From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 25 06:57:09 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F201106564A for ; Sun, 25 Sep 2011 06:57:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matheus@eternamente.info) Received: from phoenix.eternamente.info (phoenix.eternamente.info [109.169.62.232]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E89F8FC08 for ; Sun, 25 Sep 2011 06:57:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by phoenix.eternamente.info (Postfix, from userid 80) id 7AE5D1CC68; Sun, 25 Sep 2011 03:57:02 -0300 (BRT) Received: from 186.214.130.117 (SquirrelMail authenticated user matheus) by eternamente.info with HTTP; Sun, 25 Sep 2011 03:57:02 -0300 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110925064634.GA31810@icarus.home.lan> References: <4E7DB740.9070206@rdtc.ru> <20110924111221.GA11624@icarus.home.lan> <36bdbdceb6cc95300d91690d1cf3e0e6.squirrel@eternamente.info> <20110924121001.GA14219@icarus.home.lan> <73a60aa11fb5447170894bc1bfc814bc.squirrel@eternamente.info> <48538aca6cfa538b6e7db4c414ab42ef.squirrel@eternamente.info> <20110925064634.GA31810@icarus.home.lan> Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 03:57:02 -0300 From: "Nenhum_de_Nos" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Subject: Re: Realtek integrated nic problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 06:57:09 -0000 On Sun, September 25, 2011 03:46, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 03:32:36AM -0300, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: >> >> On Sat, September 24, 2011 22:12, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> > Surely this is something to take up with the pfsense team? >> >> about the compiling issue yes, but yet the info about the if_re.ko is of >> great value here :) >> >> as Jeremy said, the maintainer would be the best person to answer this >> :) > > I believe Adrian's point (and it's 100% valid) is that for pfSense > issues you really need to bring them up with the pfSense folks. We all > recognise pfSense is based on FreeBSD, but it's a fairly customised > environment. > > Point is that mailing a FreeBSD list about issues centralised to pfSense > isn't the best choice; for example, you wouldn't mail the lkml list > about an issue with Red Hat. You have to bring these issues to the > distributor's attention first. > > The other benefit is that by bringing it to the pfSense folks' > attention, it may be possible to get a patch or updated driver brought > in to the pfSense tree, which could fix the problem for future users. > > The FreeBSD mailing lists, generally speaking, have no idea what the > state of things is with pfSense. For example *I* have no idea what > FreeBSD version they use, what custom modifications they have in place, > etc.. I follow FreeBSD, I don't follow pfSense. :-) I know Jeremy. I just said about pfSense as I thought it would give some context about the problem, but my issue now that I know 8.2 would run the nic fine (thing FreeBSD related, I suppose), is if is safe to run one .ko from 8.2 on 8.1. I just asked here because I think its related to FreeBSD, regardless of pfSense being the target box. If on FreeBSD it is possible, I'll find out about pfSense afterward. My focus here is FreeBSD. no intention to make a big deal about this, nor to make off-topic questions here. If it is seen as such, I'll shut up then. thanks, matheus -- We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style