On Thu, October 28, 2010 1:48 am, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>>I have been conducting a series of tests and I can say that there
>>is a problem with the build service for the -current snapshots.
>>
>>Here is my findings:
>>
>>1> Get the code from CVS
>>2> Build it
>>3> Get the snapshot
>>4> Compare
>>---
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 00:59:40 -0400, bsdmas...@hushmail.com wrote:
[...]
> Please contact me about this matter, I will reply directly to you
> with my desired username for my @openbsd.org email address, please
> don't just go creating it all for me without contacting me first to
> get my opin
Le Thursday 28 October 2010 03:34:15, Theo de Raadt a icrit :
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:26 PM, FRLinux wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Theo de Raadt
> > >
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >> The design process followed by the NFSv4 team members matches the
> > >> methodology taken by the
>I have been conducting a series of tests and I can say that there
>is a problem with the build service for the -current snapshots.
>
>Here is my findings:
>
>1> Get the code from CVS
>2> Build it
>3> Get the snapshot
>4> Compare
>> it's not the same.
Wow.
You get a checkout of a tree that g
Hello,
I have been conducting a series of tests and I can say that there
is a problem with the build service for the -current snapshots.
Here is my findings:
1> Get the code from CVS
2> Build it
3> Get the snapshot
4> Compare
> it's not the same.
I think of course this problem could be sol
On Oct 27 15:28:37, James A. Peltier wrote:
> - Original Message -
> | James A. Peltier wrote:
> |
> | > Now, that said, is there anything that you could recommend instead
> | > of NFSv4 for offering secure file services to multiple platforms?
> |
> | Apache with SSL may be a solution. I'
[IMAGE]
!Promociones Especiales para Grupos!
Mayores informes responda este correo electrsnico con los siguientes
datos.
Empresa:
Nombre:
Telifono:
Email:
Nzmero de Interesados:
Y en breve le haremos llegar la informacisn completa del evento.
O bien comunmquense a nuestros telifonos un eje
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:26 PM, FRLinux wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Theo de Raadt
> > wrote:
> >> The design process followed by the NFSv4 team members matches the
> >> methodology taken by the IPV6 people. =A0(As in, once a mistake is made,
> >
> > Sorry, I'll bite. What exact
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:26 PM, FRLinux wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Theo de Raadt
> wrote:
>> The design process followed by the NFSv4 team members matches the
>> methodology taken by the IPV6 people. (As in, once a mistake is made,
>
> Sorry, I'll bite. What exactly is wrong with
during the install I get kernel message that there is no space left on /
the message pops up right after I enter the timezone
is it so that the following command block fills up the ramdisk space?
( cd /mnt/usr/share/zoneinfo
ls -1dF `tar cvf /dev/null [A-Za-y]*` >/tmp/tzlist )
the resulti
To judge from the question I don't think you've accurately parsed the
argument, which isn't so much about IPv6 per se as about how IETF corrects the
mistakes that invariably result in specifying more ambitious protocols like
IPv6 or NFSv4 (or doesn't and precludes itself from doing so).
If you non
- Original Message -
| James A. Peltier wrote:
|
| > Now, that said, is there anything that you could recommend instead
| > of NFSv4 for offering secure file services to multiple platforms?
|
| Apache with SSL may be a solution. I've used it on small scale
| projects.
| You can auth users
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Chris Smith wrote:
> Other recipients will also mark as spam or possibly even drop your
> posts due to Google's SPF records for gmail.com. At some point you
> need to relay through smtp.gmail.com in order to successfully use that
> From: address.
>
> Looks pretty s
Henning,
I wouldn't say that there's anything wrong with the OpenBSD NFSv3
implementation, as the problems with NFSv3 are largely with the specification
(and/or the proliferation of specifications and protocols to deal with what's
not in the 1995 original). I'd anticipate a response not unlike eva
James A. Peltier wrote:
> Now, that said, is there anything that you could recommend instead of NFSv4
> for offering secure file services to multiple platforms?
