If you really want to work on an encrypted telnet, check out The
Stanford SRP Authentication Project (http://srp.stanford.edu/srp/).
I'd love to see SRP integrated into the FreeBSD telnet/telnetd.
Dave
--
Dave Walton
If you really want to work on an encrypted telnet, check out The
Stanford SRP Authentication Project (http://srp.stanford.edu/srp/).
I'd love to see SRP integrated into the FreeBSD telnet/telnetd.
Dave
--
Dave Walton
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:49:10 -0400 (EDT)
> James Howard wrote:
>
> > I did, they have a feedback form I filled out yesterday. I mentioned that
> > and that if they dual licensed the code, it could be used by the entire
> > free software community, not just the hip Linux crowd and also men
David E. Cross writes:
> A friend writing some portable network tunneling software ran into an
> interesting thing... when you specify "IP_HDRINCL" with SOCK_RAW, and
> IPPROTO_RAW you need to construct the outgoing packet in host byte order.
>
> This seems wonderfully inconsistent with all of th
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:49:10 -0400 (EDT)
> James Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I did, they have a feedback form I filled out yesterday. I mentioned that
> > and that if they dual licensed the code, it could be used by the entire
> > free software community, not just the hip Linu
David E. Cross writes:
> A friend writing some portable network tunneling software ran into an
> interesting thing... when you specify "IP_HDRINCL" with SOCK_RAW, and
> IPPROTO_RAW you need to construct the outgoing packet in host byte order.
>
> This seems wonderfully inconsistent with all of t
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > So, if they were to simply put a BSD license on the code, then everyone
> > would be happy, and there wouldn't be any of the dual-license confusion.
>
> Unfortunately, by BSD-licensing the XFS code, SGI would be allowing the
>
> Dan Moschuk wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone have any issues with merging the new bind resolver API into
> > libc?
>
> Well, Terry does, though I don't quite recall his reasoning. :-)
> Notice, he objects the way FreeBSD is today, with the bind resolver
> API inside libc.
I object because it perp
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> > I did, they have a feedback form I filled out yesterday. I mentioned that
> > and that if they dual licensed the code, it could be used by the entire
> > free software community, not just the hip Linux crowd and also mentioned
> > that a great many
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:49:10 -0400 (EDT)
James Howard wrote:
> I did, they have a feedback form I filled out yesterday. I mentioned that
> and that if they dual licensed the code, it could be used by the entire
> free software community, not just the hip Linux crowd and also mentioned
> th
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, if they were to simply put a BSD license on the code, then everyone
> > would be happy, and there wouldn't be any of the dual-license confusion.
>
> Unfortunately, by BSD-licensing the XFS code, SGI w
> >Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
> >changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
> >of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
>
> That is not correct: if SGI only use code that they have full
> ownership of in IRIX then they can distribute
> I am currently conducting a thorough study of the VFS subsystem
> in preparation for an all-out effort to port SGI's XFS filesystem to
> FreeBSD 4.x at such time as SGI gives up the code. Matt Dillon
> has written in hackers- that the VFS subsystem is presently not
> well understood by any of th
>
> Dan Moschuk wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone have any issues with merging the new bind resolver API into
> > libc?
>
> Well, Terry does, though I don't quite recall his reasoning. :-)
> Notice, he objects the way FreeBSD is today, with the bind resolver
> API inside libc.
I object because it per
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> > I did, they have a feedback form I filled out yesterday. I mentioned that
> > and that if they dual licensed the code, it could be used by the entire
> > free software community, not just the hip Linux crowd and also mentioned
> > that a great man
On 13 Aug, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
>> Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
>> changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
>> of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
>
> Given that they say they're
Terry Lambert wrote:
>
>Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
>changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
>of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
That is not correct: if SGI only use code that they have full
ownership of in IRIX then they ca
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:49:10 -0400 (EDT)
James Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did, they have a feedback form I filled out yesterday. I mentioned that
> and that if they dual licensed the code, it could be used by the entire
> free software community, not just the hip Linux crowd and
> >Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
> >changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
> >of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
>
> That is not correct: if SGI only use code that they have full
> ownership of in IRIX then they can distribut
> I am currently conducting a thorough study of the VFS subsystem
> in preparation for an all-out effort to port SGI's XFS filesystem to
> FreeBSD 4.x at such time as SGI gives up the code. Matt Dillon
> has written in hackers- that the VFS subsystem is presently not
> well understood by any of t
On Wed, Aug 11, 1999 at 12:07:41AM -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> The use of /stand/sysinstall to do a live upgrade has always been
> discouraged, though it's not outright disallowed since I believe in
> every man's right to blow his feet off if he really wants to.
