Eduardo Morras wrote:
> [...] uname -a should give the correct answer. Has uname other utility than
> show information about the operating system implementation? No, and it must
> be accurate.
That's what I thought, but when I asked about it here last year, I was told
that this is the way thing
alexus wrote:
> ok, I just did fetch & install and got bumped from p5 to p9
>
> # uname -a
> FreeBSD XX.X.org 7.4-RELEASE-p9 FreeBSD 7.4-RELEASE-p9 #0: Mon Jun 11
> 19:47:58 UTC 2012
> r...@amd64-builder.daemonology.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC
> amd64
> #
>
> can I take it all the way t
I wrote:
> The main problem this time is that I'm not so lucky with the password files,
> because for 8.4, freebsd-update has fetched new, stock .db files to put in
> /etc.
Whoa, sorry, I misspoke here.
freebsd-update asked me, after the merges, to approve unspecified differences
in pwd.db a
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013, at 15:29, Eugene wrote:
> I do not quite understand. Is the freebsd-update upgrade process
> completely broken?
IMHO it is partially broken; I'm not doing anything special. How broken it is
depends on what's getting changed. Most of what the system is designed to do,
it in
> I'm using freebsd-update to upgrade my system to the latest minor version
> (from 8.3-RELEASE to 8.4-RELEASE).
>
> I'm surprised that the merge handling system isn't more robust. When
> upgrading
> the old way, from source, I was used to using mergemaster to handle any
> merges that couldn't
> Fetching 1 metadata files... 70.5%
> done.
> 70.5%
> 70.5%
> 74.2%
> 74.2%
> 81.7%
> 81.7%
> 70.5%
I think this is a result of having "-v" in my GZIP environment variable.
I always forget about my GZIP and BZIP2 variables. I should've known.
So, never mind about that.
___
I'm using freebsd-update to upgrade my system to the latest minor version
(from 8.3-RELEASE to 8.4-RELEASE).
I'm surprised that the merge handling system isn't more robust. When upgrading
the old way, from source, I was used to using mergemaster to handle any
merges that couldn't be done automat
I'm using freebsd-update to upgrade my system to the latest minor release.
At a couple points in the process, I get weird status indicators (percentages)
showing me that something is happening:
Fetching 1 metadata files... 70.5%
done.
70.5%
70.5%
74.2%
74.2%
81.7%
81.7%
70.5%
Inspecting
Da Rock wrote:
> sysctl kern.version
For me, that's the same info as in uname -a.
Try this:
grep -v # /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh | head -4
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To u
Thanks for the replies; I really appreciate it.
Alexandre wrote:
> Have you followed steps described in perl-after-upgrade man page?
> $ man perl-after-upgrade
Yes, except for the last step (deleting old CONTENTS backups), since the
previous steps didn't seem to do what they should. As I said,
Hi all,
I'm running 8.3-RELEASE and thought I'd update Perl from 5.12 to 5.16.
Silly me. I updated my ports snapshot, and as per UPDATING, ran
portmaster -o lang/perl5.16 lang/perl5.12
This went OK, so I then ran perl-after-upgrade, with and without -f. It scans
the packages and finds e
I installed 8.2-RELEASE when it was new, and have been just using
freebsd-update since then. I run freebsd-update whenever there are new
critical patches. But for some reason, my system's reported patchlevel number
hasn't updated since p3.
For example, with this latest OpenSSL security update,
OK, so the null bytes are correct for vt100 and should've always been there,
and the fact that they've suddenly showed up in FreeBSD 6.3 is basically a
feature.
Setting NCURSES_NO_PADDING has no effect, so 'ls' apparently does just use
termcap features.
Following Dan Nelson's advice to switch
After I upgraded 6.2-STABLE (Feb 2007-ish) to 6.3-STABLE (last week), my
colorized 'ls -G' output is now plagued with 8 null bytes following each ANSI
sequence.
I normally pipe my output to 'less -R' so ANSI sequences pass through while
other control characters are converted to visible ones. Th
Alex Teslik wrote:
> I was also wondering why there is no en_US.UTF8 in /usr/share/locale? Any
> guidence is much appreciated.
