* Doug Barton , 20110603 23:10:
> On 06/03/2011 14:07, Ed Schouten wrote:
> >the reason why I picked the current
> >approach, is because I don't want to cause people to get confused when
> >they upgrade to 9.0, to discover that their lastlog database is
> >`missing'.
>
> Understood, but in my mind
On 06/03/2011 14:07, Ed Schouten wrote:
the reason why I picked the current
approach, is because I don't want to cause people to get confused when
they upgrade to 9.0, to discover that their lastlog database is
`missing'.
Understood, but in my mind that's a release notes issue.
--
No
Hi Doug,
* Doug Barton , 20110603 22:57:
> FWIW I'm not enthusiastic about either option. I definitely don't
> think an rc.d script is desirable, since it would be run at every
> boot for what (if I understand it correctly) is a one-time thing.
> More or less the same argument applies to adding th
On 06/03/2011 13:47, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Ed Schouten wrote:
Hi all,
I think not long after I replaced utmp with utmpx, I got requests to add
utilities to convert the old utmp databases to the new formats. I added
wtmpcvt(1) for /var/log/wtmp*, but I didn&#
Hi Garrett,
* Garrett Cooper , 20110603 22:47:
> Is this a one time change? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to
> put this into mergemaster(8) instead of rc(5)?
Good point. I hadn't thought about that. I'll take a look.
--
Ed Schouten
WWW: http://80386.nl/
pgpPqpOBLzIvU.pgp
Descripti
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Ed Schouten wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think not long after I replaced utmp with utmpx, I got requests to add
> utilities to convert the old utmp databases to the new formats. I added
> wtmpcvt(1) for /var/log/wtmp*, but I didn't add any tools for t
Hi all,
I think not long after I replaced utmp with utmpx, I got requests to add
utilities to convert the old utmp databases to the new formats. I added
wtmpcvt(1) for /var/log/wtmp*, but I didn't add any tools for the other
databases. Even though it's a bit overdue (more than one year
* Renato Botelho , 20101105 13:49:
> I've made a patch for chkrootkit [1], it's building, but i didn't test if
> it's working. Could you take a look at it?
>
> [1] http://people.freebsd.org/~garga/patches/chkrootkit-utmpx.diff
Well, files cannot be accessed wi
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Ed Schouten wrote:
> * Anonymous , 20101105 12:58:
>> There are more, see ports listed under utmpx.h in
>>
>> http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsBrokenOnCurrent
>
> It should be noted that that list is a bit pessimistic, since various
> ports have been fixed in the mea
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 01:09:06PM +0100, Ed Schouten wrote:
> It should be noted that that list is a bit pessimistic, since various
> ports have been fixed in the mean time.
Updates welcomed :-)
mcl
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://l
* Anonymous , 20101105 12:58:
> There are more, see ports listed under utmpx.h in
>
> http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsBrokenOnCurrent
It should be noted that that list is a bit pessimistic, since various
ports have been fixed in the mean time.
Greetings,
--
Ed Schouten
WWW: http://80386.nl/
Matthias Apitz writes:
> I found another port lacking utmpx support:
>
> # cd /usr/ports/security/chkrootkit
> # make
> ===> chkrootkit-0.49 is marked as broken: fails to build with new utmpx.
> *** Error code 1
There are more, see ports listed under utmpx.h in
ht
Hello,
I found another port lacking utmpx support:
# cd /usr/ports/security/chkrootkit
# make
===> chkrootkit-0.49 is marked as broken: fails to build with new utmpx.
*** Error code 1
matthias
--
Matthias Apitz
t +49-89-61308 351 - f +49-89-61308 399 - m +49-170-4527211
e - w h
13 matches
Mail list logo
