Hi Claudio,
On Fri 23/10/2015 22:47, Claudio Jeker wrote:
[...]
> You may try to build your own version with adding --enable-cgi in the
> Makefile configure flags. It seems that even configure tells that
> --enable-cgi is the default it seems it is not. Go figure...
>
> Also mod_cgid.so should be
Tuyosi Takesima wrote:
> today i first time follow current .
>
> # cd /usr
> # export CVSROOT=anon...@anoncvs.jp.openbsd.org:/cvs
> # cvs -d$CVSROOT checkout -P src
> cvs -d$CVSROOT checkout -P sys<---
> 1)quetion
> is [cvs -d$CVSROOT checkout -P s
today i first time follow current .
# cd /usr
# export CVSROOT=anon...@anoncvs.jp.openbsd.org:/cvs
# cvs -d$CVSROOT checkout -P src
cvs -d$CVSROOT checkout -P sys<---
1)quetion
is [cvs -d$CVSROOT checkout -P sys] needless ?
and
Faq write about on
I got my 5.8 pre-order today. Compared to 5.7, which I waited 1/2 a year for,
this was "fast" :-/. Hey, I just wanted to support the good cause, anyway ...
Thanks for all the good work and the release for download!
Cheers
Eike
--
Eike Lantzsch ZP6CGE
Agencia Shopping del Sol
Casilla de Correo 13
How large is your network?
Brian Conway
On Oct 23, 2015 5:42 PM, "Gene" wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Has anyone here used the PC Engines apu1d system board as an NTP server?
>
> I'm looking at setting up some in house stratum-2 servers so I can be a
> better neighbor. Wondering what kind of performanc
Howdy,
Has anyone here used the PC Engines apu1d system board as an NTP server?
I'm looking at setting up some in house stratum-2 servers so I can be a
better neighbor. Wondering what kind of performance/capacity others have
seen with this board.
Thanks for your time.
-Gene
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 07:20:43PM +0200, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
> Dear misc@ reader,
>
> I've just upgraded my home server to 5.8, so I switched to apache 2.4
> (from 2.2); the problem is that my git server no longer works and the
> root cause seems to be that httpd2 with my current confi
Thank you very much!
### RULES FOR FTP
anchor "ftp-proxy/*"
pass in quick inet proto tcp to port ftp divert-to 127.0.0.1 port 8021
pass out inet proto tcp from $ext to any port ftp
worked for me!
On 10/23/2015 11:09 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
> Em 23-10-2015 12:58, Motty escreveu:
>> ###
Em 23-10-2015 12:58, Motty escreveu:
> ### RULES FOR FTP
> anchor "ftp-proxy/*"
> pass in quick proto tcp to port ftp rdr-to 127.0.0.1 port 8021
> pass in quick on $ext proto tcp from any to 10.1.10.8 port ftp rdr-to
> $web_server port ftp
I believe you need a nat instead of rdr. From ftp-proxy(8)
Em 23-10-2015 12:14, Tamas TEVESZ escreveu:
> case in point: openvpn passing username/password in the environment to
> openvpn_bsdauth.
>
> so there's actually a bit of a sensitive data in env that current
> wisdom rightly tends to want to junk as soon as possible.
I wrote many years ago an openv
Miod Vallat wrote:
> > > Might be a stupid question, but I haven't found an answer to it yet
> > > - how does one update to a new snapshot/kernel on an octeon system?
> >
> > boot bsd.rd and select upgrade in the installer. (i hope.)
> >
> I'm afraid this is not as simple as this, yet. You will a
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Daniel Bolgheroni
wrote:
> There are more things to LLVM/clang than its complexity and the fact
> that it's written in C++. GCC is also pretty complex. For a better
> clarification, check this:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=137530560232232&w=2
This threa
Thank you very much for your reply! I did configured ftp proxy as reverse:
/usr/sbin/ftp-proxy -p 8021 -R 192.168.8.17 -P 21 -D7 -v
Pf.conf
ext="bnx0"
int="bnx1"
ext_net="10.1.10.0/24"
web_server="192.168.8.17"
sap_server="192.168.8.10"
mail_server="192.168.8.22"
# Default block all
block in al
> From dera...@openbsd.org Fri Oct 23 09:23:36 2015
> From: Theo de Raadt
> To: Raul Miller
> cc: Mayuresh Kathe ,
> OpenBSD general usage list
> Subject: Re: [mot] serious about clang/llvm?
>
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Daniel Bolgheroni
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 0
> case in point: openvpn passing username/password in the environment to
> openvpn_bsdauth.
>
> so there's actually a bit of a sensitive data in env that current
> wisdom rightly tends to want to junk as soon as possible.
>
> getenv(3) states, "If getenv() is successful, the string returned
>
hi,
case in point: openvpn passing username/password in the environment to
openvpn_bsdauth.
so there's actually a bit of a sensitive data in env that current
wisdom rightly tends to want to junk as soon as possible.
getenv(3) states, "If getenv() is successful, the string returned
should be c
> > Subject: Re: [mot] serious about clang/llvm?
> >
> > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Daniel Bolgheroni
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:43:50AM -0400, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > > >> i had heard rumours about the openbsd core team having a part of
> > > >> openbsd
> > > >> bu
Em 22-10-2015 19:49, Motty escreveu:
> I am trying to configure pf.conf (OpenBSD 5.6)
I know it is a beaten and old argument, but please upgrade your OpenBSD.
5.6 isn't supported anymore. That being said, I don't think your problem
has anything to do with your OpenBSD version.
> when I use pasive
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Daniel Bolgheroni
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:43:50AM -0400, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> >> i had heard rumours about the openbsd core team having a part of openbsd
> >> built using 'pcc', is it true? if yes, did that effort not produce
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Daniel Bolgheroni
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:43:50AM -0400, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> >> i had heard rumours about the openbsd core team having a part of openbsd
> >> built using 'pcc', is it true? if yes, did that effort not produce
> >> desirable
>
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Daniel Bolgheroni
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:43:50AM -0400, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>> i had heard rumours about the openbsd core team having a part of openbsd
>> built using 'pcc', is it true? if yes, did that effort not produce desirable
>> results?
>
> Th
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:43:50AM -0400, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> i have been reading up online news about the core team considering a move
> from 'gcc' to "clang/llvm".
> is it really true? wouldn't that add a whole lot of complexity to the base
> system? isn't clang/llvm written in c++11? wouldn'
i have been reading up online news about the core team considering a move
from 'gcc' to "clang/llvm".
is it really true? wouldn't that add a whole lot of complexity to the base
system? isn't clang/llvm written in c++11? wouldn't 'pcc' be a better
alternative? especially because (i think) openbsd is
23 matches
Mail list logo
