Damon McMahon gmail.com> writes:
> Probably no help, but I had similar happen to me upgrading 4.5->4.6 a
> few months ago. Similar problem with pftcl after a diligent upgrade,
> and like you I have been following the upgrade procedure diligently
> since 3.something. I checked the timestamp on pf
2010/6/1 Uwe Dippel
> To: Philip Guenther
> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:07:47 +0800
> Subject: Re: pfctl not working in 4.7: DIOCBEGINADDRS and DIOCXCOMMIT
> On 06/01/2010 05:32 AM, Philip Guenther wrote:
>
>> Was there a common thread to what did turn up? My recall is th
Joachim Schipper joachimschipper.nl> writes:
> Just untarring the release should work, but it's still odd. At least the
> md5sum of pfctl matches what I just downloaded, so that seems fine; did
> you actually use *that* tarball, though? (Note that the "right" pfctl
> binary is 500856 bytes long.)
On 2010-06-01, TeXitoi wrote:
> Stuart Henderson writes:
>
>> On 2010-06-01, TeXitoi wrote:
>> >
>> > I heard that some mirrors had corrupted tarball.
>>
>> Huh?
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.french/2168
..
> it was ports.tar.gz, here.
ok, that's better. Rather than just throwin
From: Gonzalo Rodriguez [gonz...@sepp0.com.ar]
Subject: Re: pfctl not working in 4.7: DIOCBEGINADDRS and DIOCXCOMMIT
Download again the tar files from official mirrors and try again the upgrade.
Thanks, Gonzalo,
but the files (sets) are correct according to their SHA256.
I have actually
Download again the tar files from official mirrors and try again the upgrade.
2010/6/1 Uwe Dippel :
> Joachim Schipper joachimschipper.nl> writes:
>
>> Just untarring the release should work, but it's still odd. At least > the
>> md5sum of pfctl matches what I just downloaded, so that seems
>> fi
Stuart Henderson writes:
> On 2010-06-01, TeXitoi wrote:
> >
> > I heard that some mirrors had corrupted tarball.
>
> Huh?
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.french/2168
(in french)
it was ports.tar.gz, here.
--
Guillaume Pinot http://www.irccyn.ec-nantes.fr/~pinot/
+
On 2010-06-01, TeXitoi wrote:
>
> I heard that some mirrors had corrupted tarball.
Huh?
Joachim Schipper writes:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 04:07:47PM +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> > On 06/01/2010 05:32 AM, Philip Guenther wrote:
> >
> > >Review your upgrade procedure, because it's clearly broken.
> >
> > Thanks for your help, seriously. And I don't want to start arguing,
> > not at a
Joachim Schipper joachimschipper.nl> writes:
> Just untarring the release should work, but it's still odd. At least
> the md5sum of pfctl matches what I just downloaded, so that seems
> fine; did you actually use *that* tarball, though? (Note that the
> "right" pfctl binary is 500856 bytes lon
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 04:07:47PM +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> On 06/01/2010 05:32 AM, Philip Guenther wrote:
>
> >Was there a common thread to what did turn up? My recall is that
> >basically every time people get "Operation not supported by device"
> >errors from pfctl, it's because their userla
On 06/01/2010 05:32 AM, Philip Guenther wrote:
Was there a common thread to what did turn up? My recall is that
basically every time people get "Operation not supported by device"
errors from pfctl, it's because their userland and kernel don't match.
Review your upgrade procedure, because it
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:20 AM, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> (I searched Google, but not much turned up.)
Was there a common thread to what did turn up? My recall is that
basically every time people get "Operation not supported by device"
errors from pfctl, it's because their userland and kernel don't m
(I searched Google, but not much turned up.)
Since I upgraded to 4.7; what I get is:
# pwd
/etc
# cat pf.conf
# works?
# pfctl -f pf.conf.47
pfctl: DIOCBEGINADDRS: Operation not supported by device
# pfctl -f /etc/pf.conf
pfctl: DIOCXCOMMIT: Device busy
Huh?
(Actually I had used the original pf.
14 matches
Mail list logo
