On 20-Jan-00 Nils M Holm wrote:
> Is there any way to force the creation of dynamically linked executables
> using the ELF linker (like 'ld -Bforcedynamic' in the a.out version)?
>
> I have to link against static libs, but I want to use dlopen() etc.
I think you have to link against the lib
On 23-Dec-99 John W. DeBoskey wrote:
> Basically, it appears to be a combination of PCMCIA-ATA
> support melded together with USB.
I have a Kodak DC-240..
There is a program floating around called ophoto which talks to it over USB,
and there is another (more featured) which talks to it via
On 10-Sep-99 Jamie Bowden wrote:
> :Umm.. welll I'd like to know to enable sub folder support in it then..
> :Haveing multiple accounts on different machines would be nice too (then it
> :could do what xfmail can)
> In 'Incoming Folders' type 'a' and it will ask you for the server name to
> add.
On 10-Sep-99 Jamie Bowden wrote:
> :fetch mail from INBOX).
> Pine does IMAP just fine. I used to use it to read mail on box a, with
> incoming accessd via box b, and storage on box c. Now I just forward
> everything to one account and procmail it all.
Umm.. welll I'd like to know to enable
On 10-Sep-99 Jamie Bowden wrote:
> :Umm.. welll I'd like to know to enable sub folder support in it then..
> :Haveing multiple accounts on different machines would be nice too (then it
> :could do what xfmail can)
> In 'Incoming Folders' type 'a' and it will ask you for the server name to
> add
On 10-Sep-99 Jamie Bowden wrote:
> :fetch mail from INBOX).
> Pine does IMAP just fine. I used to use it to read mail on box a, with
> incoming accessd via box b, and storage on box c. Now I just forward
> everything to one account and procmail it all.
Umm.. welll I'd like to know to enable
On 23-Aug-99 Brian Somers wrote:
> > I think its a good idea, and hey if people object it can always be an
> > option
> > like ->
> > option NO_MANDATORY_LOCKING
> Not quite - developers have to deal with the mess that it would cause
> - Matt for example says:
Well, I think it would be a usefu
On 23-Aug-99 Brian Somers wrote:
> > I think its a good idea, and hey if people object it can always be an
> > option
> > like ->
> > option NO_MANDATORY_LOCKING
> Not quite - developers have to deal with the mess that it would cause
> - Matt for example says:
Well, I think it would be a usef
On 30-Jun-99 Ernie Elu wrote:
> From reading various mail lists I understand that from the 3.0 kernel
> onwards the drive interface to the kernel changed a lot, not doubt this is
> why I can't get th driver to compile.
>
> Can someone point me to a reference on the changes, or is there some
On 30-Jun-99 Ernie Elu wrote:
> From reading various mail lists I understand that from the 3.0 kernel
> onwards the drive interface to the kernel changed a lot, not doubt this is
> why I can't get th driver to compile.
>
> Can someone point me to a reference on the changes, or is there some
On 28-Jun-99 Ladavac Marino wrote:
> [ML] It is possible to handle these cases in VM code, by
> trapping on any access to the partial page, and allowing only those
> accesses which are withing the originally requested range. Performance
> would suck without end, though.
Well it would
On 28-Jun-99 Ladavac Marino wrote:
> [ML] It is possible to handle these cases in VM code, by
> trapping on any access to the partial page, and allowing only those
> accesses which are withing the originally requested range. Performance
> would suck without end, though.
Well it would o
On 28-Jun-99 Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I think we desparately need a kernel threads implementation. *Any*
> implementation, so we can start messing around with it! Even if it isn't
> the one we eventually choose.
I don't suppose someone could post an explanation of how kernel thre
On 26-Jun-99 Jesus Monroy wrote:
> The part I'm lost on is "can change things from under it".
> From under what? I assume the statement means "it" as being
> the code or driver. So the question begs, what things can
> change?
The assumption that changes is that your code ass
On 26-Jun-99 Jesus Monroy wrote:
> The part I'm lost on is "can change things from under it".
> From under what? I assume the statement means "it" as being
> the code or driver. So the question begs, what things can
> change?
The assumption that changes is that your code assu
On 26-Jun-99 Jesus Monroy wrote:
> > An approach like that can't possibly be sufficient if code has been
> > written with the assumption that only interrupt-like events or
> > blocking calls can change things from under it. There is quite a bit
> > of code in FreeBSD that relies on this.
> C
On 26-Jun-99 Jesus Monroy wrote:
> > An approach like that can't possibly be sufficient if code has been
> > written with the assumption that only interrupt-like events or
> > blocking calls can change things from under it. There is quite a bit
> > of code in FreeBSD that relies on this.
> Ca
On 23-Jun-99 Nick Hibma wrote:
> What kind of devices do you see showing up?
> Would be a great help to get some idea of what is needed for the various
> devices. For mice the support is pretty much cooked, but for example
> keyboards sometimes have an extra mouse port.
Well I have access to
On 18-Jun-99 Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> Will the IP address of the client host ever enter buf[] if the
> accept() is _not_ uncommented?
>
> I don't need portability, since this is for use within the FreeBSD inetd
> exclusively.
Well if you CAN'T do it in FreeBSD, is there an OS we can
Hi,
I have tried getting my system to use DHCP on my local network, but I'm having
trouble.
If I don't use DHCP everything works fine, but if I use DHCP I get the
following messages appearing in my log file when I use ESD, and try and ping
my LAN IP.
Jun 13 17:35:21 guppy /kernel: arplookup 127.0.0
20 matches
Mail list logo