Apache with SSL may be a solution. I've used it on small scale projects.
You can auth users against LDAP, AD, etc. Should work with an
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Theo de Raadt
wrote:
> The design process followed by the NFSv4 team members matches the
> methodology taken by the IPV6 people. (As in, once a mistake is made,
Sorry, I'll bite. What exactly is wrong with IPv6 here? I gathered
from this list not a lot of develop
- Original Message -
| On Oct 27 11:31:31, James A. Peltier wrote:
| > - Original Message -
| > | > Pardon my ignorance in this matter, but what is it that is
| > | > unpleasing? The complexity of it? From my understanding, NFSv4
| > | > is
| > | > more firewall friendly, using only
On Oct 27 11:31:31, James A. Peltier wrote:
> - Original Message -
> | > Pardon my ignorance in this matter, but what is it that is
> | > unpleasing? The complexity of it? From my understanding, NFSv4 is
> | > more firewall friendly, using only port 2049, and can also be
> | > kerberized fo
On Oct 27 18:54:31, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Bayard Bell [2010-10-27 17:19]:
> > Sorry, but it's not entirely clear where the obstacles are. Is this
> > unhappiness with the specification(s)? the code base for NFSv4 that's
> > been rolled into the other BSDs? something else?
>
> personally I ha
On 10/27/10 1:58 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
Now, that said, is there anything that you could recommend instead of NFSv4 for
offering secure file services to multiple platforms? My research only led me
to NFSv4 and AFS, and AFS would have been a much, much larger project for us
than a move to
- Original Message -
| > | > | I guess by "all the other protocols" you must be rejecting all
| > | > | the
| > | > | rest
| > | > | of your network traffic as "not protocols" or "not services".
| > | >
| > | > Okay, let me rephrase it then.
| > | >
| > | > In order to support file services
> | > | I guess by "all the other protocols" you must be rejecting all the
> | > | rest
> | > | of your network traffic as "not protocols" or "not services".
> | >
> | > Okay, let me rephrase it then.
> | >
> | > In order to support file services for all of the OS platforms we
> | > support, across
- Original Message -
| > | I guess by "all the other protocols" you must be rejecting all the
| > | rest
| > | of your network traffic as "not protocols" or "not services".
| >
| > Okay, let me rephrase it then.
| >
| > In order to support file services for all of the OS platforms we
| > su
| NameMtu Network Address Ipkts IerrsOpkts Oerrs
Colls
| iwn0150000:21:5c:04:9e:19 365841 6544 237425 4 0
A <2% frame error rate is not that unusual on a wireless link, considering
that iwn increments Ierrs for every frames with a bad FCS, for f
> | I guess by "all the other protocols" you must be rejecting all the
> | rest
> | of your network traffic as "not protocols" or "not services".
>
> Okay, let me rephrase it then.
>
> In order to support file services for all of the OS platforms we
> support, across all the campuses we support,
- Original Message -
| > | > Pardon my ignorance in this matter, but what is it that is
| > | > unpleasing? The complexity of it? From my understanding, NFSv4
| > | > is
| > | > more firewall friendly, using only port 2049, and can also be
| > | > kerberized for additional security. Can Ope
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Dmitrij Czarkoff wrote:
> By the way, Gmail moves my mail to spam, so all this genercs magic
> seem to be insufficient, and I'll have to figure out how to authente
> sendmail against smtp.gmail.com.
Other recipients will also mark as spam or possibly even drop you
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Chris Smith
wrote:
> Haven't previously played with sendmail but out of academic interest I
> decided to look into this as the problem seemed to be much more
> straightforward then i first imagined.
>
> This works here (I've set up a SMART_HOST as well to forward t
> | > Pardon my ignorance in this matter, but what is it that is
> | > unpleasing? The complexity of it? From my understanding, NFSv4 is
> | > more firewall friendly, using only port 2049, and can also be
> | > kerberized for additional security. Can OpenBSD's NFS implementation
> | > do that?
