On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 11:09:57PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
> Alistair Crooks writes:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 06:47:37PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> >> > You're right, if you believe that the failure of a run
Alistair Crooks writes:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 06:47:37PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
>> > You're right, if you believe that the failure of a runtime check for
>> > the length of time_t being greater than or equal to 4 by
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 08:52:40PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
| lu...@netbsd.org wrote:
|
| > Modified Files:
| > src/sbin/fsck_ffs: fsck_ffs.8
| >
| > Log Message:
| > Use "FFSv2" instead of "UFS2".
|
| There was a related comment around PR/38192:
| http://mail-index.NetB
hi,
have you checked callers and ensure that the change from EACCES to EPERM
won't be a problem?
YAMAMOTO Takashi
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: elad
> Date: Thu May 7 21:51:47 UTC 2009
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/netinet6: ip6_output.c ipsec.c
>
> Log Message:
> Remove s
lu...@netbsd.org wrote:
> Modified Files:
> src/sbin/fsck_ffs: fsck_ffs.8
>
> Log Message:
> Use "FFSv2" instead of "UFS2".
There was a related comment around PR/38192:
http://mail-index.NetBSD.org/source-changes/2008/03/09/msg003309.html
>> do we really want to call it FFSv2?
>> we call
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:14:01PM -0400, Rafal Boni wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:37:51PM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 01:10:04PM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > > > Your change works around a bug with sparc64
> > >
> > > it's sparc, not sparc64.
> > >
> > > > or
