RE: tracking -stable with cvs

2000-12-04 Thread Marius
I am almost embarrassed to say this. But on ports, you want -current. So if you have one long cvs file, half way through you have to change the default tag so you sup -current for ports. Thus is says in /usr/share/examples/cvsup/4.x-stable-supfile: ###

Re: tracking -stable with cvs

2000-12-04 Thread Stephen Beitzel
On 4 Dec, Jason Watkins wrote: > what about /ports Ports are different. That tree doesn't have s -STABLE and a -CURRENT branch, it's its own thing. >From the cvsup sample file in /usr/src/share/examples/cvsup: # If you add any of the ports collections to this file, be sure to # specify them li

Re: stable + smp problem

2000-12-04 Thread Dan Holliman
> Have a look in the 4.2 Release Notes, > > The NCPU, NAPIC, NBUS, and NINTR kernel configuration options, for > configuring SMP kernels, have been removed. NCPU is now set to a maximum of > 16, and the other, aforementioned options are now dynamic. > >> > That's may be reason. > > -philippe

RE: tracking -stable with cvs

2000-12-04 Thread Jason Watkins
what about /ports is it not a big deal if I loose any state that's saved in there for the ports I have installed, and I should just blast all of that as well, or can I trust cvs to overright -current with -stable... or does that forking not apply to the ports collection at all. jason To Unsub

Re: PPP & named oddity

2000-12-04 Thread Mike Remski
Thanks, will do. Michael Remski Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7 Henry Clay Drive Merrimack, NH 03054 +1 603.879.7241 direct +1 603.577.5533 fax www.ellacoya.com On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Brian Somers wrote: > Sorry for the delay - I've had no connectivity over the weekend... > > I think you ne

RE: tracking -stable with cvs

2000-12-04 Thread Jason Watkins
thanks, bandwidth is cheap, I'll just pull it all again. perhaps it's just me, but the available documentation seemed a bit confusing, as cvsupit is mentioned specificly in the section on tracking -stable, but defaults to tracking -current. jason > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROT

Re: Rogue -stable commits

2000-12-04 Thread Brian Somers
[.] > Also if you let it install a new /usr/local/etc/rc.d/apache.sh script, > the new script is totally broken... it does some sort of PREFIX > calculation which just plain and simply fails. Restoring the original > script (which simply called apachectl) solved that problem.

Re: tracking -stable with cvs

2000-12-04 Thread Marius
Oh yea, You have current. (Which is the default.) You really do want: *default release=cvs tag=RELENG_4 to get stable. Perhaps there is a way to back out, but I would simply kill my source tree and do it again with the right tags. But then, I don't pay for my bandwidth. -Marius

Re: Rogue -stable commits

2000-12-04 Thread Brian Somers
> Matt Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This happened to me to. It wasn't a big deal to rebuild the port, > > except that a month ago the port installed as 'apache' and used > > 'apache.conf', and a root in /usr/local/share/apache, and now it > > installs as 'httpd', using '

Re: PPP & named oddity

2000-12-04 Thread Brian Somers
Sorry for the delay - I've had no connectivity over the weekend... I think you need to add some bits to your ppp config to find out what's going on. I'd suggest: ppp.linkup: MYADDR: set log -dns -tcp/ip ppp.linkdown: MYADDR: set log +dns +tcp/ip The idea is to enable tcp/ip and

Re: stable + smp problem

2000-12-04 Thread Philippe Le Berre
Have a look in the 4.2 Release Notes, << The NCPU, NAPIC, NBUS, and NINTR kernel configuration options, for configuring SMP kernels, have been removed. NCPU is now set to a maximum of 16, and the other, aforementioned options are now dynamic. >> That's may be reason. -philippe At 03/12/2000

Re: scary looking bt0 kernel messages

2000-12-04 Thread Reverend K Kanno
> I found these in my daily email message for one of my servers: > > > bt0: Encountered busy mailbox with 191 out of 192 commands active!!! > > bt0: btdone - Attempt to free non-active BCCB 0xcb36e740 > > (da0:bt0:0:0:0): CCB 0xcb36db40 - timed out > > bt0: btdone - Attempt to free non-active BCC

Re: 4.2R on Thinkpad 560x: disk spin-up/down, *slow* (3.x was fine)

2000-12-04 Thread Jesper Skriver
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 05:03:00PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > Chris Shenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I just put 4.2R on a Thinkpad 560x where I've been running 3.x for > > years without problem. It's incredibly slow and appears to have > > problems with the disk (internal IDE). W