On 03/14/10 01:11, Greg Byshenk wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:33:50PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 03/12/10 02:13, Greg Byshenk wrote:
>
>>> I would put in a word for 'mergemaster -F' (or maybe '-iF') in such
>>> cases.
>
>> At this point the -U option is generally a safer bet. The only
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 03/11/10 20:33, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> I've done a few RELENG_8_0 to STABLE-8 to 9-CURRENT upgrades lately
>> and mergemaster was goofing up the contents a bit based on the RCS
>> versions. I had to hand-edit a crapload of stuff going from
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Greg Byshenk wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:33:50PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 03/12/10 02:13, Greg Byshenk wrote:
>
>> > I would put in a word for 'mergemaster -F' (or maybe '-iF') in such
>> > cases.
>
>> At this point the -U option is generally a safer
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:33:50PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 03/12/10 02:13, Greg Byshenk wrote:
> > I would put in a word for 'mergemaster -F' (or maybe '-iF') in such
> > cases.
> At this point the -U option is generally a safer bet. The only time this
> won't work for you is when upgradi
On 03/12/10 02:13, Greg Byshenk wrote:
> I would put in a word for 'mergemaster -F' (or maybe '-iF') in such
> cases.
At this point the -U option is generally a safer bet. The only time this
won't work for you is when upgrading from an older -RELEASE where you've
never run mergemaster previously,
On 03/11/10 20:33, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> I've done a few RELENG_8_0 to STABLE-8 to 9-CURRENT upgrades lately
> and mergemaster was goofing up the contents a bit based on the RCS
> versions. I had to hand-edit a crapload of stuff going from 8 to 9,
> and I still don't trust mergemaster's automatic
On 03/11/10 19:18, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> On 2010.03.11 22:14, Xin LI wrote:
>> Looks like you have a stale configuration. DId you done mergemaster?
>
> Yes. I performed it as such:
>
> # mergemaster -Uia
The -a option is incompatible with -U AND -i (and -F for that matter).
However, it's my m
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 08:33:29PM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> I've done a few RELENG_8_0 to STABLE-8 to 9-CURRENT upgrades lately
> and mergemaster was goofing up the contents a bit based on the RCS
> versions. I had to hand-edit a crapload of stuff going from 8 to 9,
> and I still don't trus
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Xin LI wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2010/03/11 20:33, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> I've done a few RELENG_8_0 to STABLE-8 to 9-CURRENT upgrades lately
>> and mergemaster was goofing up the contents a bit based on the RCS
>> versions.
On 2010.03.11 23:41, Xin LI wrote:
> On 2010/03/11 20:33, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> I've done a few RELENG_8_0 to STABLE-8 to 9-CURRENT upgrades lately
>> and mergemaster was goofing up the contents a bit based on the RCS
>> versions. I had to hand-edit a crapload of stuff going from 8 to 9,
>> and
On 2010.03.11 23:33, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>> On 2010.03.11 22:54, Xin LI wrote:
>>> Weird, it seems that RELENG_8_0 do contain the correct file... What
>>> does 'ident /etc/defaults/devfs.rules' show?
>>
>> ...not necessarily 8_0:
>>
>> %g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2010/03/11 20:33, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> I've done a few RELENG_8_0 to STABLE-8 to 9-CURRENT upgrades lately
> and mergemaster was goofing up the contents a bit based on the RCS
> versions. I had to hand-edit a crapload of stuff going from 8 to 9,
On 2010.03.11 23:30, Xin LI wrote:
> On 2010/03/11 20:26, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>> On 2010.03.11 22:54, Xin LI wrote:
>>> Weird, it seems that RELENG_8_0 do contain the correct file... What
>>> does 'ident /etc/defaults/devfs.rules' show?
>
>> ...not necessarily 8_0:
>
>> %grep tag /etc/supfile
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> On 2010.03.11 22:54, Xin LI wrote:
>> Weird, it seems that RELENG_8_0 do contain the correct file... What
>> does 'ident /etc/defaults/devfs.rules' show?
>
> ...not necessarily 8_0:
>
> %grep tag /etc/supfile
>
> *default tag=RELENG_8
>
> f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2010/03/11 20:26, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> On 2010.03.11 22:54, Xin LI wrote:
>> Weird, it seems that RELENG_8_0 do contain the correct file... What
>> does 'ident /etc/defaults/devfs.rules' show?
>
> ...not necessarily 8_0:
>
> %grep tag /etc/sup
On 2010.03.11 22:54, Xin LI wrote:
> Weird, it seems that RELENG_8_0 do contain the correct file... What
> does 'ident /etc/defaults/devfs.rules' show?
...not necessarily 8_0:
%grep tag /etc/supfile
*default tag=RELENG_8
fwiw:
%ident /etc/defaults/devfs.rules
/etc/defaults/devfs.rules:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Weird, it seems that RELENG_8_0 do contain the correct file... What
does 'ident /etc/defaults/devfs.rules' show?
Cheers,
- --
Xin LI http://www.delphij.net/
FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Ve
On 2010.03.11 21:49, Xin LI wrote:
> Sounds like you have something wrong with devfs.rules in jail section?
Heh, Thanks Xin LI, I knew the cluebat would work ;)
This line:
"add path pts unhide"
...I had added to the jails, but NOT to the host /etc/defaults/devfs.rules.
It took me sending a cat
On 2010.03.11 22:14, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> I had even used diff(8) earlier,
err, diff(1)
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@
On 2010.03.11 22:14, Xin LI wrote:
> Looks like you have a stale configuration. DId you done mergemaster?
Yes. I performed it as such:
# mergemaster -Uia
under the host OS, and then subsequently within each jail.
I'm not very familiar with mergemaster, so could my use of the args been
incorrec
Looks like you have a stale configuration. DId you done mergemaster?
Cheers,
--
Xin LI http://www.delphij.net
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebs
On 2010.03.11 21:49, Xin LI wrote:
> Sounds like you have something wrong with devfs.rules in jail section?
Did I miss or fsck something up by not reading UPDATING properly?
Here is what I have on the host OS:
%cat /etc/defaults/devfs.rules | grep -v "^#"
[devfsrules_hide_all=1]
add hide
[devf
Sounds like you have something wrong with devfs.rules in jail section?
On Mar 11, 2010 6:46 PM, "Steve Bertrand" wrote:
Hi all, please forgive the verbosity, but I wanted to include as much
detail as possible (without including config files) up front.
Summary: SSH works to the jail box host OS,
23 matches
Mail list logo