00:48:35 i need to set UFS partitioning in installerconfig, but failing.. anyone here can help me? 01:20:33 does anyone know off hand if FreeBSD supports /31 IPv4 subnets? (maybe a strange question but Linux didn't support this until surprisingly recently) 01:23:50 anyone get g_dev_taste failed to g_attach error=6 in console? 04:08:27 mzar: http://erdgeist.org/arts/software/ezjail/#author-contact 06:04:52 rtprio: yes, are you in touch with the author ? 09:25:19 Guys, I have a elantech touchpad, and I have enabled the hw.psm.elantech_support. But still it does not work. What should I do? 09:26:21 here is my hw.psm sysctl: https://privatebin.spmzt.net/?fb9296470e171ed8#7jBTFcopPJv4ztWWwZazvX8mio4yedhojwuP5krMyQL7 10:25:39 how do i reinstall ezjail from scratch? 10:25:49 i want ot make a fresh installation 10:39:25 because apparently my jail is incompatibile with the abi my host provides 10:39:54 so maybe i just updae the jail 10:40:00 idk, guys? 10:40:08 yes, go for it 10:40:19 how to update te jail then? 10:41:04 https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/12dY9qjU/Zrzut%20ekranu%20z%202025-02-13%2011-40-48.png 10:41:13 that's what i get, idk what to do 10:44:36 wsky: are you running STABLE or CURRENT ? if not use -u or -U 10:44:47 stable 10:45:06 i never used ezjail before 10:45:27 have you built this stable ? 10:45:34 no 10:46:07 the host is 14.2 10:46:30 14.2-RELEASE 10:46:46 OK, so you are not running STABLE 10:46:58 procede with -U 10:47:10 what exact ommand should it be? 10:47:49 ezjail-admin update -U probably 10:48:03 freebsd-update: Cannot upgrade from 14.2-RELEASE to itself 10:48:22 OK, so you are up to date 10:49:31 so what's wrong then? 10:49:53 everything is fine 10:52:02 nope 10:52:48 https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/HucCRCOc/Zrzut%20ekranu%20z%202025-02-13%2011-52-36.png 10:54:17 and then when i install matrix-conduit i get abi error 10:54:18 bug? 10:54:46 you are running kernel 14.0 10:54:49 too old 10:55:07 [root@vlepy /usr/src]# uname -a 10:55:07 FreeBSD vlepy.com 14.2-RELEASE-p1 FreeBSD 14.2-RELEASE-p1 GENERIC amd64 10:56:06 what are the numbers from "uname -KU" inside jail ? 10:56:19 1402000 1400097 10:56:43 OK, so ezjail userland is from 14.0 10:56:54 ok so what now? 10:57:19 maybe you'll figure out how to update it ? 10:57:35 :(( 10:57:52 thanks anyway 10:59:48 it should be doable with "ezjail-admin update -U" after setting UNAME_r, read ezjail-admin(8) 11:06:59 so what should i exactly do? 11:10:51 so what should i exactly do?/ 11:11:07 what $UNAME_r should contain? 11:12:36 do a 'file //basejail/bin/sh', it gives you the version of the jail. Then do a 'ezjail-admin update -U -s ' 11:13:42 i understand now 11:13:43 thanks 11:19:42 alright guys, i got it 11:19:45 at least this 11:19:50 thanks 11:22:35 root@conduit:~ # conduit 11:22:35 thread 'main' panicked at src/main.rs:55:55: 11:22:37 now what 11:24:14 alright i'm doing progress 11:49:58 i'm having an issue with matrix-conduit 11:50:37 it runs fine from command line but from rc level (with service conduoit start) only prints starting message and nothing happens 11:53:16 that is happening in my ezjail container 12:00:18 you might want to upgrade the packages again in that jail 12:00:37 all up to date 12:01:31 the program runs fine manyually from command line 12:01:45 pkg upgrade -f ? 12:01:49 but from rc silently fails 12:02:08 oh no i didn't do -f :D 12:02:31 seems odd, actually, maybe something with a path in the config that is restricted for conduit? 12:02:55 I know it should run fine as a service, because I used it a while 12:04:22 possibly a bug? 12:04:31 brb cig 12:10:13 back 12:35:45 ok now i get: 12:35:51 2025-02-13T12:33:23.372724Z ERROR conduit: The database couldn't be loaded or created error=RocksDbError { source: E 12:35:51 rror { message: "IO error: While renaming a file to /var/lib/matrix-conduit//LOG.old.1739450003372120: /var/lib/matr 12:35:51 ix-conduit//LOG: Permission denied" } } 12:35:57 in conduit logs 12:38:56 and i get now root@conduit:~ # conduit 12:38:56 Segmentation fault (core dumped) 12:38:59 xD 12:39:04 wth is going on 13:00:27 ok i have it running :D thanks 14:48:38 permissions? 17:36:33 is there a good gui totp thing in the ports any of you would recommend? looking for something that's not bundled into a password manager (unless it's pass). 19:21:45 i don't know of one, have you searched the ports tree already? 19:22:28 I feel im the only BSD user which detests GPL... everyone recommends me GPL nonfree BS and gets pissed when I call it nonfree (I know GPL is officially a free licence, but imo not free enough), am I just insane? 