.x) has
> a tweaked includes.h that doesn't #define USE_PIPES, so stdin is always
> bidirectional and ppp over ssh works. If your sshd is compiled in this
> way then you shouldn't need pty-redir either (although I can't find
> the source to check that it does what I think it does).

i'm doing this one 4.0-stable, and what you are saying is that it should work.

i have not been able to get it going with openssh, without the hack.

is there some incantation of ssh i'm not aware of where i can do something
like:

ssh -h remhost --local-exec "/usr/sbin/pppd" --remote-exec "/usr/sbin/pppd"

otherwise, how do you escape using something like pty-redir?

> Thanks to Brian "ppp over ssh over httptunnel" Somers for the explanation!

i poked about awfulhak.org and don't really get the reference.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer [EMAIL PROTECTED]  +1 416 410-5633 ]
[  Reptilian Research -- Longer Life through Colder Blood  ]
[  Don't be fooled by cheap Finnish imitations; BSD is the One True Code.  ]


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

I know this isn't the right place to ask this, but...

[Frank Mayhar]

...there are so many excessively bright and experienced minds on this list
I can't imagine a _better_ place to ask it.  My ISP (for whom I consult
from time to time) is looking into Layer 4 Gigabit Ethernet; he needs
some idea of the quality of various switches out there.  If anyone here
has recommendations or experiences with such switches, please email me
directly (off-list).  I would be, well, not _eternally_ in your debt,
but I'll stand you a drink at BSDCon.

Oh, he's looking into this because, quite unexpectedly, he has become
something of a miniature MAE down here in Marina Del Rey.  He needs
gigabit just to keep up with the traffic.
-- 
Frank Mayhar [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://store.exit.com/


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Pittsburgh August IETF Meeting: FreeBSD dinner, et al?

[Robert Watson]

So it's coming up on that IETF time of year again, this time in beautiful
(?) down-town Pittsburgh, in the first week of August.

First, I'd like to encourage FreeBSD people to turn out for the event, as
a strong showing in the standards community is great, and keeps the
research projects coming to the platform (bring us things like
industry-standard IP stacks).   IETF meetings are a lot of fun, even if
you don't have the technical background to participate fully.  The hotels
are filling fast, so book soon.

Second, I'd like to bring up the topic of a FreeBSD dinner.  We did one at
the November IETF in DC with relatively good success, last year, although
a reservation in advance is probably a good idea this time :-).  With that
in mind, I'd be glad to help organize things somewhat.  The best day for
me might actually be Monday evening, during the two-hour break, but I'm
open to suggestions here if there are any serious BSD conflicts (i.e., a
KAME meeting or something).  If you're interested in participating, please
feel free to send me an e-mail including:

 Your name
 Your preferred e-mail address
 Your preferred contact mechanism while at IETF (shout, for example, but
preferably e-mail, or hotel information)
 Whether you would like to attend (obligatory: yes)
 Whether Monday would work for you or not, and if not, why

Hope to see you all there!

  Robert N M Watson 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.watson.org/~robert/
PGP key fingerprint: AF B5 5F FF A6 4A 79 37  ED 5F 55 E9 58 04 6A B1
TIS Labs at Network Associates, Safeport Network Services



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

chapter about using the fixit floppy?

[John Reynolds]

[ cc'ing to -hackers because some content may be relavent outside -doc ]
Hello all,

Is there a chapter of the Handbook that details how to use the "fixit" floppy?

I moved a disk from controller to controller yesterday and in doing so rendered
my system unbootable (ad4 went to ad0, fstab is hosed, ooops) because I forgot
to change /etc/fstab before shutting down. Rather than just temporarily putting
the controller back, rebooting, changing /etc/fstab then moving it again I
decided to get some worth out of those CDs I bought (grin :), get my hands
dirty, and use the "fixit" option.

IMO, it seems like the "fixit" shell one is given via this option (and I
suppose by using the "fixit.flp" image) is more difficult to "use" than it
should be.

I don't profess to be the expert-of-all-gods in FreeBSD but I've sysadmin'ed
SunOS boxes and been dorking with FreeBSD since 2.0.5, so I wouldn't consider
myself a "newbie" to Unix. Still, it took me a while before I was able to mount
my root partition so I could edit the lousy etc/fstab file. 

