On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 08:30:40AM +, Richard Bostrom wrote:
> I have a static ip using this configuration in my hostname.interface
> inet 192.168.1.240 255.255.255.0
>
> It wont allow for internet access. I have an openbsd book but I cannot find
> the right syntax.
The syntax looks OK. Assu
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:37 AM Richard Bostrom
wrote:
> I have a static ip using this configuration in my hostname.interface
> inet 192.168.1.240 255.255.255.0
>
> It wont allow for internet access. I have an openbsd book but I cannot
> find the right syntax.
> Hello.
>
You also need to add/co
Which interface are you trying to bring up? In order for people to help
you have you ever posted a dmesg to this mailing list?
Also, man mygate.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 12:37 AM Richard Bostrom
wrote:
> I have a static ip using this configuration in my hostname.interface
> inet 192.168.1.240 2
On Sun, Oct 06, 2024 at 04:59:56PM -0300, Gustavo Rios wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> Does it improve code performance declaring function variables static ?
It depends on many factors if it will speedup things, it might even
cause slowdowns. It can also introduce bugs because your function is
no longer
https:/google.com/search?q=Does+it+improve+code+performance+declaring+function+variables+static+%3F
On 10/6/24 9:59 PM, Gustavo Rios wrote:
Does it improve code performance declaring function variables static ?
On 3/28/23 17:27, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2023-03-28, Kaya Saman wrote:
Anyway, what I am trying to figure out is how to NAT the rdomain's?
At the moment from what I understand one has to put "rtable (n)" at the
end of the NAT rule...
That is for _changing_ rtable; if the interfaces inv
On 3/28/23 17:27, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2023-03-28, Kaya Saman wrote:
Anyway, what I am trying to figure out is how to NAT the rdomain's?
At the moment from what I understand one has to put "rtable (n)" at the
end of the NAT rule...
That is for _changing_ rtable; if the interfaces inv
On 3/28/23 17:27, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2023-03-28, Kaya Saman wrote:
Anyway, what I am trying to figure out is how to NAT the rdomain's?
At the moment from what I understand one has to put "rtable (n)" at the
end of the NAT rule...
That is for _changing_ rtable; if the interfaces inv
On 2023-03-28, Kaya Saman wrote:
>
> Anyway, what I am trying to figure out is how to NAT the rdomain's?
>
>
> At the moment from what I understand one has to put "rtable (n)" at the
> end of the NAT rule...
That is for _changing_ rtable; if the interfaces involved (the $vpn_net1
interface and $
Thanks Stuart!
On 3/28/23 16:19, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2023-03-28, Kaya Saman wrote:
On my WAN vlan for what I am going to call ISP-B, as ISP-A is existing
for a long time. What I'm trying to do right now is set this as a
default gateway for a particular subnet.
There's no such thing as
On 2023-03-28, Kaya Saman wrote:
> On my WAN vlan for what I am going to call ISP-B, as ISP-A is existing
> for a long time. What I'm trying to do right now is set this as a
> default gateway for a particular subnet.
There's no such thing as "default gateway for a subnet".
One way to do what y
Hi,
My bad... I finally read more man pages about ip6, route, trying to understand
their network topology...
New config for ovh ipv6 with a prefixlen 64.
Example /etc/hosname.if :
inet6 2607:5300:60:62ac:: 64
!route add -inet6 -net 2607:5300:60:62ff::/64 -cloning -link -iface ix0
!route add -
Forgot this. 1 hour later It sucks again
. What a fucking network :(
-Message initial-
> De: Eric JACQUOT
> Envoyé: lundi 12 avril 2021 0:13
> À: Piotr Isajew ; misc@openbsd.org
> Sujet: RE: static IPv6 config on OVH dedicated server
>
> Hi Piotr,
>
> -Mes
Hi Piotr,
-Message initial-
> De: Piotr Isajew
> Envoyé: vendredi 9 avril 2021 22:59
> À: misc@openbsd.org
> Sujet: static IPv6 config on OVH dedicated server
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm struggling to configure IPv6 for my fresh OpenBSD 6.8
> installation running on OVH (soyoustart.com) dedicated
Piotr,
On 9/4/21 17:28, Piotr Isajew wrote:
The default gateway for your IPv6 block (IPv6_GATEWAY) is always
...xxFF:FF:FF:FF:FF.