>
> I am using FreeBSD 4.10-RELEASE-p5.
In FreeBSD 4.x, the UTF-8 locale support files have to be installed from the
ports collection.
cd /usr/ports/misc/utf8locale
make
mdff wrote:
> i'm trying to create packages on freebsd-5.4-RELEASE.
>
> can anyone tell me how to define a packinglist for
> pkg_create with the ability to remove the directories
> after pkg_delete and not getting complaints if they are
> not empty?
>
> if i specify @dirrm in the packinglist, i
Nelis Lamprecht wrote:
> To answer my own posting. Simply copy(keeping correct permissions)
> /etc/passwd, /etc/master.passwd and /etc/group to the new system
> making sure you have a backup of the original if anything goes wrong.
> Then run pwd_mkdb -p /etc/passwd which will update /etc/pwd.db,
>
Bob Hall wrote:
> The belief that guys with red skin, horns, pointy tails, and pitchforks
> represent the devil is a European superstition, not a Christian
> doctrine. There's no support for it in the Bible or the writings of the
> church fathers.
There is also no support, except among BSD fans, f
Mike Brown wrote:
> (and my system clock is OK; I just ran ntpdate again to be sure.
> I also ran adjkerntz -i)
Never mind; I have bigger problems. The 'touch: not found' I see now is
related to the just-now-noticed fact that my buildworld had failed for some
reason. Subsequent
Mike Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Any idea what would be causing this during a routine upgrade of FreeBSD
> 4.10-STABLE (Dec 1 2004) to today's STABLE? newvers.sh has a 'touch version'
> in it, but I don't see how that could ever produce 'not found&#
Hi all,
Any idea what would be causing this during a routine upgrade of FreeBSD
4.10-STABLE (Dec 1 2004) to today's STABLE? newvers.sh has a 'touch version'
in it, but I don't see how that could ever produce 'not found'.
--
>>> Install
Sorry; didn't notice as I was catching up on email that it was a
dead thread already, and that I was replying to a known troll.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> It _is_ the fault of the mailing list manager that posts are being
> archived without the permission of mailing-list members. Members must
> be required to explicitly grant permission when they subscribe.
Even if they did, there is no way for the mailing list software o
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Bob Johnson writes:
>
> > I work in an office largely populated by born-again Christians, and some
> > of them very definitely object to the BSD logo. Even after I explained
> > the "daemon" thing, they still didn't think BSD should use "The Devil"
> > as its logo.
>
> My computer (HP Compaq DC7100) refuses to boot to FreeBSD. It enters
> the MBR, I then select FreeBSD in the bootloader and the computer
> reboots! What kind of behavior is this, and why won't it give FreeBSD a
> chance?
I had the same symptom on different hardware. If I watched closely, I cou
Mário Gamito wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I did everything just as you told me.
> When i type a latin letter like á, etc., i get a greek letter :(
Internally, your "á" is probably byte 0xE1, as that is how it is defined by
the ISO-8859-1 character map, and I assume that it's being interpreted
correct
Zachary Huang wrote:
> but still I got stuck here when installing the
> /usr/ports/emulators/linux_base. It appears that the patch for
> freebsd did not work for gettext... now what do I do?
pkg_add
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-stable/All/linux_base-7.1_7.tgz
___
Daniel Bye wrote:
> This has come up several times recently.
>
> The Linux Sun JDK (which is used to bootstrap the build of the native
> JDK) requires that the Linux procfs system is available. Add this to
> your /etc/fstab:
>
> linprocfs /compat/linux/proc linprocfs rw 0 0
>
> and th
First the system specs:
* Motherboard: SuperMicro 370SED (manuf. in 2000; see [1])
* CPU: Intel Pentium III 933 MHz
* RAM: 384 MB (128 MB PC100; 256 MB PC133)
* network:
* Linksys LNE100TX Etherfast 10/100 (device dc0)
* Linksys LNE100TX Etherfast 10/100 (device dc1; unused for now)
29 matches
Mail list logo
