Re: earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-23 Thread Ted Roby
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Ron McDowell wrote: > Everybody here is so friendly! > > I know how to use tar, patrick. Having a tarball on that drive that I then > have to untar to the local [ffs|hfs] seems kind of redundant, inelegant and > just plain crufty. > > -- > Ron McDowell > San Anto

Re: earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-22 Thread patrick keshishian
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Ron McDowell wrote: > patrick keshishian wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Ron McDowell wrote: >> >>> >>> A note of caution. I copied a bunch of stuff from an OSX 10.6 partition >>> to >>> a FAT32 USB drive, and when looking at that FAT32 USB drive m

Re: earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-22 Thread Rod Whitworth
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:14:19 -0500, Ron McDowell wrote: >Ted Roby wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote: >> >> >>> I suspect the OP would like to dual boot his intel mac machine and >>> still have access from OpenBSD to the files stored on a hfsplus >>> partition. >>>

Re: earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-22 Thread Ron McDowell
patrick keshishian wrote: On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Ron McDowell wrote: A note of caution. I copied a bunch of stuff from an OSX 10.6 partition to a FAT32 USB drive, and when looking at that FAT32 USB drive mounted on an OpenBSD 4.7 system, any filenames that fit into the old DOS 8-c

Re: earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-22 Thread patrick keshishian
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Ron McDowell wrote: > Ted Roby wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote: >> >> >>> >>> I suspect the OP would like to dual boot his intel mac machine and >>> still have access from OpenBSD to the files stored on a hfsplus >>> partition. >

Re: earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-22 Thread Ron McDowell
Ted Roby wrote: On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote: I suspect the OP would like to dual boot his intel mac machine and still have access from OpenBSD to the files stored on a hfsplus partition. -Otto This is more in line with what I am seeking. I have a l

Re: earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-22 Thread Ted Roby
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 5:12 PM, bofh wrote: > Would be hfs porters should also know that snow leopard (10.6) made > further extensions to hfs+ and there can be data in a file created on > 10.6 that even 10.5 can't see. > > Yes. This is why my 10.5 system tools broke, and those third party compa

Re: earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-22 Thread bofh
Would be hfs porters should also know that snow leopard (10.6) made further extensions to hfs+ and there can be data in a file created on 10.6 that even 10.5 can't see. On 3/22/10, Dale Rahn wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:39:07AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Ot

Re: earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-22 Thread Ted Roby
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Dale Rahn wrote: > > > It should be possible to build the port on i386 with the 'ONLY_FOR' tag > changed, however I dont recall that the hfsplus code was new enough to > support case-sensitive filesystems. Testing would need to be done to verify > what filesystems

Re: earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-22 Thread Dale Rahn
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:39:07AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > > > > I suspect the OP would like to dual boot his intel mac machine and > > still have access from OpenBSD to the files stored on a hfsplus > > partition. > > > >-Otto >

Re: earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-22 Thread Ted Roby
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Ted Unangst wrote: > > Getting data off a filesystem can be useful on any machine, even if > you don't intend to boot it. Ports are generally marked "only for" > because they only work there (read: are not written portably), not out > of a subjective "useful" ca

Re: earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-22 Thread Ted Unangst
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Bryan Irvine wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Ted Roby wrote: >> I've noticed this environment variable in misc/hfsplus >> >> >> # this only makes sense on macintosh (powerpc) systems. >> ONLY_FOR_ARCHS= powerpc >> >> >> It used to only make sense on powe

Re: earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-22 Thread Ted Roby
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > I suspect the OP would like to dual boot his intel mac machine and > still have access from OpenBSD to the files stored on a hfsplus > partition. > >-Otto > This is more in line with what I am seeking. I have a large amount of d

Re: earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-22 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:07:24AM -0700, Bryan Irvine wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Ted Roby wrote: > > I've noticed this environment variable in misc/hfsplus > > > > > > # this only makes sense on macintosh (powerpc) systems. > > ONLY_FOR_ARCHS= powerpc > > > > > > It used to only m

Re: earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-22 Thread Ted Roby
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Bryan Irvine wrote: > > I'm sure someone else will correct me if I'm wrong. I believe the > only reason this is needed on ppc machines is because the openfirmware > expects an hfs volume to boot from so the bootloader is stored on a > small hfs partition. If th

Re: earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-22 Thread Bryan Irvine
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Ted Roby wrote: > I've noticed this environment variable in misc/hfsplus > > > # this only makes sense on macintosh (powerpc) systems. > ONLY_FOR_ARCHS= powerpc > > > It used to only make sense on powerpc systems, but Macintosh > hardware now uses i386 architecture

earmark on hfsplus port

2010-03-22 Thread Ted Roby
I've noticed this environment variable in misc/hfsplus # this only makes sense on macintosh (powerpc) systems. ONLY_FOR_ARCHS= powerpc It used to only make sense on powerpc systems, but Macintosh hardware now uses i386 architecture. Of course, changing this variable is not enough to cause a suc