For example:
The IPv6 address of the server is 2607:5300:60:62ac::/64. The
IPv6_GATEWAY will therefore be 2607:5300:60:62FF:FF:FF:FF:FF.
Th
Hi Piotr,
You have to configure your if with a /56 mask and then you will be able reach
the ipv6 gateway.
Remember to accord your pf rules to allow required icmpv6 types.
Cheers,
--
Eric JACQUOT
De : Piotr Isajew
Envoyé : vendredi 9 avril 2021 22:59
À
Too fast
You will never reach an outside gateway.
--
Eric JACQUOT
De : Eric JACQUOT
Envoyé : vendredi 9 avril 2021 23:55
À : Piotr Isajew; misc@openbsd.org
Objet : Re: static IPv6 config on OVH dedicated server
Hi Piotr,
You have to configure your if with
Hi Demi,
have done:
ndp -s fe80::1%vio0 00:00:5e:00:02:02
which results in a nearly permanent setup:
Neighbor Linklayer Address Netif ExpireS Flags
2a03:4000:24:82f:: d6:16:7b:a0:ce:63vio0 permanent R l
2a03:4000:24:82f::1
On 2020-08-06 09:51, Janne Johansson wrote:
> I have a setup where the virtualization (KVM) combined with the networking
> does present a IPv6 def-gw as both an fe80:: and
> the more normal 2001:a:b:c:d::1/64 and where the 2001-v6 ip works far
> better on virtual machines due to redundancy mac sync
Just to chime in uselessly, I am having no end of trouble with IPv6 on
various machines. I cannot get IPv6 to work either on my PC-ENGINES
APU connected to a FRITZ!box or my VPS at tinykvm.com; but for
whatever reason things work better (although not completely) at
vultr.com. As far as I know the s
Dear Janne,
traceroute6 -I ipv6.google.com
traceroute6 to ipv6.l.google.com (2a00:1450:4001:81b::200e), 64 hops max, 60
byte packets
1 2a03:4000:24::3 (2a03:4000:24::3) 0.384 ms 0.558 ms 0.563 ms
2 2a00:11c0:47:3::20 (2a00:11c0:47:3::20) 0.887 ms 0.545 ms 0.421 ms
3 2a00:11c0:47:1:47::14
No, I think in my case it is Juniper multichassis LAG (link aggregation
groups) getting confused by identical fe80::x for multiple local v6
networks, or something to that effect.
How does the traceroute6's look when it "works"? If you get a "real" v6
there you might (ab)use that as the gw ip?
De
I have a setup where the virtualization (KVM) combined with the networking
does present a IPv6 def-gw as both an fe80:: and
the more normal 2001:a:b:c:d::1/64 and where the 2001-v6 ip works far
better on virtual machines due to redundancy mac sync things on the network
side, and since the ndp list
Hi,
* kug1977 wrote:
>
> Is this something wrong configured on OpenBSD server or is this something
> the provider has to check on the gateway side?
I also have a VM at the exact same provider (netcup) and face
the same problem. Since all of my VMs at different providers are
identical (base inst
Denis Fondras wrote:
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 12:15:30PM +0200, Stefan Hagen wrote:
Am I missing something?
OpenBSD has RFC7217 enabled by default. This means your LL address does not
embed your MAC address. Use "ifconfig vio0 -soii" to disable that behavior (see
ifconfig(8) for details).
