similar to: 2.0.5-pre3: torture.c doesn't compile on rh60

Building 3.0.23b I get these errors: [...] torture/rpctorture.c:377: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once torture/rpctorture.c:377: error: for each function it appears in.) torture/rpctorture.c:535: warning: passing argument 5 of 'create_procs' from incompatible pointer type torture/rpctorture.c:539: warning: passing argument 5 of 'create_procs' from

The 2.04b rpm for rh60 ships with and installs a config file for logrotate (the samba.log file in the packaging/RedHat section). ===== /var/log/samba/log.nmb { postrotate /usr/bin/killall -HUP nmbd endrotate } /var/log/samba/log.smb { postrotate /usr/bin/killall -HUP smbd endrotate } ===== 1) I think that the use of "endrotate" is wrong. There is no

giulioo@tiscalinet.it wrote: > SOLUTION: > for samba 2.0.x I need to use > smbstatus|tr '\205\212\215\225\227\202' '\340\350\354\362\371\351' > and all is ok :-) > > If someone can explain me this I'm still waiting :) Try adding the following patch to 2.0.4b. This should fix the problem and will be in the next release. Regards, Jeremy Allison, Samba

rh60/caldera1.3 2.0.x (before 2.0.5) PROBLEM: samba didn't reopen then logs after HUP. I posted about this to samba-bugs; AT corrected the problem in 2.0.5-preXX, but not completely it seems. 2.0.5 PROBLEM: samba reopens the logs after a HUP but logs only the first connection to the new log, then it keeps logging to the old one. Here is what I see: # pwd /var/log/samba # smbclient|grep

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8060 Summary: "hosts allow" in rsyncd.conf doesn't handle IPv6 subnets smaller than /64. Product: rsync Version: 3.0.8 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core AssignedTo:

character set = iso8859-1 client code page = 850 Through win9x I save a file, whose filename contains characters as: ? ? ? ? ?, on a samba share. I can see those filenames (on a samba share) ok through win9x explorer. I can see those filenames ok through ls on linux. If I open one of those file, and then look at locked files with smbstatus, they are showed with a LF in place of the localized

Many 2.0.x users have the: [1999/06/23 10:47:48, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break(773) oplock_break resend [1999/06/23 10:47:58, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break(773) oplock_break resend [1999/06/23 10:48:08, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break(773) oplock_break resend [1999/06/23 10:48:18, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break(790) oplock_break: receive_smb timed out after 30 seconds. problem. I get this

Since the release of the first 2.0.x (jan1999) I noted that smbclient '\\server\share' -Tx filename.tar was terribly slow. smbclient '\\server\share' -Tc filename.tar is as fast as 1.9.18. If I use smbclient from 1.9.18 the performance is high (with the same target pc). These are some tests with: - Win98pc - lan 10Mbps - samba-2.0.5-pre4/rh60 - a dir containing 1,2MB in 52

I get the following errors when building the torture suite under HP-UX 11i with HP AnsiC. They are actually somewhat similar to the errors that I get trying to build the whole package with gcc: Compiling torture/torture.c In file included from include/includes.h:109, from torture/torture.c:23: /usr/include/sys/socket.h:484: error: parse error before "sendfile"

Does anyone know if there's a patch out there for 2.4.9-ac10? I'm investigating what's involved to go from ext2 to 3. Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/ext3-users/attachments/20060816/cf899f58/attachment.htm>

--Qz2CZ664xQdCRdPu Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="BI5RvnYi6R4T2M87" Content-Disposition: inline --BI5RvnYi6R4T2M87 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! Unfortunately there is a very unpopular announcement to be made on this list: A netfilter security advisory. Phillipe Biondi has been

TL;DR: I am proposing to add the GCC C Torture suite [1], as an additional external source of tests for the “nightly” test suite. If you are willing to review the patch, it is here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66887 Background: While working on the RISC-V backend, we have found it useful to use additional test suites beyond the in-tree Clang and LLVM tests and the LLVM nightly tests, in order to

On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 17:34, Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 8/30/19 10:18 AM, Sam Elliott via llvm-dev wrote: > > TL;DR: I am proposing to add the GCC C Torture suite [1], as an additional external source of tests for the “nightly” test suite. If you are willing to review the patch, it is here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66887 >

Hello-- I submitted of extensions.conf that contains my "telemarketer torture" menus, last week sometime to the mailing list. I got back a note from the mailing list machinery, stating that it was too big, and would be subject to approval. No such approval came, I guess. Either I missed it, or it didn't rate, or the moderator just plain hasn't gotten around to it yet. So, I

There are 1500 tests total, and about 100 on the platform-agnostic blacklist. Alex and I do not think this is an onerous burden for maintenance, either as an external test suite or if the test suite is imported. In the long term, if we import the tests, we know we will have to do updates when the Embecosm work lands, and beyond that updates can be more sporadic. It’s not clear to me how much

Can you file a bug? Thanks. Evan On Jul 22, 2009, at 8:30 AM, robert muth wrote: > I have run the torture test again svn head rev 76522 (2009/07/20) > there are now > 2 compilation and 23 runtime failure. A tarball with reproducers is > attached. > Most problems are still vargs related. > > Robert > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Sandeep Patel

Just filed bugs for this and a new rather severe one involving address arithmetic. Robert On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > Can you file a bug? Thanks. > Evan > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 8:30 AM, robert muth wrote: > > I have run the torture test again svn head rev 76522 (2009/07/20) there are > now > 2 compilation and 23

I have run the torture test again svn head rev 76522 (2009/07/20) there are now 2 compilation and 23 runtime failure. A tarball with reproducers is attached. Most problems are still vargs related. Robert On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Sandeep Patel <deeppatel1987 at gmail.com>wrote: > I don't have a target in front of me to run these tests at the moment, > but walking

You could accept as the "passcode" the caller punching in their own phone#, then checking that against your whitelist. Lets associates get past the challenge when using someone else's phone, without their remembering some arbitrary passcode. And strangers or barred old associates who abuse it can get an earful about how you're suing them for wire fraud. Preferably after you

I don't have a target in front of me to run these tests at the moment, but walking manually through va-arg-1.c, it's pretty clear that there's some disconnect between the register spilling that happens in LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS and what happens in LowerVASTART in ARMISelLowering.cpp. deep On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:45 AM, robert muth<robert at muth.org> wrote: > I wrote a few