On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:52:17PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > So why not have GNOME/KDE create mount points for the user if
> > vfs.usermount is 1?
> pardon my ignorance, but how any of those methods described earlier may
> be superior to simply using sudo?
Using sudo is a hack? :)
--
>Same here. As mentioned in the original message, I can use the mouse
>to open a new window under firefox. The new window will accept
>keyboard input, the old one won't. It's almost as if it's deadlocking
>on input.
>
>Reminder: my final question was "how do I go about debugging this
>problem?".
I need to understand and write keymaps.
I have read kbdcontrol(1) and kbdmap(5), but these two is too superficial.
Is there another document?
These manuals do not explain for example:
How to make "Alt+a" acting as sequence "Meta a"?
"Alt+a" acts in other way, than "a" pressed after the key marked
Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>
> > The focus management and the highlighting of the window manager
> > decoration are not physically connected in any way, so a bug in the
> > window manager might cause it to do the highlighting but forget to
> > give the focus to the application.
>
> But mouse focu
Colin Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Donations can be sent by paypal to [EMAIL PROTECTED]; if you would
> prefer to send a cheque (which is probably only worthwhile for cheques
> in Canadian or US dollars), please contact me by email to obtain my
> mailing address. In either case, please
Ian G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In terms of cross-border payments, this is always
> difficult. You might want to look at one of the
> cross-border specialists like Kagi.com or
> moneybookers.com or the digital gold currencies.
OK, thanks. But it's not only the Colin issue. The FreeBSD projec
>From: Stefan Sperling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>What are admins supposed to do on systems with more than, say, a hundred
>users. Having to add a line to /etc/fstab for every user is of course
>scriptable, but that does not make it less insane.
Would it make sense to be able to specify a group in fstab
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:52:17PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > So why not have GNOME/KDE create mount points for the user if
> > > vfs.usermount is 1?
> > pardon my ignorance, but how any of those methods described earlier may
> > be supe
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:37:11PM +0100, Jan Grant wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:52:17PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > So why not have GNOME/KDE create mount points for the user if
> > > > vfs.usermount is 1?
> > > pardon my
It is my pleasure and honor to announce the availability of
the unionfs patchset-10.
Patchset-10:
For 7-current
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p10.diff
For 6.x
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p10.diff
Changes in unionfs-p10.diff
- Fi
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Stefan Sperling wrote:
I wasn't serious. Sudo is fine by me as well. However, having something that
is in the base system (and not in ports) to allow user mounts would be neat.
Still, KDE and GNOME and even xorg are in ports as well, so that point is
not a really strong on
On 4/4/06, Lutz Boehne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > But when the program uses the libc I have more RET than call ...
> > What's the good way to find function calls and return ?
>
> I'm doing something similar at the moment, utilizing the Branch Single
> Stepping feature available in most
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 10:00:00AM -0500, Sergey Babkin wrote:
>
> Would it make sense to be able to specify a group in fstab?
> Then the users can be simply given membership of this
> group to mount the devices.
Why not just assume allowable users are in the "operator" group. Isn't
this what th
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 10:46:59PM +0900, Daichi GOTO wrote:
> It is my pleasure and honor to announce the availability of
> the unionfs patchset-10.
>
> Patchset-10:
>For 7-current
> http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p10.diff
>
>For 6.x
> http://people.freebsd.o
Hi,
I'm having a odd behavior while using geom_mirror.
I have the following situation:
- RAID1 with 2 SATA disks
# gmirror status
NameStatus Components
mirror/home0 COMPLETE ad2
ad3
- home0 as /home
# df -h
Filesystem SizeUsed Avail C
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 06:40, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-Apr-04 11:12:03 +0100, Khaled Hussain wrote:
> >Why does everyone talk about dump+restore as a pair? I thought it was
> >possible just to dump a filesystem to a different hard disk i.e.
> >dump -0a -f /dev/ad2 /
>
> It is. But /de
On Wed, 2006-Apr-05 12:14:29 -0500, Rick C. Petty wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 10:00:00AM -0500, Sergey Babkin wrote:
>>
>> Would it make sense to be able to specify a group in fstab?
>> Then the users can be simply given membership of this
>> group to mount the devices.
>
>Why not just assume
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Wed, 2006-Apr-05 12:14:29 -0500, Rick C. Petty wrote:
If not operator, then maybe one configurable group, defaulting to operator.
Sounds like a good idea.
--
Peter Jeremy
What group do NFS and SMBFS shares belong to?
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
On Wed, 2006-Apr-05 14:53:55 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
>> boot2 is located in the (I think) sectors 1-15 of partition a.
>
>Actually, boot1 + boot2 occupy sectors 0,2-15 of the bootable slice (the
>a partition starts at the start of the slice to be confusing) with the
>actual disklabel table in se
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 15:15, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-Apr-05 14:53:55 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> boot2 is located in the (I think) sectors 1-15 of partition a.
> >
> >Actually, boot1 + boot2 occupy sectors 0,2-15 of the bootable slice (the
> >a partition starts at the start of t
On 30. mar. 2006, at 22.20, Colin Percival wrote:
Slightly more than three years ago, I released FreeBSD Update, my
first
major contribution to FreeBSD. Since then, I have become a FreeBSD
committer, joined the FreeBSD Security Team, released Portsnap, and
become the FreeBSD Security Officer.
There are some security problems with kernel-level script
setuid execution which discourage from using it. The standard
recommendation is to write a binary setuid wrapper for
each script needed. But maybe it's better to use one simple,
well reviewed and verified setuid wrapper for all common tasks?
I came across the fallowing website:
http://scan.coverity.com/
Looks like they check open source projects for source quality.
They Have the fallowing listed:
Project | Current # | Original # | Lines of Code | Defects /
Defects Defects KLOC
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 03:09:56PM -0300, Thiago Damas wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm having a odd behavior while using geom_mirror.
> I have the following situation:
> - RAID1 with 2 SATA disks
> # gmirror status
> NameStatus Components
> mirror/home0 COMPLETE ad2
>
hi
I just found http://mygcc.free.fr/ which is a project for automatic checking of
source code for bugs (memory leaks, unreleased locks, null pointer
dereferences). I recall there was some SoC project to achieve something
similar but this is complete and ready to run...
it might be of some intere
25 matches
Mail list logo