Tha
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 12:15:30PM +0200, Stefan Hagen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a question regarding the IPv6 behavior of OpenBSD compared to
> Linux/FreeBSD. I tried to configure a static IPv6 address on my VPS.
>
> From my provider, I got the following data:
>
> IP Address: 2a01:4f8:c2c:76ef
On 02/24/17 13:07, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:08:21AM +0100, Martijn Rijkeboer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> If I have a static binary compiled on OpenBSD release X, is that binary
>> expected to also run on release X+1, X+2 and X+Y? For example, a static
>> binary tha
On 02/24/17 12:07, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:08:21AM +0100, Martijn Rijkeboer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> If I have a static binary compiled on OpenBSD release X, is that binary
>> expected to also run on release X+1, X+2 and X+Y? For example, a static
>> binary that is compiled o
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:08:21AM +0100, Martijn Rijkeboer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If I have a static binary compiled on OpenBSD release X, is that binary
> expected to also run on release X+1, X+2 and X+Y? For example, a static
> binary that is compiled on OpenBSD 6.0, is it expected to also run on
> 6
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:08:21AM +0100, Martijn Rijkeboer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If I have a static binary compiled on OpenBSD release X, is that binary
> expected to also run on release X+1, X+2 and X+Y? For example, a static
> binary that is compiled on OpenBSD 6.0, is it expected to also run on
> 6
Wed, 18 May 2016 01:34:24 +0200 Ingo Schwarze
> Hi Predrag,
>
> Predrag Punosevac wrote on Tue, May 17, 2016 at 06:59:15PM -0400:
>
> > OpenBSD is shipped with the static webpage generator (sort of).
> > It is called mandoc. man mandoc and check out -T html switch.
Not in the sense web site
Hi Predrag,
Predrag Punosevac wrote on Tue, May 17, 2016 at 06:59:15PM -0400:
> OpenBSD is shipped with the static webpage generator (sort of).
> It is called mandoc. man mandoc and check out -T html switch.
That one is a bit specialized: for manual pages. =:c)
True, i once heard of one devel
OpenBSD is shipped with the static webpage generator (sort of). It is
called mandoc. man mandoc and check out -T html switch. If you ask me
this
http://mdocml.bsd.lv/
and
this
http://manpages.bsd.lv/history.html
are pretty darn good looking static websites. They are generated with
mandoc.
C
Paolo Aglialoro writes:
> After a quick peek on openports I have seen pelican present, but couldn't
> identify more. On hugo webpage there's a package for OpenBSD
> https://github.com/spf13/hugo/releases
I just this week started using Pelican, largely because it *is* in
ports. There seem to be
Paolo Aglialoro writes:
> Hello,
>
> yesterday I've been at an interesting presentation of pelican (it was a
> git+pelican+fabric gramework), in order to create static websites and I
> very much appreciated the topic. I had also recently had a look at jekill
> (which looks kinda promising), but d
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Paolo Aglialoro wrote:
> Hello,
Hi!
> yesterday I've been at an interesting presentation of pelican (it was a
> git+pelican+fabric gramework), in order to create static websites and I
> very much appreciated the topic. I had also recently had a look at jekill
> (
On 11/10/14, 2:46 PM, Peter Hessler wrote:
> As I said before.
>
> _This_ _Is_ _Not_ _Possible_.
>
> Period.
>
>
Wellif you're doing bridging on the Linux setup you're trying to
replace, but don't realize it, forget to mention that the Cisco actually
*does* have an address in the /29 the Free/O
As I said before.
_This_ _Is_ _Not_ _Possible_.
Period.
On 2014 Nov 10 (Mon) at 17:30:50 -0200 (-0200), "Dante F. B. Col?" wrote:
:Hi
:
:This is a part of the output containing the static routes related to
:*bnx0* , *bnx1 *, i was trying to make a static route for the
:189.92.72.11 pointing t
Hi
This is a part of the output containing the static routes related to
*bnx0* , *bnx1 *, i was trying to make a static route for the
189.92.72.11 pointing to *bnx1* but without success, is it possible ?
below the routes is the output of ifconfig these interfaces, i'm gonna
try a bridge also.
