Assuming I have an IIC trackpad, how would I be able to verify that?

In short, it doesn't work (tried iichid, synaptics, moused, etc etc) but I want to be able to at least identify the make and model of the trackpad so that I can research it more, or look at a driver.

dmesg

aesthetikx: using x11?

If dmesg (or "less /var/run/dmesg.boot") doesn't give any hint, you could also try "i2c -vs".

good morning, I looking to by a new laptop and wondering how is the support for FreeBSD on ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen 13 ?

nwe: you might have a look here, search for individual devices, like wifi, etc... bsd-hardware.info

I've never had one of those heterogenous cores Intel CPUs, sounds too messy. How is FreeBSD dealing with that?

hello ?

hello

They left.

well, bye

no ALPHA3 yet?

mzar: the build was meant to start at 6AM UTC today, i'll see if Colin has an update when he's around

no problem for me, but I believed it's automated at least by at(1) pushing the commit ;-p

no, this is a manual process (to kickoff, at least)

we're talking about the actual release, right? the pkgbase builds for pkg.f.o are automated, but the release builds are manual

yes, pkgbase builds are automated, snapshot/release builds are all manual kickoff

(and there's no alpha3 until re@ pushes the name change commit)

yep

i really want to add an rm(1) flag to unset noschg if it's set

like super -f

ivy, step away from the rm(1) src.

CrtxReavr: would you object to that change? it wouldn't be enabled by default or by -f, it would be a new flag

--yes-i-really-mean-it

CrtxReavr: if this is a "unix philosophy" issue, we should also remove -f, since you can do the same thing with chmod

mquin: i believe, according to POSIX.1, this should be spelled "-Wyes-i-really-mean-it" :-)

or did they ditch the -W thing?

-f overrides permissions.

chflags modifies flags, which are an entirely different filesystem feature.

-f overrides permissions, which you can also do with chmod. --fix-the-schg-thing would override flags, which you can also do with chflags. what's the difference?

both are simply attributes of files which already have utilities to manage them

Isn't chflags restricted to securelevel <= 0 or something?

yes, but that's the default and is what most users use. if you increased securelevel you'll just get an error, same as -f as a non-root user

actually the default seems to be -1, but either way

V_PauAmma_V, also that.

mzar: <fbsdslack> <cperciva> ivy: ALPHA3 is coming as soon as I manage to head main to build

no rush, let the release process run undisturbed

hm, immutable stuff is meant to be *difficult* to change

that will be really really sad if we can override schg with rm option, regardless to securelevel

but yes, it can happen

I am only a user, and this OS is driven by committers

so perhaps some users will appreciate and use new rm option

or maybe multiple -f

like -fff

rm -rfff /

i think that's a bad idea, because if you do something in a script like "RM='rm -f'" and then later do "$RM -f /some/file", it will change the behaviour in a surprising way

the whole idea isn't IMHO good, but rm -rfff / looks cool

hope you don't have a twitchy inde xfinger

or fall asleep with your hands over the keyboard like me the other day XD

if you script it, you can run rm -rf || chflags -R .. && rm -rf

i think you just want to spam a number of 'f' that 'feels right'

it's still doable

gate it on -fffffffff

that's even better

and then prompt twice

and then just use chflags bcs rm is so annoying

fwiw, the use case for this is that i frequently do something like "pkg -r /tmp/test install freebsd-set-base; rm -rf /tmp/test; pkg -r /tmp/set install freebsd-set-base" and currently this doesn't work because you need to chflags first

easy to make a wrapper