On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 11:20:04PM -0400, Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> That is, the returned ptr points in `dst' _just_ past the
> copied data. Note that `dst_end' points to the _last_ char
> of `dst'.
This sounds a lot like the GNU stpcpy() except that stpcpy() doesn't
take the middle argument dst_end
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 06:28:52PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> : Looking at OpenBSD's actual definition of strlcat() which returns the
> : number of chars that would have been in the final string is
> : potentially non-useful, but not really too terrible.
>
> No. It is useful. If you look
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 04:18:08PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
>
> The only addition I'd want to make to
> asprintf() is reasprintf() which reallocs and appends to the end of
> an already existing string.
And don't forget reasprintff() (a-la reallocf()).
Ugh.
--
This is
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 05:44:39PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> True, but since some of what I'm doing is making sure that there are
> no security implications to some of the paths, doing that would be
> useless, since that wouldn't be what is checked into the system. We
> really don't need the
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 05:34:07PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
> AFAIK, the minimum memory for installation is still 5 MB, and the
> problems people had with 8MB machines failing to install was a bug,
> right? What's the current status?
Some people have reported that they need up to 12MB to install.
On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 05:29:20PM -0700, Doug wrote:
>
> and installed it the "hard" way, however I know I'm going to run into
> trouble down the road when ports start looking for the X stuff in
> /var/db/pkg.
I seem to remember that you can get away with a simple "mkdir
/var/db/pkg/xxx" to fak
On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 10:41:24PM -0700, Doug wrote:
>
> the parts that they need. However right after 3.2-R came out there was a
> flurry of -questions mail about broken pkg dependencies because sysinstall
> wasn't properly registering the X install. If the port depending on the
> existence of /v
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 12:08:10PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> strongly opposed to it, or because you don't have time? If it's the
> latter, I'll do it. If the former, note that your commit message was
Consider also adding owner:group support to -stable in order to
provide the longest change-
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 01:37:35PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> I move that we replace GNU grep in our source tree with this
> implementation, once it's been reviewed by all concerned parties.
Have you run your systems with J-grep as a replacement for GNU grep
for a while (making sure no
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 08:23:44AM -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
>
> How's it compare in speed? [I'd test it myself, but see my private
> email...]
Okay, following-up on myself, and indirectly Sheldon,
It does seem a little too slow. I'm not sure that this is bec
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 10:32:40AM -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>
> Just to clear up a misconception; this isn't actually a sysinstall
> problem. This is a ports bug which Satoshi or somebody introduced
> when they added a dependency on the XFree86 port very prematurely. It
I can claim a bit
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 03:30:58AM -0400, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> > There seems to be at least one dependency on GNU grep in
> > /ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk where the -F argument is used.
>
> -F is implemented.
I saw that, but had assumed the semantics were different. I should
have read the re
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:59:45AM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
>
> Sorry, but a simplistic analysis like that just won't cut for grep.
> The algorithmic complexity is highly relevant here. Try this:
Algorithmic complexity!?!
It's a freaking grep application. There is no freaking algorithmic
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 02:42:35PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
>
> The code is *NO* more readable by you re-ordering lines and changes
> whitespace.
It's white!
No, dammit, it's beige!
Fuck you, I said it's white!
Beige!
White!
I dunno, I guess for some people the distinction's actually
mea
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 02:40:19PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
>
> Or is this Linux, where we don't give a rip and whatever the current
> patch does to the rest of the tree is fine, since the more code we have
> the better?
Nate, you know damn well that's not true. You're complaining about
three
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 09:16:53PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, but a simplistic analysis like that just won't cut for grep.
> > > The algorithmic complexity is highly relevant here. Try this:
> >
> > Algorithmic complexity!?!
>
> Yup.
I'm sorry. I've read your message and
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 07:05:57PM -0400, James Howard wrote:
>
>
>
> DES tells me he has a new version (0.10) which mmap()s. It supposedly
> cuts the run time down significantly, I do not have the numbers in front
> of me.