19:26:05 it's not worthwhile to get worked up over 19:26:11 is there really a way to avoid all gpl software these days? 19:26:18 fink: no ;( 19:26:38 polarian: what are you missing from the base install? :) 19:26:51 when I hear "enforcing freedom" I cringe 19:27:10 you got an editor, a c compiler, what else do you really need 19:27:16 getz: back foul emacs user :) 19:27:26 ;) 19:27:39 You have no power here servant of Stallman!!! 19:28:15 getz: hmm lemme think... anything desktop related is GPLv3 19:28:59 oh and AGPL popularity is increasing, as if the infection client side wasnt bad enough, its spread server side too!! 19:30:11 anyways stripping back my reliance on GPL code is 2026 mes problem, 2025 is eliminating my reliance on Linux 19:30:54 2026, living in a hut and raising sheep 19:32:24 rtprio: I wish 19:32:38 im stuck in London until Summer 2026 19:33:38 maybe if I directed my anger at GPL into studying I could contribute lol 19:46:51 polarian: don't be angry at the GPL, be angry at the corporations that lead to the GPL and the general mess that copyright law and patents bring to the wider software ecosystem :P 19:51:02 dstolfa: yet tje corporations give back more than GPL folks do... 19:51:04 the* 19:51:11 dont forget who funds freebsd 19:51:35 you dont fight copyright with copyright... 19:51:53 sorry "copyleft" which is just GNU rhetoric for "copyright" 19:52:57 a few companies that choose to employ freebsd developers and contribute some, but not all code back doesn't automatically mean you should excuse the 95%+ of companies that actively make the world a worse place through use of copyright and patents. the GPL is a symptom, not the problem 19:53:25 you dont use the actions of a few against the many 19:53:49 OpenBSD (not sure about freebsd) thrived from small ISPs adopting it 19:53:57 giving back... 19:54:18 just because some big companies such as Apple dont give back doesnt mean they are all like that 19:54:22 i'm well aware of how the BSDs get their funding and development funded. i still fundamentally disagree with you, though 19:54:30 apple does actually give back, just indirectly 19:54:50 https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions 19:56:12 Apple also funds conferences but hey ho they are the biggest example used 19:56:59 dstolfa: theres a good reason both freebsd and openbsd have GPL reduction/removal goals 19:57:48 BSD takes from Linux, thats against GPL, Linux takes from BSD, thats fine! They take just like corporations do and weaponise the GPL... 19:58:03 GPL serves nobody but the FSF lawyers in which it was written to benefit 19:59:17 so yes it is a big deal GPL code... because once you adopt a single line of GPL, your entire code must abide by GPL conditions and all derivatives... you lose your freedom as a developer to do with your code as you wish. 20:02:13 it's not just adopting a single line of code, it's even packaging a library, no? if you package a (bsd) + b (gpl), a+b = gpl? 20:03:10 dstolfa: what freedom has the GPL even maintained? My wifi AP runs their Linux enshitification, what freedom do I have there? Its still blobbed and highly proprietary... but HEY at least they must release their Linux src tree, makes everything better? right? right!!? 20:03:21 fink: indeed 20:04:41 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#%22Viral%22_nature hate to agree with Microsoft, but they weren't wrong here 20:05:46 polarian: you're arguing with yourself, i have never said that i prefer the GPL over permissive licenses. i'm saying that the GPL is a symptom of a broken system of copyright and patents, not the cause of misfortunes that arise from it 20:06:38 dstolfa: and I argued the GPL hasnt even helped with the "broken system" you have referenced... 20:06:43 so what is its purpose then? 20:06:46 i never said it did 20:06:48 i said it's a symptom 20:06:49 not the cause 20:06:52 oh.. 20:06:55 * polarian stupid 20:08:47 the GPL (and AGPL) are basically knee jerk reactions to a broken copyright system. the end result is that GPL'd software just ends up with a thin client and a service that uses 80-90% of GPL code but runs on a server, so no binary is distributed and therefore no code needs to be shared. also a great cause of division in the FLOSS world 20:10:54 and the way copyright law works in most places, only the holder of said copyright can sue for license violations. which... well, good luck suing a large company on your own 20:15:36 dstolfa: but nothing forces you to adopt big tech software other than your job, school or potentially government... its not the companies which tie your hands its your superiors 20:15:57 polarian: sure, the same superiors who made said broken laws :P 20:16:10 well there we have it, blame the government haha 20:16:18 i usually do 20:16:23 whos up for a revolution /j 20:19:41 i'm trying to set up a freebsd wireguard server. i have wireguard running on the server and the client can connect and ping the wireguard server's private ip over the connection. the wireguard client can't connect to the wider internet through the connection though. do i need to set up nat in pf for that? 20:19:44 ek ^ 20:37:16 demido: Yep. You'll likely need to setup an outbound NAT rule in PF to the WAN interface. 