Johan A. van Zanten | 1 Oct 23:08 2006

Re: cross compile problem, building netbsd-3 for sparc on i386


  I fixed this, but am not entirely sure how.  I mv'd my /etc/mk.conf out
of the way to test if it was a bad effect of something i'd set in there.
That seemed to fix the problem, in that "build.sh ... tools" installed a
sparc--netbsdelf-gcc.

 Next, i did a make clean, and then removed the newly-creaed "obj"
directories from /usr/src/tools.  My mk.conf sets MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX and
OBJMACHINE, so i figured i'd need to clean up since the build had run with
those set.  Then i mv'd mk.conf back to /etc, and it continued to
work. Maybe there was some cruft in my source tree.

 -johan

"Johan A. van Zanten" <johan <at> giantfoo.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> This command completes successfully:
> 
> 
>    ./build.sh -u -U -m sparc tools
> 
> 
> ===> Tools built to /tew/004/NetBSD/tools
> ===> build.sh started: Fri Sep 29 17:30:46 CDT 2006
> ===> build.sh ended:   Fri Sep 29 17:31:18 CDT 2006
> ===> Summary of results:
>          build.sh command: ./build.sh -u -U -m sparc tools
>          build.sh started: Fri Sep 29 17:30:46 CDT 2006
>          No nonexistent/bin/nbmake, needs building.
(Continue reading)

MIGUEL BORDALLO CONTRERAS | 3 Oct 15:33 2006
Picon

LDP and MPLS


Hello, i have two PCs with the NetBSD 4.99.1, and i want to configure them.

Can somebody help me to configure them? I want to get a comuncation
between them using MPLS but i dont know how to start. What are the files
i have to edit? and how?

Any advice?

Thanks 

Jeff Rizzo | 3 Oct 16:07 2006
Picon

Re: LDP and MPLS

MIGUEL BORDALLO CONTRERAS wrote:
> Hello, i have two PCs with the NetBSD 4.99.1, and i want to configure them.
>  
> Can somebody help me to configure them? I want to get a comuncation
> between them using MPLS but i dont know how to start. What are the files
> i have to edit? and how?
>
> Any advice?
>
> Thanks 
>   

You need to install MPLS-aware software;  it's not installed by
default.  I believe someone has ported Ayame MPLS to NetBSD.

+j

George Georgalis | 3 Oct 18:04 2006

Re: reverse text

Thanks for the info, Johnny.
I did find several ANSI links.
is ANSI part of the POSIX® standard
which can be incorporated in netbsd?
eg ansi(5)?

// George

On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 11:26:26AM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>To expand a little. This has nothing to do with bash or NetBSD and so 
>on... What we're talking about here is the ANSI escape codes to select 
>graphic rendition (SGR). They are documented by ANSI, and you can 
>probably find them in any number of places on the net.
>
>Good things to know:
>
>The general format is:
>
>CSI <n> ; <n> ; <n> . . . m
>
>Where CSI is the code to start an escape sequence. It can be the 8-bit 
>CSI character, or the 7-bit equivalent, which is ESC [
>
>You can then have zero or more numeric parameters, finished by a small 
>'m'. Each parameter is separated from the next one with a semicolon.
>
>If no number is given, it's the same as giving a '0'.
>
>Parameters are:
>0 - All attributes off
(Continue reading)

George Georgalis | 3 Oct 23:08 2006

Re: reverse text

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:22:26PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>You could perhaps say, however, that Posix is a part of the ANSI 
>standards. But as I said to begin with, ANSI defines standards for many 
>things.

well, in that case... is there a place in netbsd OS doc for things
like terminal escape sequence, or other ansi standards?

or something like standard(5) which could be used as an index or
bibliography for local man pages and external links. that way there
would at least be a jump table for information in the local doc,
when spec of unknown origin is needed? (I did spend/waste quite a
while with apropos &c searching for color escape sequences.)

// George

--

-- 
George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator <IXOYE><

Johnny Billquist | 3 Oct 23:28 2006
Picon

Re: reverse text

I think the first thing to realize that is is rather much outside the 
scope of NetBSD.
Second, the ANSI standard isn't the only way of doing things. The 
termcap is a fairly good source of information, even if it isn't complete.
But the termcap file is huge! But I would say that is a good place to 
start if you want information, unless you want to read standards that 
might or might not be relevant for you.
Terminals exist outside of NetBSD. It's like if we would start 
documenting how RS-232 works in NetBSD, just because we happen to have 
serial ports.