I do. Still far too slow. I'll work on this tomorrow, since that
see
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 10:56:55PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
>
> I said that I did not care whether the thing is inside or outside
> the regexp library.
Yes, although I think at this point it's obvious we're coming at this
discussion from fairly different perspectives. By the time you
broug
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 03:27:20PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> > it was VERY simple to do... and attached is the patch... this uses the
> > option REG_STARTEND to do what the copy was trying to do... all of the
> > code to use REG_STARTEND was already there, it just needed to be enabled..
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 03:27:20PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> Funnily, I experience a near-doubling of running time with similar
> patches.
Incidentally, it seems that it's not possible to assume that our
regex library is even anywhere in the same league as the GNU regex
library.
b$ t
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 11:56:16PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> > b$ time ./grep -E '(vt100)|(printer)' longfile > /dev/null
> > b$ time grep '(vt100)|(printer)' longfile > /dev/null
>
> You think that's fair? Surely you can't expect Jamie's extended regex
> support to outperform GNU's simple
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 09:25:52AM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>(there were
> places where make world would bomb because chflags doesn't work on
[...]
> (check the logs for Makefiles that use
> chflags).
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 12:46:05PM +1000, Chris wrote:
>
> > The issue is not speed, because this is something we do in the
> > background when there's nothing else to do. The issue is to avoid
> > thrashing the cache.
[...]
> Two things,
You haven't considered SMP yet.
--
This is my .signatur
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 01:10:44AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> I'll feel more comfortable about letting them shoot their feet off if
> you can point out _any_ way in which it might be beneficial for them to
> do so. :-)
I suggest that it would be beneficial for you to let them shoot off
their
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 02:21:11PM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
>
> I don't care if most of the
> directories called "gnu" in the current tree contain GPLd code. How
I had to read your message about 4 or 5 times before I realized that
"Oh, the ``gnu''
On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 03:28:01PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
> Anyway, I am also puzzled as to why there would be much objection
> to the option of mandatory locking. My initial systems-programming
If you provide mandatory locks that can be broken, then many of the
objections may disappe
On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 10:12:38PM +0200, Mark Murray wrote:
>
> In process-space, this is the kernel. In file-space, this should
> be root. Processes that require mandatory locking must revoke
> superuser before attempting locks.
I don't like restricting the breaking of mandatory locks to the
su
On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 12:28:32AM -0700, Christopher Seiwald wrote:
>
> The alteration that I've tried and tested is to have the isort bail
> back to qsort if it does more than N swaps. I put N at 1024, which
Perhaps a ratio: #comparisons : # swaps
If the ratio gets too high, then bail.
--
On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 08:25:59AM -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
> >
> > I don't like restricting the breaking of mandatory locks to the
> > superuser. It could be restricted to specific users (say file owner +
> > root)...
>
> How 'bout "anyone who can kill the process holding the lock?"
+ file ow
On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 05:51:54PM -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> >
> > How 'bout "anyone who can kill the process holding the lock?"
On further reflection, I'd go even further: anyone who can set the
lock can break the lock. Presumably if they know enough to
[Cc's trimmed]
On Wed, Aug 25, 1999 at 12:15:24AM -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
> > >
> > > How 'bout "anyone who can kill the process holding the lock?"
> >
> > + file owner ( + root ).
>
> Which processes can't root kill?
Zombies? :)
> > Otherwise I would be able to lock ~wes/FreeBSDmarkers a
On Thu, Aug 26, 1999 at 11:34:03PM -0700, Doug wrote:
> Tonight while testing my rc file changes I decided to interrupt
> the splash screen display I have to see the boot messages. I hit
[...]
> Obviously this is a "... well don't do that" case, but I'm not
> sure it should be fatal. Ho
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 05:45:05AM -0500, Mike Pritchard wrote:
>
> I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
> Even in the digital age, I've always found that the two spaces make
> for better reading of text. I think that most of our formatting
> tools do this to
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 12:39:28AM +0200, Ollivier Robert wrote:
> According to Sheldon Hearn:
> > I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
> > ``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
> > primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail port
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 08:27:38AM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
>
> Another data point: qmail adds _seven_ new users, and one new
> group. It has a very paranoid security model.
