telnet build fails without openssl...

2003-07-20 Thread Anti
buildworld fails at telnet if you build with NOCRYPT and NO_OPENSSL -- telnet stuff is looking for NO_CRYPTO to disable this, which isn't documented anywhere... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current

Re: libm problem

2003-03-23 Thread Anti
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:41:14 -0800 David Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thus spake Anti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:28:46 -0800 > > Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Pentium 4 is definitely broken on 5.x.

Re: libm problem

2003-03-22 Thread Anti
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:28:46 -0800 Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pentium 4 is definitely broken on 5.x. Perhaps, we should remove > the footshooting. > > --- bsd.cpu.mk.orig Sat Mar 22 10:23:42 2003 > +++ bsd.cpu.mk Sat Mar 22 10:27:11 2003 > @@ -62,7 +62,9 @@ > . elif ${CPUTYP

Re: -O2 breaks GCC 3.2.1-compiled code (seems OS specific)

2003-03-10 Thread Anti
On 11 Mar 2003 03:52:18 +0200 Dan Naumov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello list. > > Since my issues are related to 5.0, I though I'd rather ask here. I've > noticed an interesting problem: I am using FreeBSD 5.0-p4 and GCC 3.2.1 > and if I use "CPUTYPE=athlon-tbird" and "CFLAGS= -O2 -mmmx -m3dn

Re: -O2 considered harmful

2003-02-26 Thread Anti
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:06:54 +0100 Jens Rehsack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > It seems that with -O2 on ia32 (-march=k6-2 in my case), gcc will in > > some cases generate short jumps to targets too far away for the offset > > to fit in a single byte. A surefire way t

Re: MSDOS fs install problem

2003-01-18 Thread Anti
st: Operation not \ >supported by device (19) > > while trying to mount the slice that had FreeBSD/ on > it. It happened with other snapshots too. > > Is it still possible to install from a MSDOS partition > by default ? sysinstall in -current could ne

Re: getting rid of devfs...

2002-11-08 Thread Anti
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Anti writes: > > > >how are you supposed to get rid of devfs? > > You're not. > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD sinc

getting rid of devfs...

2002-11-08 Thread Anti
how are you supposed to get rid of devfs? building a kernel without it won't boot since there are no devices... shouldn't there be a ./MAKEDEV all or something underneath the devfs mount so you can boot without it? or am i missing something? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "