Build failed in Jenkins: FreeBSD_HEAD #184

See -- Started by an SCM change Started by an SCM change > git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree # timeout=10 Fetching changes from the remote Git repository > git config remote.origin.url https://github.co

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

Sorry for hijacking this thread but where can one find the code for 11-CURRENT that handles the packaging of base? I would like to have a look at it so I can form my opinion on packaging base. I moved to FreeBSD from LinuxFromScratch, ( I packaged that with the RPM package manager and it is

NanoBSD (Was Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8))

[CC trimmed] On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote: I personally will be refraining from engaging further. I plan on seeing what gaps there are by adding support to NanoBSD for packages. I'll be busy with that. In talking to Glen and others, we've already identified a few easy gaps to fill. On

Failed to boot -Current snapshot memstick img with EFI

The issue is partition table in img is wrong so that GEOM cannot discover the partitions. Detailed error: GEOM_PART: last LBA is below first LBA: 0 < 32 GEOM_PART: integrity check failed (da0, MBR) I tried this month and last month memstick img. both has same problem. Any idea on the issue? -How

Jenkins build is back to stable : FreeBSD_HEAD #185

See ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: why 100 packages are evil

In message , Lyndon Neren berg writes: >With freebsd-update, an announcement comes out that says 'update'!. So we >do. Move from 10.2-p11 to 10.2-p12. There is a very clear track record >of why and how this happened. Is freebsd-update going away as result of the new packaging ? --

Re: why 100 packages are evil

On 23/04/2016 17:19, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message , Lyndon > Neren > berg writes: > >> With freebsd-update, an announcement comes out that says 'update'!. So we >> do. Move from 10.2-p11 to 10.2-p12. There is a very clear track record >> of why and how this happened. > >

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

To clarify this proposal a bit better, there are only two flags I think should be added to pkg to accommodate the usability issues introduced by base packages and to do so without breaking existing scripts and aliases: -b) only display base packages -B) display both base and third party packag

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Dan Partelly wrote: > You says that everything will be OK. I want to believe you. But giving > the track record VIMAGE has, and how many gugs go on and on with years Im > not so sure that you guys wont do the same with this subsystem, and leave > it with roug

Re: NanoBSD (Was Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8))

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: > [CC trimmed] > > On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Warner Losh wrote: > >> >> I personally will be refraining from engaging further. I plan on seeing >> what gaps there are by adding support to NanoBSD for packages. I'll be >> busy >> with that. In talk

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

This was all it was asked. Thanks. > Im saying that feedback has been heard and understood and providing more > now while things are in flux to try to address those issues is not likely > to be fruitful. > Warner > > Links: > -- > [1] mailto:dan_parte...@rdsor.ro

nfe0 connection not as reliable; a few questions...

Updated current { from Sept last year } to this week... and nfe0 now seems to require a reboot daily at least { no access to beyond-the-lan ... } Is there maybe some tunable (net.inet... ) related or sysctl { kern.ipc... } similar, that could be a cause? New code of ifconfig or the network