>
> I think that it uses a script to add them, but maybe I did it
> myself. It was a while ago...
The qmail port uses
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 10:01:55AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> > OTOH, I can see that having a common user:group would be useful and
> > make some things easier, too.
>
> And that's all I want -- to make things easier. :-)
I don't think you should add usernames/groups to the base system
just
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 04:37:11PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> It's certainly something I'd like to take a shot at, yes. Perhaps I'm
> going about this the wrong way. Perhaps I should first provide a knob
> that allows sendmail to be run non-priveledged. Once that's done, add a
> user for it
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 01:10:32AM -0700, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
>
>> differences are 1) entries in inetd.conf are sample entries only, 2)
>> ports have no way of adding those entries to inetd.conf themselves
>> (since touching /etc is illegal).
>
> Uh, you're contradicting yoursel
On Mon, May 31, 1999 at 09:22:23PM +0700, Max Khon wrote:
>
> It's hard to check out the port for an arbitrary version of program.
> E.g.: try to check out port for samba 1.9.18p10
Well, samba was upgraded from 1.9.18p10 to 2.0.0 at Mon Jan 18 2:34:03
1999 UTC, so to checkout 1.9.18p10,
$ cvs co
On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 01:21:46AM +1000, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
>
> How about optionally tarring the 'files' and 'patches' subdirs
> (into seperate tarfiles or as one tarfile) to be extracted when the port
> is needed. This would make cvsupping ports 'harder' I would imagine,
Has anyone i
On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 01:04:43AM -1430, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> The bsd.ports.mk file would begin by checking for the existence of
> /usr/ports/buildenv/category/application. If it doesn't exist,
> go looking for it in /cdrom, or on ftp.freebsd.org. If it does
The portcheckout script can easi
[Cc: line trimmed dramatically]
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 11:52:25PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
>
> Given that I've just spent a very unhappy couple of weeks demonstrating
> that this "toy" you're referring to outperforms us by a factor of
> anything from 3 to 10 on a range of basic benchmarks, and
On Sat, Jun 26, 1999 at 03:08:10PM +0200, Nick Hibma wrote:
>
> And they are going to scream like mad if there isn't any. But in the end
> they start reading the code anyway, even if there is docu, because they
> don't trust anything but their own eyes and brain.
ports system == really really la
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 09:01:03PM +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 1999 at 12:03:59PM -0500, Constantine Shkolny wrote:
> > I've come to understanding that lack of documentation is probably one of
> > the factors that keep the system healthy,
>
> I've just spent five minutes trying to
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 01:26:30PM -0700, Janie Dykes wrote:
>
> you make excellent points. For the most part, the novice/average
> person, believes that hackers are malicious, destructive individuals. A
> huge number of computer users are misled and misinformed about the true
> definition of the
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 02:09:47PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> This should be trivial to translate to C. The only non-trivial part of
> implementing this stuff is that you have to trick getopt() to make
> - work. You'll have to put a : at the start of your getopt()
> string and examine e
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 12:15:02PM -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>
> read a bit about them. Same for the committers group, but at 165+
> members that's going to be a somewhat larger, long-term project. :-)
Did Wes Peters finish his collection of committer ICBMNet lat/long
co-ordinates?
--
T
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 02:52:08PM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > > RTFM isn't a newby-apparent term. Name it help(1).
> >
> >That would cause problems with bash users. They already have
> > a builtin help command.
>
> Which can be disable
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 11:55:26AM +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
>
> *Much* simpler is to build a grep-alike that understands structured
> documents, but that doesn't care how those documents are structured. This
Perhaps dtags(1) a-la ctags(1).