20:38:25 ok got that. and so i can pass all udp traffic to me, i added a rdr rule too. but to avoid the wireguard port being sucked into that, i added no rdr rule for wireguard port 20:38:59 seems to be all working. i can get network out from wg client through wg server, wg client can connect to wg server, and all udp traffic is coming in to wg client through the rdr rule on wg server 20:39:08 all good so far? 20:39:46 yep 20:40:41 ok so now i'm gonna try to start adding firewall rules, to block unwanted stuff on the wg server so it doesn't even make it to wg client. so i removed the 'pass' qualifier on the rdr directive, and now i'll start adding some explicit blocks. right? 20:42:26 demido: Sure. Add whatever you want to the rules. Just make sure you take it one step at a time (or have backups of working configurations.) 20:50:05 or, YOLO-ops 21:03:08 rtprio: Been through that too many times to even consider it anymore. 21:03:46 nvim with undo cache and some sort of RCS is the only way to go. 21:04:13 Of course, with testing, it's not that big of a deal. But, in testing, if something works and then I break it and can't figure out why, that sucks. 21:40:10 ek rtprio ok these are my pf config and they seem perfect but pls double check me: https://termbin.com/mhxs 21:41:14 and basically the point is, i can ssh into server. wg client can connect to server to establish wireguard connection. all udp above 1023, except for wireguard port, is redirected to wg client. wg client can nat all traffic out through wg server. wg server can pass all traffic of its own out 21:59:53 demido: It appears it will most likely work (aside from the missing NAT for outbound WG to WAN?) 22:00:42 I'm still unsure what all the extra rdr and pass rules are for. It doesn't seem to accomplish much? What, exactly, are you trying to do with all the extra rules? 22:00:52 Why not just keep it simple, like this?: https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/wireguard-setup-with-pf-problems.72623/#post-448368 22:01:11 'pass all' for 1 22:01:33 "aside from the missing NAT for outbound WG to WAN" how is my 1 nat rule not doing that? 22:07:35 demido: But, what is wrong with "pass all" from inside the WG server? What are you trying to prevent? 22:07:57 some stuff i want to block at the server 22:08:24 You want to block outgoing requests from the server side? 22:08:38 no i wanna block some stuff in to the server from public internet 22:09:06 Is the firewall for the WG server or the WG client? 22:09:12 both 22:09:38 runs on wg server, has rules that apply to both wg server itself, and wg client 22:10:21 So, by default, everything is blocked from public. There's no reason to specifically block things. You only need to allow specific requests. 22:10:36 How they are blocked, of course, is up to you (you can be more specific.) 22:11:27 ok 22:11:38 well it's all working as is anyway so i'm gonna just move on but ty 22:11:47 So, on the server-side, open the SSH (tcp) and WG (udp) ports for the the client (can be specific address or "any".) 22:12:23 Then, NAT the WG interface to the WAN interface and pass out "all". That way, the WG server itself as well as the client can reach out to the internet. 22:13:23 On the client-side, by default, a PF firewall will allow all out and not allow anything in (from an unrequested source.) So, you don't really need to do anything. 22:13:58 A client request will be allowed out to the WG server and the WG server response will be allowed back in and a connection will complete. 22:17:50 demido: I'm glad to hear it's all working. 22:21:04 ty for your help 22:21:10 you get your bhyve issue fixed? 22:23:00 Nope. No one has any clue as to why it happened or how to fix it. I gave up and just rebooted. If I run into the issue again, I'll come back to it. 22:23:16 Thanks for asking! 22:29:41 dang 22:29:49 have a 2nd box you can setup with dupe config and test on? 23:02:09 exit 23:21:59 demido: Not at the moment, no. And, to top it off, I'm not sure I'll be able to reproduce the issue yet. I can't remember exactly what's happened, to be honest. So, I'll just wait it out. 23:25:16 ok