> |
- Original Message -
| > Pardon my ignorance in this matter, but what is it that is
| > unpleasing? The complexity of it? From my understanding, NFSv4 is
| > more firewall friendly, using only port 2049, and can also be
| > kerberized for additional security. Can OpenBSD's NFS implementatio
* Bayard Bell [2010-10-27 16:31]:
> The last mail I can find on the subject seems to indicate that there were
> problems getting RPC to work with ipv6 (from Henning:
> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=120291072230011&w=3). I'm not sure if this
> was for lack of a TI-RPC implementation or other r
The last mail I can find on the subject seems to indicate that there were
problems getting RPC to work with ipv6 (from Henning:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=120291072230011&w=3). I'm not sure if this
was for lack of a TI-RPC implementation or other reasons. Any info on where
this is?
[demime
I run a -current apmd on a MacBook3,1.
It suspends and resumes just fine.
There seems to be a slightly unclear detail
in the apmd(8) manpage however:
/etc/apm/suspend
/etc/apm/standby
/etc/apm/resume
/etc/apm/powerup
/etc/apm/powerdownThese files contain the host's cu
I would prefer to just see mixerctl -v output from -current GENERIC.
--
jake...@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
hi,
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:54:59PM +0200, Leon Me?ner wrote:
> i'm new here so please excuse if this is the wrong list or so.
> I do have a problem with getting my relayd to work on an OpenBSD 4.7
> bridge thats using pf as a firewall. My configuration is the following:
>
...
> As you can see
Actually the 0.5 version which is around now is quite a different story from
the old versions, pretty much usable, finally!
I usually install it on stand-alone servers, so that I have a tiny DE which
I can use for service reasons like monitoring, remote desktop, etc...
Maybe this could be a good s
[IMAGE]
Mayores informes responda este correo electrsnico con los siguientes
datos.
Empresa:
Nombre:
Telifono:
Email:
Nzmero de Interesados:
Y en breve le haremos llegar la informacisn completa del evento.
O bien comunmquense a nuestros telifonos un ejecutivo con gusto le
atendera
Tels. (33) 885
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:16 AM, LOL wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Paolo Aglialoro wrote:
>
>> Hi gang,
>>
>> are there any plans to port LXDE to OpenBSD?
>> THX
>>
>>
> I hope someone will do it !
I looked at it at c2k8 and frankly it sucked hard. Shitloads of
linux-only code, lots
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> would like to know if my modem is supported under 4.7, if not, what about 4.8,
> if
> not what assistance can i provide the person/people who have the capability
> to
> add in support?
> if supported, can someone please provide me the chat-script?
> i h
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 05:31:03PM -0400, Ben Adams wrote:
> I have an IBM T60, running 4.8 just got in mail :)
>
> I'm trying to setup a modem connection (First time ever)
>
> Oct 26 17:42:33 laptop /bsd: ubt0 at uhub4 port 1 "Broadcom Corp BCM2045B"
> rev 2.00/1.00 addr 2
> Oct 26 17:42:33 lap
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&w=2&r=1&s=huawei&q=b
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=umsm&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath
=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386&format=html
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> would like to know if my modem is supported under 4.7, if not, what
would like to know if my modem is supported under 4.7, if not, what about 4.8,
if
not what assistance can i provide the person/people who have the capability
to
add in support?
if supported, can someone please provide me the chat-script?
i have tacked in the dmesg (while the modem was plugged in) b
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Tomas Bodzar wrote:
> Try
>
> ubsdevs -v
usbdevs -v
> pcidump -v
>
> if you will get some details.
-sac
On Oct 26, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Alexander Hall wrote:
> On 10/23/10 11:10, Matthias Ochs wrote:
>>> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=127426139631321&w=2
>>
>> 404
>
> Not here and now anyway. Works fine from here.
>
The link to marc.info works, but the link on that page
(http://www.devguide.net/bf
44 matches
Mail list logo