I knew the partition I wanted was ad0s1a but there was no device file for this
partition in /dev or /dist/dev (aka /mnt2/dev I believe). So, I copied over
MAKEDEV from /dist/dev and after seeing reference to using the $MAKEDEVPATH
variable I was able to get MAKEDEV to work with a single edit--mknod is hard
coded in there as /sbin/mknod but inside the "fixit" shell, mknod is reached
through /mnt2/sbin/mknod (there were other trivialities like symlinking
/dist/etc/group to /etc/group so mknod wouldn't complain about the group
'operator' not existing, etc.).

So, my questions are two-fold:

 1) Can we/shouldn't we populate the CD's /dev with every entry that could be
created with MAKEDEV (including all the partitions that can be within
slices of a disk)? If that were the case, then all I would have had to do
was "mount -t ufs /mnt2/dev/ad0s1a /whatever" and went about my business
editing. 

 2) If this is NOT a good thing to do, can we/should we make MAKEDEV not point
to /sbin/mknod but rather to something in the path? At that point it should
be trivial to write a section of the handbook detailing that all somebody
needs to do to make devices is:

  cd /dev
  MAKEDEVPATH=$PATH; export MAKEDEVPATH
  sh /mnt2/dev/MAKEDEV whatever0

and they could then begin the business of fixing what needed fixing.

If populating the CD's (and/or fixit floppy's) /dev with all known devices
isn't the correct thing to do, I can provide patches to MAKEDEV if that's the
correct route as well as a section for the handbook (at least in ASCII--I'll
need help sgml'ing it). I'm looking for input from people. Perhaps it was just
too late last night and I'm being dense (i.e. is the "fixit" procedure really
this 'difficult' to use). Comments?

Thanks,

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
John Reynolds Chandler Capabilities Engineering, CDS, Intel Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  My opinions are mine, not Intel's. Running
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  FreeBSD 3.5-STABLE. FreeBSD: The Power to Serve.
http://members.home.com/jjreynold/  Come join us!!! @ http://www.FreeBSD.org/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Pittsburgh August IETF Meeting: FreeBSD dinner, et al?

[Matthew Jacob]

> 
> So it's coming up on that IETF time of year again, this time in beautiful
> (?) down-town Pittsburgh, in the first week of August.

ENOMONEY, ENOTIME, but for whoever goes, can you check out any of the SCSI
over IP stuff and report back? I'm immensely interested, but have time/budget
to go myself at the moment (it would be a cool 5.0 deliverable...)




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Some proposals to FreeBSD kernel

[Brian O'Shea]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 10:55:05PM +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
> ... an idea would be to add some limit to limit the number of processes
> forked by a process (at one time in addition to the number of processes
> by user which may be relative to the system wide limit
> (maxprocperproc=nproc-10)...

Actually this wouldn't solve your problem since the processes created
are not all children of the first process that you start.  Every child
process also executes fork() in a loop, so when one reaches its per-
process limit, all of its children will also be able to create up to
their limit of child processes, each child of which will do the same,
ad infinitum (well, until maxproc is reached and you can't create any
more processes and your system is wedged again).  The kern.maxprocperuid
sysctl addresses this problem better.

-brian

-- 
Brian O'Shea
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: I know this isn't the right place to ask this, but...

[Bill Fumerola]

On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 09:19:24PM -0700, Frank Mayhar wrote:
> ...there are so many excessively bright and experienced minds on this list
> I can't imagine a _better_ place to ask it.  My ISP (for whom I consult
> from time to time) is looking into Layer 4 Gigabit Ethernet; he needs
> some idea of the quality of various switches out there.  If anyone here
> has recommendations or experiences with such switches, please email me
> directly (off-list).  I would be, well, not _eternally_ in your debt,
> but I'll stand you a drink at BSDCon.

Layer 4 gigabit? I can't even begin to imagine what you or he mean by
that.

-- 
Bill Fumerola - Network Architect / Computer Horizons Corp - CHIMES
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]





To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message