> While it certainly might make sense to drop BIND out of the base, I'm not
> sure dropping bind tools as well from it is the best decision. How hard
> it will be to continue maintaining bind tools inside the base (so the
> critical ones like dig and nslookup still will be available), while movin
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:26:13 +0900
Randy Bush mentioned:
>
> i don't mind if dig, doc, et alia are not in base, as long as they are a
> separate port from the bind hippo.
>
The major benefit of having them in the base
is the ability to cross-compile them when
building the distribution for anot
In message <20100402013353.f544e8ad.s...@freebsd.org>, Stanislav Sedov writes:
>On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:26:13 +0900
>Randy Bush mentioned:
>Ports doesn't support cross-compilation yet,
>and it would be a pity to find yourself
>bootstrapping another tiny arm platform and
>having to use ports to hav
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:55:07 +
"Poul-Henning Kamp" mentioned:
> In message <20100402013353.f544e8ad.s...@freebsd.org>, Stanislav Sedov writes:
> >On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:26:13 +0900
> >Randy Bush mentioned:
>
> >Ports doesn't support cross-compilation yet,
> >and it would be a pity to find y
In message <20100402021715.669838e0.s...@freebsd.org>, Stanislav Sedov writes:
>On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:55:07 +
>"Poul-Henning Kamp" mentioned:
>Sorry, I think I was not clear enough.
Sorry for misunderstanding.
Yes, the case can certainly be made that DNS query tool belongs in the
base syst
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:24:51AM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <20100402021715.669838e0.s...@freebsd.org>, Stanislav Sedov writes:
> >On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:55:07 +
> >"Poul-Henning Kamp" mentioned:
>
> >Sorry, I think I was not clear enough.
>
> Sorry for misunderstanding.
> [1]: FreeBSD really needs to move away from the "base system" as a
> concept, as I've ranted about in the past.
Strongly disagree.
> Or if it cannot, the "base
> system" needs to start using pkg_* (somehow) for use, and src.conf
> WITHOUT_xxx (where xxx = some software) removed. Concept being:
On 02.04.2010 12:28, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>> [1]: FreeBSD really needs to move away from the "base system" as a
>> concept, as I've ranted about in the past.
>
> Strongly disagree.
>
>> Or if it cannot, the "base
>> system" needs to start using pkg_* (somehow) for use, and src.conf
>> WITHOUT
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The result of the RFC was that bind is not a mandatory component to make "a
usable system", so you argument suffers from bad logic.
With an eye on the date of Doug's suggestive e-mail, I actually am concerned
that we maintain support for DNSSEC va
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 03:14:54AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
> [1]: FreeBSD really needs to move away from the "base system" as a
> concept, as I've ranted about in the past. Or if it cannot, the "base
> system" needs to start using pkg_* (somehow)
No, it does not need to do that. It migh
Strongly disagree.
Or if it cannot, the "base
system" needs to start using pkg_* (somehow) for use, and src.conf
WITHOUT_xxx (where xxx = some software) removed. Concept being: "I
don't need Kerberos; pkg_delete base-krb5. I also don't need
lib32;
pkg_delete base-lib32". Beautiful concept, h
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 10:11:50AM +0400, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> On 02.04.2010 9:24, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> >While it certainly might make sense to drop BIND out of the base, I'm not
> >sure dropping bind tools as well from it is the best decision. How hard
> >it will be to continue maintain
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Oleg Lomaka wrote:
Hi,
I have a kernel panic when connect to postgresql8.4 server installed in one of
jails from another jail. It's 100% reproducible.
Also I have tried to connect from host machine to jailed pg server. That way it
works fine without crash.
Server configur
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 12:44:55PM +0200, Svein Skogen (Listmail Account) wrote:
> On 02.04.2010 12:28, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> >> [1]: FreeBSD really needs to move away from the "base system" as a
> >> concept, as I've ranted about in the past.
> >
> > Strongly disagree.
