kevans91

9 ms·

61.
by kevans91 7y ago
I've seen the occasional rumbling about folks wanting to use grub for one reason or another- while not necessarily ideal (having the caveats of a non-loader environment), I can see the value in it if you really don't need the amen
62.
by kevans91 7y ago
Oh, this is cool! We'll need to check out this plugin mechanism as a thought for bectl -- it's fairly inflexible at the moment. libze_util_temporary_mount would be a good candidate for using (or being replaced by?) the recently-in
63.
by kevans91 7y ago
Presumably it would be like FreeBSD's GELI, where early boot stuff would need to detect that it's looking at an encrypted root and know to prompt. In theory, this is relatively straightforward- with boot environments, the zpool bo
64.
by kevans91 7y ago
This is specifically w.r.t. FreeBSD -- nobody put in the effort to maintain it, so it's removed in head/ as of now. As far as I'm aware, no one had tested sparc64/llvm on FreeBSD either.
65.
by kevans91 7y ago
Nothing changes here- this is solely about removing GCC 4.2 from the base/ repository; ports are almost entirely unaffected, and the GCC ecosystem in ports is fairly healthy.
66.
by kevans91 7y ago
With a tiny caveat: most folks actually won't feel this, because GCC hasn't been included in any x86 installed base system for quite a while now. Most exposure to it for many users would have been if they were cross-building archs
67.
by kevans91 7y ago
powerpc64 switched over in late December; sparc64 never made the switch (unfortunately), and mips will make the switch with the introduction of llvm 10. IIRC powerpc32 is currently using clang with old bfd ld, but lld in llvm 10 may be quic
68.
by kevans91 7y ago
> [...] so I assume even with GCC support removed, you can still build FreeBSD, if you insist, with an external copy of modern GCC. Indeed- "external toolchain" includes gcc6[0] and gcc9[1] ports that can be used specifically f
69.
by kevans91 9y ago
The search function on jQuery documentation makes me want to pull my hair out.
70.
by kevans91 10y ago
FWIW- Chromium was realllly unstable until the recent 52 -> 54 update that took place on the 22nd. Since then, it seems to be a lot more stable and performs better (on my crap hardware). I would definitely give it another shot.
71.
by kevans91 10y ago
It sounds like the author's just miffed about incompatibilities in general -- specifically, that they can't (necessarily) import python 2 code whilst running under a python 3 interpreter and vice versa.