--
This is my .signature which gets appended to the
On Sat, Jul 10, 1999 at 11:45:39PM -0500, Chris Costello wrote:
>
>So far, it seems the functionality is the same. A tarball
> is availible at http://www.calldei.com/~chris/rtfm.tar.gz
What was the advantage of rewriting it in C?
--
This is my .signature which gets appended to the end of m
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 01:48:40PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> >
> > If you have a lot of users, all of which have buggy programs which eat
> > a lot of memory, per-user swap quotas don't necessarily save your butt.
>
> The chance of these buggy programs running at the same time is not
> exa
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 12:15:31AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> As I understand it, the goal here is to return to the caller the number
> of bytes copied (however you represent it), so that the caller can
> easily determine whether or not dst is safe for operations demanding a
> null-terminated
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 12:53:13AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> If all you're saying is that you want an API that doesn't require a test
> against the known length of src (append in your example), then you won't
> like strl*. :-)
Well, if I read your message correctly, the difference between f
[Cc: line trimmed dramatically]
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 11:52:25PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
>
> Given that I've just spent a very unhappy couple of weeks demonstrating
> that this "toy" you're referring to outperforms us by a factor of
> anything from 3 to 10 on a range of basic benchmarks, an
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 09:01:03PM +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 1999 at 12:03:59PM -0500, Constantine Shkolny wrote:
> > I've come to understanding that lack of documentation is probably one of
> > the factors that keep the system healthy,
>
> I've just spent five minutes trying t
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 01:26:30PM -0700, Janie Dykes wrote:
>
> you make excellent points. For the most part, the novice/average
> person, believes that hackers are malicious, destructive individuals. A
> huge number of computer users are misled and misinformed about the true
> definition of th
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 02:09:47PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> This should be trivial to translate to C. The only non-trivial part of
> implementing this stuff is that you have to trick getopt() to make
> - work. You'll have to put a : at the start of your getopt()
> string and examine
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 12:15:02PM -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>
> read a bit about them. Same for the committers group, but at 165+
> members that's going to be a somewhat larger, long-term project. :-)
Did Wes Peters finish his collection of committer ICBMNet lat/long
co-ordinates?
--
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 02:52:08PM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > > RTFM isn't a newby-apparent term. Name it help(1).
> >
> >That would cause problems with bash users. They already have
> > a builtin help command.
>
> Which can be disabl
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 11:55:26AM +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
>
> *Much* simpler is to build a grep-alike that understands structured
> documents, but that doesn't care how those documents are structured. This
Perhaps dtags(1) a-la ctags(1).
--
This is my .signature which gets appended to th
On Sat, Jul 10, 1999 at 11:45:39PM -0500, Chris Costello wrote:
>
>So far, it seems the functionality is the same. A tarball
> is availible at http://www.calldei.com/~chris/rtfm.tar.gz
What was the advantage of rewriting it in C?
--
This is my .signature which gets appended to the end of
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 01:48:40PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> >
> > If you have a lot of users, all of which have buggy programs which eat
> > a lot of memory, per-user swap quotas don't necessarily save your butt.
>
> The chance of these buggy programs running at the same time is not
> ex
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 12:15:31AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> As I understand it, the goal here is to return to the caller the number
> of bytes copied (however you represent it), so that the caller can
> easily determine whether or not dst is safe for operations demanding a
> null-terminate
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 12:53:13AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> If all you're saying is that you want an API that doesn't require a test
> against the known length of src (append in your example), then you won't
> like strl*. :-)
Well, if I read your message correctly, the difference between
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 11:20:04PM -0400, Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> That is, the returned ptr points in `dst' _just_ past the
> copied data. Note that `dst_end' points to the _last_ char
> of `dst'.
This sounds a lot like the GNU stpcpy() except that stpcpy() doesn't
take the middle argument dst_end
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 06:28:52PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> : Looking at OpenBSD's actual definition of strlcat() which returns the
> : number of chars that would have been in the final string is
> : potentially non-useful, but not really too terrible.