>
> Nonetheless, for the expe
On 13 Aug, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
>> Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
>> changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
>> of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
>
> Given that they say they're
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
>changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
>of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
That is not correct: if SGI only use code that they have full
ownership of
On Wed, Aug 11, 1999 at 12:07:41AM -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> The use of /stand/sysinstall to do a live upgrade has always been
> discouraged, though it's not outright disallowed since I believe in
> every man's right to blow his feet off if he really wants to.
>
> Nonetheless, for the exp
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
> changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
> of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
I did, they have a feedback form I filled out yesterday. I mentioned tha
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
> changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
> of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
Given that they say they're dropping IRIX and going with Linux, I don't
t
As I parse the SGI PR-speak, IRIX is to be folded into Linux over time in
one massive penguin love-in. This will take place at some point after
IRIX has been disencunbered of it's AT&T/Univel/SCO whatever... It
really is a good time to be alive.
-Original Message-
From: Terry Lambert [ma
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 22:49:14 + (GMT)
Terry Lambert wrote:
> Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
> changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
> of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
SGI is plummetting to their death; it's not cle
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
> changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
> of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
I did, they have a feedback form I filled out yesterday. I mentioned th
>
> > This is why people should start emailing asking for a dual-license that
> > would support incorporation into FreeBSD.
>
> good luck, the SGI crowd are very Linux-oriented.
I had some quite promising discussions with several of the SGI folks
with regard to getting information on their ne
> > This is why people should start emailing asking for a dual-license that
> > would support incorporation into FreeBSD.
>
> good luck, the SGI crowd are very Linux-oriented.
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back int
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
> changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
> of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
Given that they say they're dropping IRIX and going with Linux, I don't
As I parse the SGI PR-speak, IRIX is to be folded into Linux over time in
one massive penguin love-in. This will take place at some point after
IRIX has been disencunbered of it's AT&T/Univel/SCO whatever... It
really is a good time to be alive.
-Original Message-
From: Terry Lambert [m
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 22:49:14 + (GMT)
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
> changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
> of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
SGI is plummetting to their
>
> > This is why people should start emailing asking for a dual-license that
> > would support incorporation into FreeBSD.
>
> good luck, the SGI crowd are very Linux-oriented.
I had some quite promising discussions with several of the SGI folks
with regard to getting information on their n
> > This is why people should start emailing asking for a dual-license that
> > would support incorporation into FreeBSD.
>
> good luck, the SGI crowd are very Linux-oriented.
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back in
> I'm attempting to build the X11 libs with the thread safety stuff (I beleive
> Linux can already be built like this) and have discovered when linking that
> we don't have the getpwnam_r & getpwuid_r functions in out libc_r. Is anyone
> planning on adding these?
I asked the same question a while
Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Nick Sayer wrote:
>
> > I originally obtained SRA code from a University in Germany. I obtained
> > my implementation of IDEA from PGP. In fact, I used idea.[ch] and #if
> > 0'ed
> > out stuff that's not needed.
>
> Couldn't you work the code so it o
> I'm attempting to build the X11 libs with the thread safety stuff (I beleive
> Linux can already be built like this) and have discovered when linking that
> we don't have the getpwnam_r & getpwuid_r functions in out libc_r. Is anyone
> planning on adding these?
I asked the same question a whil
:On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 11:16:23PM -0700, Gregory Sutter wrote:
:> What is the (default) maximum number of simultanous NFS mounts in
:> FreeBSD 2.2.8 and 3.2?
:>
:> I was looking at 3.2 and it appears that 63 is the max, and this is
:> tunable with kernel config option NFS_MUIDHASHSIZ. Is this
Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Nick Sayer wrote:
>
> > I originally obtained SRA code from a University in Germany. I obtained
> > my implementation of IDEA from PGP. In fact, I used idea.[ch] and #if
> > 0'ed
> > out stuff that's not needed.