>On 2014-11-07, li...@ggp2.com wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 07:12:20PM -0200, "Dante F. B. Col??" wrote:
>>> I'm trying to setup some static routes on a openbsd 4.9 box for some
>>> public addresses
>>
>> This usually gets mentioned, so I'll go ahead and bring this to your
>> attention.
>
>Y
On 2014-11-07, li...@ggp2.com wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 07:12:20PM -0200, "Dante F. B. Col??" wrote:
>> I'm trying to setup some static routes on a openbsd 4.9 box for some
>> public addresses
>
> This usually gets mentioned, so I'll go ahead and bring this to your
> attention.
Yes, it us
That is not supported. You MUST NOT have IPs in the same range on
different interfaces.
You can assign some /32s (or /128 if you are using IPv6) to a lo1 on the
system, but that may not be what you want.
On 2014 Nov 06 (Thu) at 19:12:20 -0200 (-0200), "Dante F. B. Col??" wrote:
:Hello everyone
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 07:12:20PM -0200, "Dante F. B. Col??" wrote:
> I'm trying to setup some static routes on a openbsd 4.9 box for some
> public addresses
This usually gets mentioned, so I'll go ahead and bring this to your
attention.
OpenBSD 4.9 is long unsupported. There have been many re
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:12:20PM EST, "Dante F. B. Colò" wrote:
> Hello everyone
Hi Dante,
> I'm trying to setup some static routes on a openbsd 4.9 box for some
> public addresses , the machine has two ethernet cards *bnx0 ***and *bnx1
> ***, *bnx0* is attached to a Cisco internet router an
Chris Smith wrote [2012-01-16 13:21+0100]:
> Are there any dynamic or static C code analysis tools available for
> OpenBSD? [swoosh]
You may try llvm from packages, it aims to have a good analyzer.
lint(1) is in base.
> I'd still like to be able to check that I've not made any
> hideous cock-ups
Hi Chris,
On Mon Jan 16 2012 12:21, Chris Smith wrote:
> Are there any dynamic or static C code analysis tools available for
> OpenBSD?
there has been a thread around here [1]. Examples include lint,
cppcheck, clang's static analyser and parfait.
Yours,
Norman
[1] http://comments.gmane.org/gman
First, check the syntax refering to hostname.if(5) openbsd manual guide
Did you configure it during installation process or after installation process
was done?
What do you mean by giving you login and password?
Which user did you use to configure IP address? Did you login as root or as
another
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:11 AM, patrick keshishian
wrote:
> It seems after I sleep-wake cycle my laptop something screw happens so
> that play back of music -- specifically using mpg123 to play mp3 files
> -- after that point produces a fair amount of static.
>
> Here is an odd part. If I run auca
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Jay K wrote:
> > > Merging libpthread into libc is the way imho.
> > That would make it somewhat difficult to work on a second pthreads
> > library...
>
> Like a second C library..
No, not really. You see, we aren't working on a second C library, but
we *are*
,
probably not ideal or desired for long.
- Jay
> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:30:52 -0400
> Subject: Re: -static -lX11 breaks pthreads (4.6)
> From: ted.unangst@
> To: jay.krell@
> CC: misc@
>
...
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Jay K wrote:
> $ gcc 1.c -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lX11 -pthread -static
> $ ./a.out
> 0x0
> 0x0
>
>
> I use -static deliberately so I can give binaries that work on other
OpenBSD
> versions.
> I give source too, it's not too keep source private, but it is for "ease of
>
Right, this turned out to be a combination of two problems, both
fairly obviously my fault, as I rather expected. I had tried
reassigning the interface's address using ifconfig, but this evidently
wasn't clearing all the various things that needed to be fixed.