>
> No. It is useful. If you look
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 04:18:08PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
>
> The only addition I'd want to make to
> asprintf() is reasprintf() which reallocs and appends to the end of
> an already existing string.
And don't forget reasprintff() (a-la reallocf()).
Ugh.
--
This i
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 05:44:39PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> True, but since some of what I'm doing is making sure that there are
> no security implications to some of the paths, doing that would be
> useless, since that wouldn't be what is checked into the system. We
> really don't need the
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 05:34:07PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
> AFAIK, the minimum memory for installation is still 5 MB, and the
> problems people had with 8MB machines failing to install was a bug,
> right? What's the current status?
Some people have reported that they need up to 12MB to install
On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 05:29:20PM -0700, Doug wrote:
>
> and installed it the "hard" way, however I know I'm going to run into
> trouble down the road when ports start looking for the X stuff in
> /var/db/pkg.
I seem to remember that you can get away with a simple "mkdir
/var/db/pkg/xxx" to fa
On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 10:41:24PM -0700, Doug wrote:
>
> the parts that they need. However right after 3.2-R came out there was a
> flurry of -questions mail about broken pkg dependencies because sysinstall
> wasn't properly registering the X install. If the port depending on the
> existence of /
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 12:08:10PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> strongly opposed to it, or because you don't have time? If it's the
> latter, I'll do it. If the former, note that your commit message was
Consider also adding owner:group support to -stable in order to
provide the longest change
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 01:37:35PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> I move that we replace GNU grep in our source tree with this
> implementation, once it's been reviewed by all concerned parties.
Have you run your systems with J-grep as a replacement for GNU grep
for a while (making sure n
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 08:23:44AM -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
>
> How's it compare in speed? [I'd test it myself, but see my private
> email...]
Okay, following-up on myself, and indirectly Sheldon,
It does seem a little too slow. I'm not sure that this is bec
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 10:32:40AM -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>
> Just to clear up a misconception; this isn't actually a sysinstall
> problem. This is a ports bug which Satoshi or somebody introduced
> when they added a dependency on the XFree86 port very prematurely. It
I can claim a bi
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 03:30:58AM -0400, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> > There seems to be at least one dependency on GNU grep in
> > /ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk where the -F argument is used.
>
> -F is implemented.
I saw that, but had assumed the semantics were different. I should
have read the r
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:59:45AM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
>
> Sorry, but a simplistic analysis like that just won't cut for grep.
> The algorithmic complexity is highly relevant here. Try this:
Algorithmic complexity!?!
It's a freaking grep application. There is no freaking algorithmic
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 02:42:35PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
>
> The code is *NO* more readable by you re-ordering lines and changes
> whitespace.
It's white!
No, dammit, it's beige!
Fuck you, I said it's white!
Beige!
White!
I dunno, I guess for some people the distinction's actually
me
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 02:40:19PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
>
> Or is this Linux, where we don't give a rip and whatever the current
> patch does to the rest of the tree is fine, since the more code we have
> the better?
Nate, you know damn well that's not true. You're complaining about
thre
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 09:16:53PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, but a simplistic analysis like that just won't cut for grep.
> > > The algorithmic complexity is highly relevant here. Try this:
> >
> > Algorithmic complexity!?!
>
> Yup.
I'm sorry. I've read your message and
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 07:05:57PM -0400, James Howard wrote:
>
>
>
> DES tells me he has a new version (0.10) which mmap()s. It supposedly
> cuts the run time down significantly, I do not have the numbers in front
> of me.
I do. Still far too slow. I'll work on this tomorrow, since that
se
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 10:56:55PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
>
> I said that I did not care whether the thing is inside or outside
> the regexp library.
Yes, although I think at this point it's obvious we're coming at this
discussion from fairly different perspectives. By the time you
brou
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 03:27:20PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> > it was VERY simple to do... and attached is the patch... this uses the
> > option REG_STARTEND to do what the copy was trying to do... all of the
> > code to use REG_STARTEND was already there, it just needed to be enabled.
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 03:27:20PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> Funnily, I experience a near-doubling of running time with similar
> patches.
