:: Do I try to foist blame on XFree86, or do I try to foist blame
:: on FreeBSD?
No... you submit a patch that fixes the problem(s). ;-)
-- Juha
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Say I have a Matrox G400, on FreeBSD-4.3-stable, I have
installed the FreeBSD 'port' of XFree86-4.1.0 and I try
to enable dri, and it hangs.
Do I try to foist blame on XFree86, or do I try to foist blame
on FreeBSD?
I realize this isn't a well formed bug report, I'm holding off
on that, unti
Ok now your into something I've seen before.
Had the same problem here with 100mb cards. ifconfig showed them set at
100mb full duplex. I thought everything was fine. Nope. It was trying
to auto negotiate with the other nic, which was also trying to auto
negotiate. It ended up with one go
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Jaye Mathisen wrote:
> Trying to newfs the following fs is giving me fits:
>
> newsfeed-inn# disklabel -r twed0
> # /dev/twed0c:
> bytes/sector: 512
> sectors/track: 63
> tracks/cylinder: 255
> sectors/cylinder: 16065
> cylinders: 65418
> sectors/unit: 1050940800
> 8 partitio
I had rdump working just fine yesterday. The box was FreeBSD 4.3rc.
Then i Upgraded to STABLE, and now I can't use rdump
If i try to rsh there is no errors.
rsh -l flemming otherserver ls
returns my files on the other box.
If i do:
> rdump -0auf otherserver:/dev/nsa0 /
DUMP: rcmd: socket: Oper
[ On Tuesday, June 12, jack wrote: ]
>
> www.freebsdmall.com/donate/
>
thanks! Hadn't spotted that. I'm still wondering about a "report" of sorts
about the fundage that goes in and where it is spent in support of FreeBSD
development. Does this sort of report exist and if not, are there any pla
:> newsfeed-inn# newfs -i 67108864 /dev/twed0d
:> [stuff deleted]
:> 1048576032, 1048641568, 1048707104, 1048772640, 1048838176, 1048903712,
:> 1048969248, 1049034784, 1049100320, 1049165856, 1049231392, 1049296928,
:> 1049362464, 1049428000, 1049493536, 1049559072, 1049624608, 1049690144,
:> 1049
> On Wednesday 13 June 2001 12:45, Jaye Mathisen wrote:
> > Trying to newfs the following fs is giving me fits:
> >
> > newsfeed-inn# disklabel -r twed0
> > # /dev/twed0c:
> > bytes/sector: 512
> > sectors/track: 63
> > tracks/cylinder: 255
> > sectors/cylinder: 16065
> > cylinders: 65418
> > sect
On Wednesday 13 June 2001 12:45, Jaye Mathisen wrote:
> Trying to newfs the following fs is giving me fits:
>
> newsfeed-inn# disklabel -r twed0
> # /dev/twed0c:
> bytes/sector: 512
> sectors/track: 63
> tracks/cylinder: 255
> sectors/cylinder: 16065
> cylinders: 65418
> sectors/unit: 1050940800
>
In article
045401c0f426$4a45d900$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
write:
> *** Problem installing ./foo , it will remain to merge by hand
That's because someone(tm) removed the `-c' options to `install' from
the -stable version of mergemaster, even though the -stable version of
`install' still needs t
Trying to newfs the following fs is giving me fits:
newsfeed-inn# disklabel -r twed0
# /dev/twed0c:
bytes/sector: 512
sectors/track: 63
tracks/cylinder: 255
sectors/cylinder: 16065
cylinders: 65418
sectors/unit: 1050940800
8 partitions:
#size offsetfstype [fsize bsize bps/cpg]
yet more findings:
entirely removed the intel 100Mb nic as well as the 3com 1000Mb nic.
installed a 3com 100Mb nic (device xl); edited my kernel appropriately,
removed my old kernel build-tree, rebuilt the kernel and rebooted.
same test, still at 2.67 MB/s. both ends are showing no errors whatsoe
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:31:25AM -0600, Darren Gamble wrote:
> Good day,
>
> For each file, I get
>
>*** Problem installing ./foo , it will remain to merge by hand
>
I got this too, and ignored it. They merged fine for me, which would be why
it ignored them subsequently.
Jamie
To Unsub
13 matches
Mail list logo