Atleast that is my view on it all. And I might be totally on my own in 
this. :-)

	Johnny

George Georgalis skrev:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:22:26PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> You could perhaps say, however, that Posix is a part of the ANSI 
>> standards. But as I said to begin with, ANSI defines standards for many 
>> things.
> 
> well, in that case... is there a place in netbsd OS doc for things
> like terminal escape sequence, or other ansi standards?
> 
> or something like standard(5) which could be used as an index or
> bibliography for local man pages and external links. that way there
> would at least be a jump table for information in the local doc,
> when spec of unknown origin is needed? (I did spend/waste quite a
> while with apropos &c searching for color escape sequences.)
(Continue reading)

George Georgalis | 4 Oct 15:06 2006

Re: reverse text

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:28:17PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>I think the first thing to realize that is is rather much outside the 
>scope of NetBSD.

I see that. but I don't entirely agree. How can programmers or
users be expected to conform to or utilize a standard when it is
difficult or impossible to know where to look or to even know if a
standard exists?

After using netbsd for nearly two years, one thing I appreciate
over Linux (where I have most of my experience) is adherence to
best practice (and presumably standards). In Linux it seems like
somebody reinvented the wheel around every corner.

If a guideline where available as to which standards are
acceptable for netbsd, where and when they are used, where they
came from, and what they are authoritative for; where they are
published and where reasonable or possible, even included; that
would go a long ways to getting everyone on the same page--I'm
not suggesting a finite set of standards should be used or people
should be discouraged from making up their own, rather the
established standards could be more visible.

>Second, the ANSI standard isn't the only way of doing things.

I understand that, what I'm describing is a means by which
developers and users can use to make an educated decision on
which standard is appropriate (vs not knowing if a standard was
available at all).

(Continue reading)

Johnny Billquist | 4 Oct 15:17 2006
Picon

Re: reverse text

But with terminals, you can't really say which standards are acceptable 
to NetBSD.
It's probably not even relevant. If someone comes with a certain 
terminal, that's what he got to play with, no matter what standard (or 
none) that the specific terminal happens to adhere to. And looking at a 
manual page on possible terminal standards will either point him to 
something that is (probably) irrelevant to him, or is so extensive that 
it covers all that the termcap library do, which means it will be larger 
than huge.

 From a NetBSD point of view, the only interesting thing is if we can 
support it or not. Preferrably we can. No matter what that terminal 
speaks. And the way we do that is via the termcap library, which covers 
exactly how each different terminal do things, or what exact 
capabilities a specific terminal have.

That's the point I'm making. If we choose to say that ANSI is the 
standard we follow, does that mean that we should stop handling all 
other terminal models? Because we can't change those terminals to start 
being ANSI. And if someone wants to know how to get a specific effect on 
the terminal that he happens to have, ANSI might just be totally useless 
to him, just as it might be just what he was looking for.

(Och, and if termcap really is termlib these days, please substitute as 
approriate. I don't really follow that development.)

I'll be quiet now. I promise. ;-)

	Johnny

(Continue reading)

Michael Gorsuch | 5 Oct 18:04 2006

CARP?

I'm looking into using CARP to build a pair of redundant firewall / 
routers within my organization.  I've read the paper 
(http://www.netbsd.org/guide/en/chap-carp.html), but would like to know 
if any of you have had any experience (good or bad) with it.  This is 
something that will eventually go into production, so I need to know 
what I'm getting myself into.

Thanks everyone,

Michael

Michael Gorsuch | 5 Oct 18:20 2006

Re: CARP?

Thank you, Liam.  I'll begin testing it out soon.

Liam J. Foy wrote:
>
> On 5 Oct 2006, at 17:04, Michael Gorsuch wrote:
>
>> I'm looking into using CARP to build a pair of redundant firewall / 
>> routers within my organization.  I've read the paper 
>> (http://www.netbsd.org/guide/en/chap-carp.html), but would like to 
>> know if any of you have had any experience (good or bad) with it.  
>> This is something that will eventually go into production, so I need 
>> to know what I'm getting myself into.
>>
>> Thanks everyone,
>>
>> Michael
>
> I have tested CARP to the greatest of my ability with no
> problems. However, I am limited due to my network for
> further testing. No one has reported any issues as of yet.
>
> Thanks,
>         ---
>         Liam J. Foy
>         <liamjfoy <at> netbsd.org>
>
>
>

(Continue reading)


Gmane