>
> Couldn't you work the code so it
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Nick Sayer wrote:
> I originally obtained SRA code from a University in Germany. I obtained
> my implementation of IDEA from PGP. In fact, I used idea.[ch] and #if
> 0'ed
> out stuff that's not needed.
Couldn't you work the code so it obtains all its' encryption functions
fro
:On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 11:16:23PM -0700, Gregory Sutter wrote:
:> What is the (default) maximum number of simultanous NFS mounts in
:> FreeBSD 2.2.8 and 3.2?
:>
:> I was looking at 3.2 and it appears that 63 is the max, and this is
:> tunable with kernel config option NFS_MUIDHASHSIZ. Is thi
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
>
> >
> > Can anyone tell me how to modify the config file to build a kernel that
> > creates dump image whenever it panics. Currently I have to use dumpon
> > command after system bootup. But this command
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Nick Sayer wrote:
> I originally obtained SRA code from a University in Germany. I obtained
> my implementation of IDEA from PGP. In fact, I used idea.[ch] and #if
> 0'ed
> out stuff that's not needed.
Couldn't you work the code so it obtains all its' encryption functions
fr
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 11:16:23PM -0700, Gregory Sutter wrote:
> What is the (default) maximum number of simultanous NFS mounts in
> FreeBSD 2.2.8 and 3.2?
>
> I was looking at 3.2 and it appears that 63 is the max, and this is
> tunable with kernel config option NFS_MUIDHASHSIZ. Is this corre
RFC 1035 isn't the only RFC under this aspect. While in RFC 1035
the host specification is a "should", in other RFC's it's a "must"
They are:
RFC 1123 Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support
which has a pointer to
RFC 952DOD INTERNET HOST TABLE SPECIFICATION
So, undersco
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
>
> >
> > Can anyone tell me how to modify the config file to build a kernel that
> > creates dump image whenever it panics. Currently I have to use dumpon
> > command after system bootup. But this command
Narvi wrote:
>
> How exactly do you plan to get this to the FreeBSD internationsl
> server that has the crypto repository?
The short answer is that I don't.
Unfortunately the trick that PGP used of publishing it in a book and
exporting
that won't work anymore, because I believe the commerce depa
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 11:16:23PM -0700, Gregory Sutter wrote:
> What is the (default) maximum number of simultanous NFS mounts in
> FreeBSD 2.2.8 and 3.2?
>
> I was looking at 3.2 and it appears that 63 is the max, and this is
> tunable with kernel config option NFS_MUIDHASHSIZ. Is this corr
RFC 1035 isn't the only RFC under this aspect. While in RFC 1035
the host specification is a "should", in other RFC's it's a "must"
They are:
RFC 1123 Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support
which has a pointer to
RFC 952DOD INTERNET HOST TABLE SPECIFICATION
So, undersc
Doug wrote:
>
>Nothing in either RFC that you quoted, or any of your examples
>contradicted my actual point, which was that PTR records are not
>valid outside of in-addr.arpa name space.
AFAICT the second example I gave has a valid PTR record outside
in-addr.arpa. To give you a more concrete exam
Narvi wrote:
>
> How exactly do you plan to get this to the FreeBSD internationsl
> server that has the crypto repository?
The short answer is that I don't.
Unfortunately the trick that PGP used of publishing it in a book and
exporting
that won't work anymore, because I believe the commerce dep
How exactly do you plan to get this to the FreeBSD internationsl
server that has the crypto repository?
Sander
There is no love, no good, no happiness and no future -
all these are just illusions.
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Nick Sayer wrote:
> Ok. I have put up a rough cut of
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me how to modify the config file to build a kernel that
> creates dump image whenever it panics. Currently I have to use dumpon
> command after system bootup. But this command does not work when the
> panic happens during the bootup ti
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:50:54 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
>
> > I fully agree with this. If it can be cleanly added to the current test(1)
> > (which it can), we should have it, even if it were JUST for the sake of
> > portability.
>
> Ah, bu
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:50:54 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> I fully agree with this. If it can be cleanly added to the current test(1)
> (which it can), we should have it, even if it were JUST for the sake of
> portability.
Ah, but I'm not proposing that we add new functionality to the exis
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:52:05 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> Direct veto by core member (Jordan) prevents this. I really think it
> should be in libcompat, the more I consider every option.