> >
> >> Or if it can
On Apr 2, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Oleg Lomaka wrote:
>> I have a kernel panic when connect to postgresql8.4 server installed in one
>> of jails from another jail. It's 100% reproducible.
>> Also I have tried to connect from host machine to jailed pg server.
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 12:28:36PM +0200, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > [1]: FreeBSD really needs to move away from the "base system" as a
> > concept, as I've ranted about in the past.
>
> Strongly disagree.
I'm with you!
>
> > Or if it cannot, the "base
> > system" needs to start using pkg_* (
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Oleg Lomaka wrote:
Hey,
uname -a
FreeBSD cerberus.regredi.com 8.0-STABLE FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE #7 r206031: Thu Apr
1 13:43:57 EEST 2010 r...@cerberus.regredi.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC
amd64
Link to dmesg.boot:
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B-irbkAqk9i7OGY2ZWJi
On Apr 2, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Oleg Lomaka wrote:
>
uname -a
FreeBSD cerberus.regredi.com 8.0-STABLE FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE #7 r206031: Thu
Apr 1 13:43:57 EEST 2010
r...@cerberus.regredi.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 03:14:54 -0700
> From: Jeremy Chadwick
> Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
>
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:24:51AM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > In message <20100402021715.669838e0.s...@freebsd.org>, Stanislav Sedov
> > writes:
> > >On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:55:0
Based on the inspection of the source tree, I want my bikeshed mauve.
I've not been had by AFD jokes in a while but Doug pulled this one
off...
-Reko
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stab
On 2 April 2010, at 04:27, Denny Lin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 10:11:50AM +0400, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>> On 02.04.2010 9:24, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
>>> While it certainly might make sense to drop BIND out of the base, I'm not
>>> sure dropping bind tools as well from it is the best dec
Can we do sendmail next April 1?
Sent from a device with a tiny keyboard
On Apr 2, 2010, at 1:22 PM, "Reko Turja" wrote:
Based on the inspection of the source tree, I want my bikeshed
mauve. I've not been had by AFD jokes in a while but Doug pulled
this one off...
-Reko
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 03:14:54 -0700
From: Jeremy Chadwick
Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
I disagree (so what else is new?) It should be kept out of the base
system. KISS:
Doug pulling BIND out of the base system / going ports-only = excell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
So first of all, yes Virginia, this was an April Fool's Day joke. To
both those for whom this post created a false sense of despair, and
(perhaps more importantly) to those for whom it created a false sense of
joy, my apologies. :) And for the re
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 11:07 -0400, David Boyd wrote:
> The link (actually file) called "6.4 moved to ftp-archive" is missing from
> most/all mirrors.
>
> We have been using these files to "follow" the releases when they move.
>
> It works as long as the "6.4 moved to ftp-archive" file is present.
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> [1]: FreeBSD really needs to move away from the "base system" as a
> concept, as I've ranted about in the past. Or if it cannot, the "base
> system" needs to start using pkg_* (somehow) for use, and src.conf
> WITHOUT_xxx (where xxx = some
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
> Maybe I'm just a lowly sysadmin and ex-port maintainer, but ...
>
> No, no, no, definitely no, no, and no!!
>
> The greatest thing about FreeBSD is that there is a clear separation
> between
> the "base OS" and everything else (ports, local in
Firstly, congratualtions to do...@.
On 2010-Apr-02 05:15:26 -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>1) In most scenarios (historically speaking), what gets updated quicker:
>base or ports? Answer: ports.
In some ways this is a problem. On the downside, it means that a
-RELEASE will never have bleeding
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Doug Barton wrote:
> So first of all, yes Virginia, this was an April Fool's Day joke. To
> both those for whom this post created a false sense of despair, and
> (perhaps more importantly) to those for whom it created a false sense of
> joy, my apologies. :) And for the rec
On 2 Apr 2010, at 23:07, Doug Barton wrote:
Therefore I think that the status quo of having it all in there, and
knobs to turn off the bits you don't want is a good one since it seems
to please the majority of our users. I will continue to maintain the
bind-tools port though, that's somethi
30 matches
Mail list logo
