Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:50:40 +0200 (CEST) From: Alexander Best <alexbestms@math.uni-muenster.de> To: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: nspluginwrapper patch for testing (was: Re: flash10 vs f10) Message-ID: <permail-200907011950401e86ffa800007884-a_best01@message-id.uni-muenster.de> In-Reply-To: <200907011936.n61Jahd7061038@triton.kn-bremen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
you're right. it was my mistake. i didn't apply the patch, but added the changes manually. i probably overlooked the "2>". sorry for that. ;) alex Juergen Lock schrieb am 2009-07-01: > In article > <permail-2009070119081980e26a0b000048ca-a_best01@message-id.uni-muenster.de> > you write: > >the latest patch to get rid of the ulimit warning doesn't suppress > >the warning > >since it get's output to stderr and not to stdout. replacing it with > >"ulimit > >-s 32768 2 > /dev/null 2>&1" should work. > You mean the patch doesn't work for you? It already does redirect > stderr to /dev/null (`2>/dev/null'), which works as expected when > tested here from commandline /bin/sh and from a script, and also when > invoking firefox after ulimit -s 16384. If it doesn't work for you > there > must be something else going on... > Wondering... > Juergen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?permail-200907011950401e86ffa800007884-a_best01>