Thanks!

• synopsis
• fix example

• Add BUGS section
• Fix style of the license comment
• Wordsmith the description section
• Condense SYNOPSIS

Thanks!

This could be closed in favor of https://reviews.freebsd.org/D49500

• Better description of kern.geom.zero.clear

• Rename file to geom_zero.4
• Add MLINKs

• Fix SPDX location
• Reference bio(9)
• Explain the clear sysctl now that I have a better understanding of it
• Add some notes from the original commit introducing ZERO

I took a look at the rc script and I've got some suggestions.

Why did we sleep in the for loop in the first place before?

Refresh after the lmdb fixes

Fix the lmdb problem

Refresh

In D52168#1199671, @yasu wrote:

After applying D52167 to latest ports tree, I tried to apply this one
but it failed as below.

% LANG=C.UTF-8 git apply -p0 ~/tmp/D52168.diff
/home/yasu/tmp/D52168.diff:1737: trailing whitespace.
 
/home/yasu/tmp/D52168.diff:1738: trailing whitespace.
 
/home/yasu/tmp/D52168.diff:1764: trailing whitespace.
 
/home/yasu/tmp/D52168.diff:1781: trailing whitespace.
 
/home/yasu/tmp/D52168.diff:1803: trailing whitespace.
 
error: net/samba422/files/patch-source3_modules_vfs__freebsd.c: No such file or directory
%

Remove portfmt noise from the patch.

I am not sure if we should make our services read load more configuration files or perhaps solve this issue with symlinks.

The current version of the patch is exactly what Andrej Ebert submitted to https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=287985. I've not modified it apart from adding samba422 to net/Makefile.

Thanks for posting this!

In D52055#1189614, @markj wrote:

In D52055#1189603, @0mp wrote:

In D52055#1189573, @markj wrote:

In D52055#1189300, @avg wrote:

LGTM.

Maybe we can even retire printm...
I never knew it existed.

We probably should keep it, if only for backward compatibility purposes, but indeed I hadn't encountered it either.

That's a good candidate for the section BUILT-IN FUNCTIONS in d(7).

Not really, I would rather document tracemem() instead and leave printm() undocumented to discourage its use. (Or find some reason that printm() is useful.)

In D52055#1189573, @markj wrote:

In D52055#1189300, @avg wrote:

LGTM.

Maybe we can even retire printm...
I never knew it existed.

We probably should keep it, if only for backward compatibility purposes, but indeed I hadn't encountered it either.

I think this is covered by portmgr blanket (build fix) BTW.