working(?) 4.10-R + gcc-3.3.5 + binutils-2.15

2004-12-11 Thread Edward B. Dreger
Greetings all, After several obstacles, I think I successfully upgraded the toolchain on 4.10-RELEASE. My Google searches along the way yielded tales of several other attempts, but no documented successes. Here's what I had to do: * Fix bug in binutils-2.15 ./bfd/configure that lumps 4

Re: rc.shutdown and jails

2004-12-11 Thread Julian Elischer
Nielsen wrote: Julian Elischer wrote: I think we should introduce an "init" process for jails.. It would be responsible for all that the normal init is responsible for except for being the default parent.. (some might argue for that too). Sending it a particular signal would notify it to send shutd

Re: rc.shutdown and jails

2004-12-11 Thread Nielsen
Julian Elischer wrote: I think we should introduce an "init" process for jails.. It would be responsible for all that the normal init is responsible for except for being the default parent.. (some might argue for that too). Sending it a particular signal would notify it to send shutdown signals to

mse reorg

2004-12-11 Thread M. Warner Losh
I've reorganized the mse driver. I've split it up into cbus and isa bus front ends, and a core back end and moved it to dev/mse. I've also made it into a module. These patches eliminate all ifdefs in the driver by moving the machine specific parts to the bus attachment front ends. We can stop t

Re: OpenCVS

2004-12-11 Thread Christian Weisgerber
Miguel Mendez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've seen the OpenBSD guys have come up with a BSD-licensed CVS[1] that > should be focused on security as well as features. Is there any chance > that this could make it into FreeBSD's tree as well? OpenCVS is very much a work in progress at this point.

Re: rc.shutdown and jails

2004-12-11 Thread Ralf S. Engelschall
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004, Michal Belczyk wrote: > On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 12:44:12AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: > > >On Fri, Dec 10, 2004, Nielsen wrote: > > >>Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: > > >> > > >>>Currently a "/etc/rc.d/jail stop" just kills all processes in the >

Re: rc.shutdown and jails

2004-12-11 Thread Pawel Jakub Dawidek
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 12:44:12AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: +> I think we should introduce an "init" process for jails.. +> +> It would be responsible for all that the normal init is responsible for +> except for being the default parent.. (some might argue for that too). +> Sending it a part

Re: rc.shutdown and jails

2004-12-11 Thread Michal Belczyk
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 12:44:12AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: > >On Fri, Dec 10, 2004, Nielsen wrote: > > > > > >>Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: > >> > >>>Currently a "/etc/rc.d/jail stop" just kills all processes in the > >>>individual jails. If /etc/default/rc.conf's d

Re: rc.shutdown and jails

2004-12-11 Thread Julian Elischer
Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: On Fri, Dec 10, 2004, Nielsen wrote: Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: Currently a "/etc/rc.d/jail stop" just kills all processes in the individual jails. If /etc/default/rc.conf's default way of booting the jails (jail_exec="/bin/sh /etc/rc") is used this is a rather crual app

Re: rc.shutdown and jails

2004-12-11 Thread Ralf S. Engelschall
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004, Nielsen wrote: > Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: > >Currently a "/etc/rc.d/jail stop" just kills all processes in the > >individual jails. If /etc/default/rc.conf's default way of booting the > >jails (jail_exec="/bin/sh /etc/rc") is used this is a rather crual > >approach IMHO. I