Terry Lambert writes:
> Mark Murray wrote:
> > Will it be runnable (as in tested), rather than a compile-only fix?
>
> Is "tested" a requirement fo code to be committed or to have it
> stay in the tree?
Both.
> Be careful of your answer, unless you are willing to remove all
> code that does not
Peter Wemm wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Here are two patches. The first fixes missing pieces in /sys/conf/files
> > and /sys/conf/options, the second fixes all the files that need it in
> > /sys/netns/.
>
> You seem to have posted the wrong patch.
>
> This is against 4.x, not -current, and
Petri Helenius wrote:
> > seems to me that one useful question is whether the netns code
> > being there non-trivially complicates maintenance and/or
> > reliability of other code, and can i compile or module it out if
> > the bits it occupies really bothers me?
> >
> This is probably the right que
Mark Murray wrote:
> Only if it kills this _really_ dumb debate. In time, it will no longer
> compile, and then the situation will be the same as just punting to the
> Attic without the "fix".
Only if some idiot breaks the API contract again.
Whatever happened to "you broke it, you fix it"?
Hop
David O'Brien wrote:
> > Here is a single patch vs. 5.x.
> >
> > I believe this makes it actually work.
>^
>huh? This is untested?
Will you accept interoperability between two FreeBSD boxes? A
FreeBSD box and a NetBSD box?
> > Please apply this to the code, even if you are inte
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:24:39PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> For heaven's sake! *It has only been 3 days* since the code
> was threatened! What do you expect *in 3 days*!?!
>
The code has been broken for 7 years. You've
had ample time to fix and *maintain* this code.
Points moot, anywa
Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:24:39PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > For heaven's sake! *It has only been 3 days* since the code
> > was threatened! What do you expect *in 3 days*!?!
> >
>
> The code has been broken for 7 years. You've
> had ample time to fix and *maintain* t
"=?iso-8859-1?q?Pedro=20F.=20Giffuni?=" wrote:
> Guys;
>
> I have to agree with Terry that the fixes for netns
> should be committed, and furthermore they should be
> MFC (using his first patch perhaps). It's a nightmare
> to try to rescue anything from the Attic, at least it
> would be nice to ha
On Tuesday 04 March 2003 04:46 am, Bernd Walter wrote:
> > I've been having a reliable USB issue on my 5-current box (3 Mar,
> > 23:58:25 MST). It's been happening since I upgraded to -current in the
> > DP2 days, and has happened on two completely independent motherboards.
> > On the more recent
After seeing the "yet another Sony Vaio PS/2 mouse ID" commits to
src/sys/isa/psm.c from six weeks ago, I've hacked my
src/sys/dev/acpica/acpi.c so now acpi_isa_pnp_probe() will try the
compatibility ID like isa_pnp_probe() does in src/sys/isa/isa_common.c.
It's quite trivial, so is there some reas
Mark Murray wrote:
> Terry Lambert writes:
> > Mark Murray wrote:
> > > Will it be runnable (as in tested), rather than a compile-only fix?
> >
> > Is "tested" a requirement fo code to be committed or to have it
> > stay in the tree?
>
> Both.
Cool. Then I have a long list of things that can be
De: Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-03-05 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ]
> On the other hand, there's no compelling reason to dike it out,
> if it can be made to work. I would argue that ISA support is
> more or less just as obsolete, as i
M. Warner Losh wrote:
ISA support is not obsolete. All new PCs still have ISA busses. They
might not have ISA Expansion Bus Slots, but they all[*] still connect
their serial ports, parallel ports, and mouse/keyboard ports via ISA.
Not to mention i8254 which gets to be major pain if ACPI would
Mark Murray wrote:
> > How long can this remain unfixed before the code is diked out,
> > and the checksum is recalculated fully, instead?
>
> Terry, you sound rather foolish when you argue like this. This
> is semantic tomfoolery and off topic. End of thread.
This is not a argument over mere imp
--- Chris Shenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, I had absolutely no trouble booting and
> installing 5.0-R on my 600SC, with the DELL-supplied
CERC
> RAID card (amr device recognized it, but it drives
4x
> ATA disks rather than SCSI), and an Intel gigabit
> ether card. Got X11 working on it r
John Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Dell PowerEdge]
> > What model? There are quite a few PowerEdges out
>
> It's a 600SC - P4 1.8 - Perc3/SC
FWIW, I had absolutely no trouble booting and installing 5.0-R on my
600SC, with the DELL-supplied CER
101 - 116 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
