Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 01:51:20 +0300 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Subject: Re: OPIE breakage: backout & patch for review Message-ID: <20030216225120.GA6374@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20030216153951.A98564@FreeBSD.org> References: <20030216185426.GB52253@dragon.nuxi.com> <200302161911.h1GJBnaX034785@grimreaper.grondar.org> <20030216204847.GA5233@nagual.pp.ru> <20030216153951.A98564@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 15:39:51 -0600, Juli Mallett wrote: > > Can you explain how this stops purely opieized apps from working? I was > under the impression the implicit case was still there, we just have a > more explicit contract with the OPIE system. This is not pure situation but mix with opiezed and opiezed+pamified apps families contradiction. Each of the families will produce different behaviour in the variant was commited initially by des (now he fix things properly). If you tune opiezed+pamified apps to work as you need, pure opizeded stops working and vice versa. I mean localhost handling. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030216225120.GA6374>