Setting a static IP of 192.168.1.34 al
On 2009-02-27, Ruan Kendall wrote:
> I've come across a strange problem whereby configuring an interface
> with DHCP lets my system run absolutely fine, but assigning a static
> IP to the nic results in a system that can only speak to the local
> subnet. I can ssh into it, but cannot connect to an
Hello,
What sort of box is your default gateway?
(Possibilities for running tcpdump on the gateway?)
If you do, you could check the interfaces on the gateway, that the
packets get routed to another interface on the gateway.
There could be a number of configuration options on the gateway producing
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:20:08AM +, Ruan Kendall wrote:
> I've come across a strange problem whereby configuring an interface
> with DHCP lets my system run absolutely fine, but assigning a static
> IP to the nic results in a system that can only speak to the local
> subnet. I can ssh into it
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:40:49 -0700, Bryan Vyhmeister wrote:
>On Apr 18, 2007, at 5:31 PM, Bray Mailloux wrote:
>
>> shared-network LOCAL-NET{
>>option domain-name "theamericanbray.com";
>>option domain-name-servers 208.204.224.11, 208.204.224.33
>> subnet 192.168.0.0 netmask 255.2
On Apr 18, 2007, at 5:31 PM, Bray Mailloux wrote:
shared-network LOCAL-NET{
option domain-name "theamericanbray.com";
option domain-name-servers 208.204.224.11, 208.204.224.33
subnet 192.168.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
options routers 192.168.0.1;
range 192.168.0.14 192.
On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:57 PM, Bray Mailloux wrote:
And the default route in my table shows 64.142.102.1 which is also
the gateway address supplied by my isp.
OK. That sounds correct. Can you post your dhcpd.conf again?
Bryan
On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:11 PM, BradenM - Sonoma Computer wrote:
Do you mean the gateway address supplied by my ISP?
Yes.
Bryan
On Apr 18, 2007, at 12:59 PM, BradenM - Sonoma Computer wrote:
I just read an article on dhcp-dns which updates the tinydns data
file each time a new computer comes online using dynamic host
control. I do plan on having my own in house DNS server but it
currently is not implemented. Could t
On Apr 18, 2007, at 10:01 AM, BradenM - Sonoma Computer wrote:
Yes, ip fowarding is enabled in the sysctl.conf file. I did have an
alias on rl0 but removed it to try and simplify my nat process.
I've heard the term binat thrown around, could that possibly aid my
project?
No, binat is not
On Apr 18, 2007, at 8:42 AM, Bray Mailloux wrote:
Bryan Vyhmeister wrote:
and post the output of both.
pfctl -sn ---> nat on rl0 inet from 192.168.0.0/24 to any ->
(rl0) round-robin
pfctl -sr ---> scrub in all fragment reassemble
pass out all keep state
On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:56 PM, Bray Mailloux wrote:
Do you suppose that I should start checking for hardware problems
or in other network configurations?
Not just yet. Run:
pfctl -sn
and also:
pfctl -sr
and post the output of both.
Bryan
On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:54 PM, Bray Mailloux wrote:
# macros
ext_if="rl0"
int_if="rl1"
#NAT
nat on $ext_if from $int_if -> ($ext_if:0)
#Pass
pass in all
pass out all keep state
It still isn't working with keep state.
Let's make it this:
ext_if="rl0"
int_if="rl1"
set skip on { lo rl1 }
scrub
On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Bray Mailloux wrote:
Bryan Vyhmeister wrote:
Do you have 'pass out' in your pf.conf?
Yes, "pass out all".
Can you post your pf.conf?
Bryan
On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Bray Mailloux wrote:
OK, I've tried your nat rule and am using a completely open pass
rule to allow in all traffic but cannot ping the internet. Any
other ideas? What are some trouble shooting techniques I could try?