Regardless of what Jordan says, you should do your best to put it where
most other folks put it. Other
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Jamie Howard wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> > Close, but what I said was more along the lines that following NetBSD's
> > footsteps on issues relating to portability is _seldom_ a bad idea.
>
> I was close enough that you know the exact quote so I thi
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:36:24 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>
> > It would be nice, but there are portability issues.
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> I'm only replying to your mail because you're the last person to mention
> portability as a case againsdt NetBSD'
Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Nothing in either RFC that you quoted, or any of your examples
>contradicted my actual point, which was that PTR records are not
>valid outside of in-addr.arpa name space.
AFAICT the second example I gave has a valid PTR record outside
in-addr.arpa. To give you
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> Close, but what I said was more along the lines that following NetBSD's
> footsteps on issues relating to portability is _seldom_ a bad idea.
I was close enough that you know the exact quote so I think I did alright.
Back to the point, just stick it in
How exactly do you plan to get this to the FreeBSD internationsl
server that has the crypto repository?
Sander
There is no love, no good, no happiness and no future -
all these are just illusions.
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Nick Sayer wrote:
> Ok. I have put up a rough cut o
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me how to modify the config file to build a kernel that
> creates dump image whenever it panics. Currently I have to use dumpon
> command after system bootup. But this command does not work when the
> panic happens during the bootup t
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:50:54 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
>
> > I fully agree with this. If it can be cleanly added to the current test(1)
> > (which it can), we should have it, even if it were JUST for the sake of
> > portability.
>
> Ah, b
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:50:54 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> I fully agree with this. If it can be cleanly added to the current test(1)
> (which it can), we should have it, even if it were JUST for the sake of
> portability.
Ah, but I'm not proposing that we add new functionality to the exi
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:52:05 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> Direct veto by core member (Jordan) prevents this. I really think it
> should be in libcompat, the more I consider every option.
Regardless of what Jordan says, you should do your best to put it where
most other folks put it. Othe
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Jamie Howard wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> > Close, but what I said was more along the lines that following NetBSD's
> > footsteps on issues relating to portability is _seldom_ a bad idea.
>
> I was close enough that you know the exact quote so I th
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:36:24 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>
> > It would be nice, but there are portability issues.
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> I'm only replying to your mail because you're the last person to mention
> portability as a case againsdt NetBSD
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:16:09 -0400, Jamie Howard wrote:
> I saw someone say that anything NetBSD did in the name of portability must
> be right (in the test thread). :)
Close, but what I said was more along the lines that following NetBSD's
footsteps on issues relating to portability is _seldo
Tony Finch wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
> >Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> >>[lost attribution]
> >>>
> >>> That IS a violation of the standard, since A records are not valid
> >>> for hosts in in-addr.arpa.
> >>
> >> And next I suppose you'll tell me that PTR records are not valid
> >> outsize of the IN-ADD
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> Close, but what I said was more along the lines that following NetBSD's
> footsteps on issues relating to portability is _seldom_ a bad idea.
I was close enough that you know the exact quote so I think I did alright.
Back to the point, just stick it i
Can anyone tell me how to modify the config file to build a kernel that
creates dump image whenever it panics. Currently I have to use dumpon
command after system bootup. But this command does not work when the
panic happens during the bootup time, i.e., when you have no chance to
issue the dumpo
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 04:19:59PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov writes:
> > Hmm, looking to the p5-* ports, I can't figure out what would be the
> > appropriate PATH component for /usr/local/lib/perl/*/man manpath.
> > Do you have an idea?
>
> You can't use MANPATH_MAP for /
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:16:09 -0400, Jamie Howard wrote:
> I saw someone say that anything NetBSD did in the name of portability must
> be right (in the test thread). :)
Close, but what I said was more along the lines that following NetBSD's
footsteps on issues relating to portability is _seld
Tony Finch wrote:
>
> Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> >>[lost attribution]
> >>>
> >>> That IS a violation of the standard, since A records are not valid
> >>> for hosts in in-addr.arpa.
> >>
> >> And next I suppose you'll tell me that PTR records are not valid
> >> o
Ok. I have put up a rough cut of my proposed src/crypto/telnet stuff
with SRA
authentication and IDEA encryption. It requires the libutil from 3.2 (or
better),
but it appears to work pretty well.
Please don't download it if you're outside the US.
