I'm writing a Hurd server that uses its own custom interface (ie does
not implement io_write, io_read rpcs etc). Is this correct? Should all
Hurd servers be required to handle the standard Hurd rpcs since the
nameserver for ports is basically the filesystem? I tried a test client
and server program
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Emacs: freely redistributable; void where prohibited by law.
--text follows this line--
I had a straightforward bug that only affected newly-created nodes, which I
probably didn't really test the first time. Note that the nature of the
bug could possibly have caused your buggy kernel to clobber an
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 02:53:43PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I was just reading the FAQ on http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/faq.en.html
> and noticed this:
>
> --8<--
> 5.5. When GNU/Hurd crashes, GNU Mach automatically reboots. Is there
> anyway I can make it pause so I can write down the er
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:10:25PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> I was running an highly resource consumption process when Mach
> paniced. The reason is probably related to bug #82600
>
> But the problem i'm reporting is that Mach unexpectedly rebooted the
> machine after panicing. The error messa
Your message dated Mon, 1 Mar 2004 19:25:23 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line hurd: Console: Alt-Fx partially broken
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now y
Your message dated Mon, 1 Mar 2004 19:22:55 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line FTBFS: hurd should build-depend on autoconf2.13
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:48:20PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > reassign 226609 gnumach
> Bug#226609: crosshurd: Problem with much memory
> Bug reassigned from package `crosshurd' to `gnumach'.
>
> > thanks
> Stopping processing here.
Your message dated Mon, 1 Mar 2004 19:18:16 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line hurd: non-priviledged user may crash filesystem
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it
I forgot to mention that you will need Marco's patch that updates the
autoconf macros. Specially, the Drivers.in part.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 02:46:36PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I am not going to submit this to Linus et al until I've gotten
> positive reports that people are actually using it in practice and
> successfully.
I've did some more testing of your patch yesterday. For that, I
bootstrapped a new D
Please update i386/README-Drivers, as it serves as user
documentation about what drivers are available and how to enable
them.
Can wait a bit, I still wish to enable one or two of the disabled
drivers so this is far from the completed patch. But thanks for
reminding me in either case.
C
At Mon, 01 Mar 2004 08:22:54 +0200,
Ognyan Kulev wrote:
> Isn't http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/hurd-news suitable for
> announcement about this?
Not my construction site anymore, but feel free. Jeff has some bigger
changes in store, though. I merely did an update. You get a few new
features
13 matches
Mail list logo