Incidentally, it seems that it's not possible to assume that our
regex library is even anywhere in the same league as the GNU regex
library.
b$
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 11:56:16PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> > b$ time ./grep -E '(vt100)|(printer)' longfile > /dev/null
> > b$ time grep '(vt100)|(printer)' longfile > /dev/null
>
> You think that's fair? Surely you can't expect Jamie's extended regex
> support to outperform GNU's simple
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 09:25:52AM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>(there were
> places where make world would bomb because chflags doesn't work on
[...]
> (check the logs for Makefiles that use
> chflags).
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 12:46:05PM +1000, Chris wrote:
>
> > The issue is not speed, because this is something we do in the
> > background when there's nothing else to do. The issue is to avoid
> > thrashing the cache.
[...]
> Two things,
You haven't considered SMP yet.
--
This is my .signatu
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 01:10:44AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> I'll feel more comfortable about letting them shoot their feet off if
> you can point out _any_ way in which it might be beneficial for them to
> do so. :-)
I suggest that it would be beneficial for you to let them shoot off
thei
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 02:21:11PM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
>
> I don't care if most of the
> directories called "gnu" in the current tree contain GPLd code. How
I had to read your message about 4 or 5 times before I realized that
"Oh, the ``gnu'
On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 03:28:01PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
> Anyway, I am also puzzled as to why there would be much objection
> to the option of mandatory locking. My initial systems-programming
If you provide mandatory locks that can be broken, then many of the
objections may disapp
On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 10:12:38PM +0200, Mark Murray wrote:
>
> In process-space, this is the kernel. In file-space, this should
> be root. Processes that require mandatory locking must revoke
> superuser before attempting locks.
I don't like restricting the breaking of mandatory locks to the
s
On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 12:28:32AM -0700, Christopher Seiwald wrote:
>
> The alteration that I've tried and tested is to have the isort bail
> back to qsort if it does more than N swaps. I put N at 1024, which
Perhaps a ratio: #comparisons : # swaps
If the ratio gets too high, then bail.
--
On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 08:25:59AM -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
> >
> > I don't like restricting the breaking of mandatory locks to the
> > superuser. It could be restricted to specific users (say file owner +
> > root)...
>
> How 'bout "anyone who can kill the process holding the lock?"
+ file o
On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 05:51:54PM -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> >
> > How 'bout "anyone who can kill the process holding the lock?"
On further reflection, I'd go even further: anyone who can set the
lock can break the lock. Presumably if they know enough to
[Cc's trimmed]
On Wed, Aug 25, 1999 at 12:15:24AM -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
> > >
> > > How 'bout "anyone who can kill the process holding the lock?"
> >
> > + file owner ( + root ).
>
> Which processes can't root kill?
Zombies? :)
> > Otherwise I would be able to lock ~wes/FreeBSDmarkers
On Thu, Aug 26, 1999 at 11:34:03PM -0700, Doug wrote:
> Tonight while testing my rc file changes I decided to interrupt
> the splash screen display I have to see the boot messages. I hit
[...]
> Obviously this is a "... well don't do that" case, but I'm not
> sure it should be fatal. H
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 05:45:05AM -0500, Mike Pritchard wrote:
>
> I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
> Even in the digital age, I've always found that the two spaces make
> for better reading of text. I think that most of our formatting
> tools do this t
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 12:39:28AM +0200, Ollivier Robert wrote:
> According to Sheldon Hearn:
> > I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
> > ``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
> > primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail por
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 08:27:38AM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
>
> Another data point: qmail adds _seven_ new users, and one new
> group. It has a very paranoid security model.
>
> I think that it uses a script to add them, but maybe I did it
> myself. It was a while ago...
The qmail port use
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 10:01:55AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> > OTOH, I can see that having a common user:group would be useful and
> > make some things easier, too.
>
> And that's all I want -- to make things easier. :-)
I don't think you should add usernames/groups to the base system
jus
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