But if you are in the US, you can grab it from
ftp
Hi folks,
The pdksh-derived test(1) used by NetBSD and OpenBSD has made it through
a ``make world'' and package run on my box. It passes the regression
tests supplied with our own test(1) in exactly the same way as our own
test(1) does, and shows no noticeable performance difference.
I've mentio
Can anyone tell me how to modify the config file to build a kernel that
creates dump image whenever it panics. Currently I have to use dumpon
command after system bootup. But this command does not work when the
panic happens during the bootup time, i.e., when you have no chance to
issue the dump
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 04:19:59PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hmm, looking to the p5-* ports, I can't figure out what would be the
> > appropriate PATH component for /usr/local/lib/perl/*/man manpath.
> > Do you have an idea?
>
> You can't u
Arun Sharma writes:
> The daemons which are involved in freeing up pages during low memory
> conditions qualify as system daemons. Making sure that these daemons
> don't block avoids the deadlock.
>
> -Arun
The second solution involves a little more than that. Such as
blessing "normal
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Jamie Howard wrote:
> How would those functions which also exist in libc (or possibly other
> libraries, I don't know) be handled?
Just following up to myself here, NetBSD has a getopt_long() in libc
ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-current/src/lib/libc/stdlib/
I saw
Ok. I have put up a rough cut of my proposed src/crypto/telnet stuff
with SRA
authentication and IDEA encryption. It requires the libutil from 3.2 (or
better),
but it appears to work pretty well.
Please don't download it if you're outside the US.
But if you are in the US, you can grab it from
ft
Hi folks,
The pdksh-derived test(1) used by NetBSD and OpenBSD has made it through
a ``make world'' and package run on my box. It passes the regression
tests supplied with our own test(1) in exactly the same way as our own
test(1) does, and shows no noticeable performance difference.
I've menti
Doug wrote:
>Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
>>[lost attribution]
>>>
>>> That IS a violation of the standard, since A records are not valid
>>> for hosts in in-addr.arpa.
>>
>> And next I suppose you'll tell me that PTR records are not valid
>> outsize of the IN-ADDR.ARPA portion of the DNS namespace?
Arun Sharma writes:
> The daemons which are involved in freeing up pages during low memory
> conditions qualify as system daemons. Making sure that these daemons
> don't block avoids the deadlock.
>
> -Arun
The second solution involves a little more than that. Such as
blessing "norma
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Jamie Howard wrote:
> How would those functions which also exist in libc (or possibly other
> libraries, I don't know) be handled?
Just following up to myself here, NetBSD has a getopt_long() in libc
ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-current/src/lib/libc/stdlib/
I saw
Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
>>[lost attribution]
>>>
>>> That IS a violation of the standard, since A records are not valid
>>> for hosts in in-addr.arpa.
>>
>> And next I suppose you'll tell me that PTR records are not valid
>> outsize of the IN-ADDR.ARPA portion of
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:36:24 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> It would be nice, but there are portability issues.
Hi Peter,
I'm only replying to your mail because you're the last person to mention
portability as a case againsdt NetBSD's test(1).
Just how many other platforms need to support an _e
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:41:31 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> > NetBSD's test(1) utility has this (-nt and -ot). We should probably
> > merge in their changes.
>
> Hmm... this is in pdksh too...
Don't go there. :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "un
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:36:24 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> It would be nice, but there are portability issues.
Hi Peter,
I'm only replying to your mail because you're the last person to mention
portability as a case againsdt NetBSD's test(1).
Just how many other platforms need to support an _
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:41:31 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> > NetBSD's test(1) utility has this (-nt and -ot). We should probably
> > merge in their changes.
>
> Hmm... this is in pdksh too...
Don't go there. :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsub
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Stephen Hocking-Senior Programmer PGS Tensor Perth wrote:
> I'm attempting to build the X11 libs with the thread safety stuff (I beleive
> Linux can already be built like this) and have discovered when linking that
> we
> don't have the getpwnam_r & getpwuid_r functions in
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Stephen Hocking-Senior Programmer PGS Tensor Perth wrote:
> I'm attempting to build the X11 libs with the thread safety stuff (I beleive
> Linux can already be built like this) and have discovered when linking that we
> don't have the getpwnam_r & getpwuid_r functions in o
94 matches
Mail list logo
