> On 10/9/10 7:30 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >
> >> [ "..." ] is the same thing as [ -n "..." ] or test -n "..."
> >> [ ! "..." ] is the same things as [ -z "..." ] or test -z "..."
> >> I'll never understand why people have to throw an extra letter in there and
> >> then compare it to that lett
Den 06/10/2010 kl. 14.35 skrev Erik Cederstrand:
> Den 06/10/2010 kl. 13.07 skrev Erik Cederstrand:
>
>> Is something like the following acceptable? Without risking changes to
>> buildworld/distribution just now, this would allow me to dump contents of an
>> archive and re-insert them with '0'
Hi hackers
As a followup to the "Timestamps in static libraries" thread which resulted in
a '-D' option to ar(1), I'd like to discuss if it is a worthy goal of the
Project to create deterministic builds. By that I mean for two make
build+install world+kernel+distribution runs, every contained f
When I last did sendmail there wasn't any TLS/SSL stuff.
has anyone got an exact howto as to how to enable a simple sendmail
server?
all I want is:
TLS and authenticated email submission by me and my family
able to forward the email anywhere (maybe just to my ISP but who
knows) (outgoing)
Trimming further context...
On Oct 9, 2010, at 7:30 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Trimming out some context...
>
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
>>
>
> ...
>
> Perhaps you meant env FAILURE=0 sysrc foo && reboot ?
>
> $ cat failure.sh
> #!/bin/sh
> echo "FAILURE: $FAILURE
On Oct 9, 2010, at 10:25 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Ah grasshoppers...
>
> /me wonders if anyone will get the full significance of that..
>
>
> On 10/9/10 3:39 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 2010, at 1:25 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Why not just do...
>>>
>>> if [ "x$rc_conf_
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
> Trimming further context...
> On Oct 9, 2010, at 7:30 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
...
> Perhaps you meant env FAILURE=0 sysrc foo && reboot ?
>
> $ cat failure.sh
> #!/bin/sh
> echo "FAILURE: $FAILURE"
> $ FAILURE=0 && sh failure.sh
> FAILURE:
On Oct 10, 2010, at 4:51 PM, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> On 10/10/10 7:09 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
>> However, enclosing the argument (as the 'x$foo' portion is really just the
>> first argument to the '[' built-in) in quotes:
>>
>> [ "$foo" = x ]
>>
>> makes it so that the expansion is taken as
On Oct 10, 2010, at 4:51 PM, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> The latter does not cause an error. Try it:
>
> # [ "-n" = x ] ; echo $?
> 1
>
> # [ -e = "no" ] ; echo $?
> 1
>
> # [ -e = -n ] ; echo $?
> 1
1 is error. 0 is success.
--
Devin
___
freebsd-ha
On 10/10/10 7:09 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
On Oct 9, 2010, at 10:25 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
For what it matters, I'v enever found the [ "x$foo" = "x" ] construct to be
useful.
the quoting seems to work for everything I've ever worked on.
There have been times where I had scripts wh
How would the scheduling overhead and the system performance be affected
when the total number of run queues is reduced from 64 to 32?
--
Eknath Venkataramani
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd
On 10/10/10 8:46 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
On Oct 10, 2010, at 4:51 PM, Garance A Drosihn mailto:dro...@rpi.edu>> wrote:
The latter does not cause an error. Try it:
# [ "-n" = x ] ; echo $?
1
# [ -e = "no" ] ; echo $?
1
# [ -e = -n ] ; echo $?
1
1 is error. 0 is success.
--
Um, yes, true.
Devin Teske writes:
>>> GLOBALS
>>>
>>> # Global exit status variables
>>> : ${SUCCESS:=0}
>>> : ${FAILURE:=1}
>>
>> Should this really be set to something other than 0 or 1 by the
>> end-user's environment? This would simplify a lot
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Wed Oct 6 10, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
>> >> On 6 October 2010 23:38, Alexander Best wrote:
>> >>> On Wed Oct 6 10, Gar
On Oct 10, 2010, at 5:15 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
>
>> Hmmm, sysctl(9) is lock-free, which might imply that both sysctl(8) and
>> sysctl(3) are also lock-free, and proposed sysrc(8) is lock-free, so might
>> that imply that the atomicity te
15 matches
Mail list logo