Actually, the rule should be 'pass out keep st
On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Bray Mailloux wrote:
OK, I've tried your nat rule and am using a completely open pass
rule to allow in all traffic but cannot ping the internet. Any
other ideas? What are some trouble shooting techniques I could try?
Do you have 'pass out' in your pf.conf?
Bryan
BradenM - Sonoma Computer wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Bryan Vyhmeister"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bray Mailloux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Static Ip's: Routing and Fowarding
On Apr 17,
- Original Message -
From: "Bryan Vyhmeister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bray Mailloux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Static Ip's: Routing and Fowarding
On Apr 17, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Bray Mailloux wrote:
On Apr 17, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Bray Mailloux wrote:
Shouldn't the internet connection be passed around to other hosts
on the network without the use of nat and pf? Ip forwarding is on,
isn't that enough? I'm just trying to get the internet connection
out to other computers, filtering comes aft
On Apr 16, 2007, at 10:54 PM, Bray Mailloux wrote:
I have one static ip address which is assigned to one of my
ethernet cards, specifically rl0. Ip fowarding is turned on and
dhcp is active and listening on another ethernet card, specifically
rl1.
Route and routed man pages have offered som
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 02:53:48AM +0100, Steve Fairhead wrote:
> Denis Doroshenko said:
> > So how do you specify that a function should be visible only to the
> > local compilation unit? Or, how do you keep others from using your
> > locally-scoped (but not declared static) function in a globa
Denis Doroshenko said:
> So how do you specify that a function should be visible only to the
> local compilation unit? Or, how do you keep others from using your
> locally-scoped (but not declared static) function in a global context?
>> why would you even want that (moreover in opensource)? hi
On 5/31/06, Brett Lymn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:55:14PM +0300, Denis Doroshenko wrote:
>
> why would you even want that (moreover in opensource)? hide for what reason?
It's called lexical scoping - it has nothing really to do with
security more to do with preventing
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:55:14PM +0300, Denis Doroshenko wrote:
>
> why would you even want that (moreover in opensource)? hide for what reason?
>
It's called lexical scoping - it has nothing really to do with
security more to do with preventing namespace pollution. Clearly you
have never wri
On 5/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 08:29:58AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> Static has it's uses however for some
> reason the (open source) world at large seem not to understand
> what they are. Same is true with typedef, it has its uses too but
>
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 08:29:58AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> My answer is correct. It is not my fault that you don't have a
> clue about programming. Static has it's uses however for some
> reason the (open source) world at large seem not to understand
> what they are. Same is true with ty
On 5/26/06, Matthias Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No sarcasm. If you've clashes, the linker will tell you. But if you
make everything static, you may using the same name for different
things without noticing, and this *may* be confusing when reading
the code.
That's a very reasonable expl
Original message from "Diego Giagio" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > 1. there are debugging requirements. Static functions do not expose entry
> > points.
>
> Even for user-level code?
If you are thinking there is a difference between kernel code & userland code,
no. Compilers compile code based upon
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:59:51AM -0300, Diego Giagio wrote:
> >Because it'll clash. Clashing is good.
>
> I thought you were being sarcastic, and I was wrong. I strongly apologize.
No sarcasm. If you've clashes, the linker will tell you. But if you
make everything static, you may using the sam
On 5/26/06, Jacob Yocom-Piatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
wow. this is just about the most offensive thing i've ever seen on list. that's
not to say it should be censored ;).
I wrongly interpreted Marco's statement, and shot him badly.
all this from someone who spends time pointing finding ho
On 5/26/06, Jason Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And Marco was explaining why he (and probably other OpenBSD devs)
don't use static: name clashes. static makes things more difficult to
debug, and having 50 different static functions named the same thing
could get pretty confusing in large pr
On 5/25/06, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because it'll clash. Clashing is good.
I thought you were being sarcastic, and I was wrong. I strongly apologize.
--
DG
On 5/26/06, Diego Giagio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/25/06, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because it'll clash. Clashing is good.
