Where can I find all the software that comes
in install52.iso?
I've tested, as an example, with tar:
# tar --version
tar: unknown option -- -
usage: [..]
'pkg_info -A' shows nothing.
On 26/12/2012 16:57, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
install52.iso is simply the install medium. To take a peek inside, mount
the iso, cd into it and do something like
I see, but any chance to know what version of 'tar' is included in
base52.tgz? I guess, like all operating systems, OpenBSD uses v
On this page
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html
at
see the Setting up disks part of the Installation Guide
The link redirects to faq4.html#Disks which no longer exists.
When using (S)hell from live cd installer,
# gzip something > file.gz
gzip: compression not supported
# tar -jcvf archive.bz2 something
tar: could not exec bzip2: No such file or directory
Is this intentional?
I think 15.2.2 should go before 15.1.1, since if there's no point in
running pkg_* when the PKG_PATH is empty, which is after installing
using the interactive method.
Furthermore, using 'export PKG_PATH=' sets a volatile variable, which in
blank again after restarting. I think the faq may incl
On 27/12/2012 14:06, Stuart Henderson wrote:
This isn't like a Linux distribution where the whole system is
installed from a collection of different pieces of packaged software.
The base operating system is a consistent whole; pkg_info lists
only packages of third-party software which are not par
On 27/12/2012 16:16, Yusof Khalid - FreeBSD / OpenBSD wrote:
Hi,
As stated
"It's usually a good idea to add a line similar to the above examples to
your ~/.profile."
The above line should be ok to understand.. IMHO :) or did you miss the
line ?
Yes, actually I missed the point. And I still k
On 27/12/2012 16:38, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
I went through most of the FAQ this weekend and didn't see any mention
of /etc/pkg.conf as an alternative to PKG_PATH. Might be better to
document the use of this configuration file, which I think is created
automatically if you install the system from an
On 27/12/2012 17:25, Chris Bennett wrote:
You are assuming that someone will never just run base.
Base includes a lot of useful software all by itself.
Apache, PF, a working file system, lynx, vi, working X,
ntpd, mkhybrid, cdio, sftp, ssh, sendmail, mg, tons of perl stuff,
manual pages, etc, et
The BSD license says that
* Copyright (c)
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
* purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the
* above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all
* copies
That says, under my interpretat
On 29/12/2012 2:28, Andres Perera wrote:
Consider GNU autoconf. the output isn't derivative work of the source
files, regardless of how big their BSD headers are.
That's the biggest problem with autoconf, imo; not the idiosyncrasies
of the language.
Since when documentation is a derivative wor
On 29/12/2012 4:31, Matthew Weigel wrote:
And this is exactly what everyone is doing, and no one has found a way to sue
over it yet... which at least suggests your concern is misguided.
Which concern is misguided?
On 29/12/2012 16:50, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
If all you've done is compile something, you did not contribute anything
copyrightable. If you did contribute something copyrightable, you are
free to add a copyright notice of your own, in addition to simliar
notices from previous contributors.
On 30/12/2012 3:38, Jiri B wrote:
My understanding of GPL after a presetantion of a company selling products
based on GDL code is that is is also a good for business - if you
use GPL you somehow restrict your competitors that use this code in their
products without giving their improvements back
On 31/12/2012 1:32, Johan Ryberg wrote:
DNS, dhcp, firewall on a stick, vpn terminator.
Sure, it would be more easy if it had 2 interfaces but with VLAN you can do
a lot of cool stuff with rbp
If you use the model B, besides 512 MB of RAM, you have 2 USB 2.0 ports.
You can put a hub on one of
On 31/12/2012 2:06, Martin Schröder wrote:
2012/12/31 Live user:
The thing here is that Google has such a good tech that can keep the lead on
it, and even if other do that Google gets money because they are a services
based company.
No. Look at a chinese phone with Andoid and Baidu and tell
On 31/12/2012 14:33, Martin Schröder wrote:
But that will only hurt chinese telcos if they need the apps from the
Play Store.
AFAIK Google has exactly this problem in China.
Developers resident in some countries, like China, are not allowed to
publish android applications. There must be a rea
17 matches
Mail list logo