I'm pretty sure you would be more successfull on a humor TV show as a
clown than wasting people time and bandwith with stupid statements
like that.
Original message
>Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 10:14:04 -0300
>From: "Diego Giagio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Static functions in C code
>To: "Marco Peereboom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: misc@openbsd.org
>
>On 5/25/06, Marco Peereb
On 5/26/06, Diego Giagio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/25/06, Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> how many parse_config functions do you think spamd needs?
It was an example. The point is: is there a reason for not using
static on functions with internal linkage? There's at least one reas
My answer is correct. It is not my fault that you don't have a clue
about programming. Static has it's uses however for some reason the
(open source) world at large seem not to understand what they are. Same
is true with typedef, it has its uses too but mostly it is abused.
I bet you have n
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 10:14:04AM -0300, Diego Giagio wrote:
> On 5/25/06, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Because it'll clash. Clashing is good.
>
> I'm pretty sure you would be more successfull on a humor TV show as a
> clown than wasting people time and bandwith with stupid stat
On 5/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Either because:
1. there are debugging requirements. Static functions do not expose entry
points.
Even for user-level code?
2. most developers don't consider limiting global namespace pollution as
this doesn't frequently hinder dev
On 5/25/06, Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
how many parse_config functions do you think spamd needs?
It was an example. The point is: is there a reason for not using
static on functions with internal linkage? There's at least one reason
to use static: name clashes.
--
DG
On 5/25/06, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because it'll clash. Clashing is good.
I'm pretty sure you would be more successfull on a humor TV show as a
clown than wasting people time and bandwith with stupid statements
like that. And I don't mind if you are a OpenBSD developer,
con
Original message from Diego Giagio [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> ...
> I have a concern, thought: why most applications don't use the 'static'
> keyword for
> functions with internal linkage ? Wouldn't that avoid function name clashes
> when
> developing large programs?
Either because:
1. there are d
On 5/25/06, Diego Giagio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lately I've been reading OpenBSD code, both user-level and kernel-level,
and I find it very clean and well organized. I have a concern,
thought: why most applications don't use the 'static' keyword for
functions with internal linkage ? Wouldn't
Because it'll clash. Clashing is good.
Diego Giagio wrote:
Lately I've been reading OpenBSD code, both user-level and kernel-level,
and I find it very clean and well organized. I have a concern,
thought: why most applications don't use the 'static' keyword for
functions with internal linkage ?
Ok, thanks Jaochim! Gonna experiment a bit on that.
Joachim Schipper wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 05:38:53PM +0100, Rico wrote:
Hi,
Thanks! Don't know why I missed that.
"It is possible to define one or more fixed leases in the client
configuration file.." how exactly is this setup?
I'
From your question, I get the impression that you haven't yet read
that section. Please do so first, before asking questions. If you read
the documentation (and it shows from the question you ask), people are
usually more than happy to help.
Your impression is wrong.
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 05:38:53PM +0100, Rico wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks! Don't know why I missed that.
>
> "It is possible to define one or more fixed leases in the client
> configuration file.." how exactly is this setup?
I'm afraid the laptop that held this data is rather permanently out of
co
Hi,
Thanks! Don't know why I missed that.
"It is possible to define one or more fixed leases in the client
configuration file.." how exactly is this setup?
Best regards,
Rico
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 04:05:55PM +0100, Rico wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to somehow setup dhclient to fallback to s
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 04:05:55PM +0100, Rico wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to somehow setup dhclient to fallback to some predefined
> static IP in case a dhcp server is down? I am thinking about specifying
> something with the default attribute.
See dhclient.conf(5), under 'LEASE DECLARATIO
> dear All,
>
> In which file should i put my static route entry ?
You can find it, in the archive. Here is the link.
http://www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive/tech/0009/msg00062.html
Have a good day.
--
Adam Papai
Digital Influence
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +36 30 33-55-735
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
