markmcb: that pkg-version issue will be fixed in the next pkg release, in the mean time we decided to also remove FreeBSD-ftpd (not freebsd-ftpd) entirely, since it was already slated for 15.0 and just wasn't done yet

Does anyone have IPv6 working on wireguard

for some reason I can't get it to work

IPv4 works just fine, IPv6 works on my phone too

so I know its not a router side issue

pf isn't dropping the packet

wg-quick routes seem to be correct

yet no IPv6 packets will pass

The host interface is IPv4 only, but this doesn't matter over a wireguard tunnel

wtf it just started working without me even touching it

oh wait it is firefox which is the issue

I would have asked for netstat -r -W -n and ifconfig output to debug the issue, but as it is solved…

welp this is buggy asf, restarted wireguard and now it doesn't work again

nimaje: sure sorry about that, I should have pastebinned that too

it doesn't seem like firefox detects IPv6 though :/

alright so, checking wg0 the IPv6 packets are passing out, but there is no response passing back in

the response is being dropped for some reason

nimaje: bpa.st/XRKPU here, stripped the public addresses out

it literally just randomly worked for a few seconds and now isn't again

oh wait it was because I was over ssh, thats why "it worked" xD

it never worked basically I mixed up my terminals :P

can you look at the other side how it handles the packages? as you said they go out but no response is comming

alright sure

thats a good suggestion actually

nimaje: no IPv6 packets hit the other side

so I can assume my laptop must be dropping them then

I see IPv6 packets from my phone going via the tunnel

working just fine, but freebsd? nahj

ivy: that's great! thanks for closing the loop

ivy: hrm i ended up having to blast usr/local and /var/db/pkg and rebuilding everything

not sure what i was expecting

ignore my IPv6 shit

I found the issue :)

what was it? faulty firewall?

polarian, Yes, what was it?

dsmith: making me say now are we? :P

its classic bad documentation of your network

the documented IPv6 address for my phone differed than the actual one in the config

reason? I reinstalled android a lot on my phone in the last year, with DivestOS going EOL, then CalyxOS having trouble (and EOL for 6 months) and now on LineageOS :P

polarian, the "documented IP" is likely a temporary (privacy extension IP) and the "actual" is probably an EUI-64 SLAAC IP.

CrtxReavr: dunno what you are talking about

the IP I had written down as allocated in my docs for my network differed from the one in the config

in other words, I hadn't updated the docs

which meant when I manually assigned the next "free" IPv6

Okay - sorry for misinterpreting.

rtprio, hope you remembered to change your shell back to something !under /usr/local. >=]

the big thing was grub2 and curl

but then ports were so broken i had to start over

Been there.

Been a long time, fortunatly, but I've been there.

Not letting things other than ports & pkg install things to $LOCAL_BASE goes a long way to help with that.

I normally maintain a /usr/opt/ prefix for things I write, maintain, or compile by hand.

kind of sad that freebsd pollutes /usr/local so badly people can't actually use it for its intended use. i build my ports under /pkg instead

build them, or use them under /pkg ?

i don't think it's a pollution

rtprio: i mean i build them with LOCALBASE=/pkg

how we do things work these days, now that we have user.localbase?

s/we/well/

kevans_: i had to fix ~5 ports out of a few hundred, other than that it seems to work well. i think it actually broke make -C release more than anything in ports :-)

you will want my recent fix to /etc/defaults/rc.conf if you want to try it, otherwise the ldconfig path doesn't get set properly

hmm

things like syslog.conf are also a little bit of a challenge

you almost need some of these to be generated at build time to get it 'just right', rather than complicating everything with some form of variable substitution at runtime

ivy: do you use /usr/local for? ports rather than pkg? builds that aren't either pkg or ports? nothing?

rtprio: things which are local to the system. system-specific shell scripts, for example

that reminds me of the netbsd/pkg+pkgsrc pattern

yeah, netbsd did this correctly

dsynth?

or synth?

CrtxReavr: why can't you?

There's always some that won't build. It's very inconsistent these days.

rtprio: practically a lot of stuff breaks with portmaster nowadays. for example if you have freebsd-gcc installed, you can't build any llvm or rust ports

there's been a somewhat concerted effort to require clean environments for building ports

Nothing in ports shoudl be build with gcc anymore.

that's a nice idea in theory

CrtxReavr: freebsd-gcc is for building the base system

How long did we wait to get gcc out of base?

since we support doing that, freebsd developers need freebsd-gcc installed to test it

What shell do you guys use? I'm coming from 20 years of using bash in linux.

(t)csh

impulse: zsh

but if you like bash, you can just keep using bash, it works fine in freebsd

yea, i'm trying to decide if i should keep using bash or try something with a BSD license to get the full BSD experience

does tcsh use libedit these days?

The only thing that trips me up moving from bash to fbsd sh is lack of M-. But I found a vi-mode command that is almost the same "_"

"vi-history-word"

dsmith: you use plain sh?

On fbsd, yes.

For about 2 weeks now...

sh is not too bad as an interactive shell since it got line editing and history search, i no longer feel an urge to change root's shell to csh

Used to use fbsd years (20?) ago. Probaby used bash on it then

impulse, "ldd /bin/tcsh" says it doesn't.

oh but "ldd /bin/sh" does

interesting

Older bash versions supported a static-build option. . . I used to toss it in /bin/.

impulse: i think line editing in tcsh predates the existence of libedit, which was written specifically to add line editing to NetBSD base tools

ivy: yea looks like. i would probably prefer to use libedit though so i can have one configuration between all cli's

dsmith: should be able to add M-. to your libedit configuration

Changing root's shell to something not in your / volume is great. . . until something goes sideways and you can't mount /usr for instance.

without switching to vi mode

hmm no libedit on zsh either

I remember db talking about having a sysadmin who refused to install vi becuase they thought it was too much of a resource hog.

CrtxReavr: do you use sh as root then? or do you immediately invoke another shell when you log in?

CrtxReavr: was that in an embedded environment?

CrtxReavr: seems reasonable. ed(1) (the standard text editor) only requires 1 line, vi(1) can use up to 80 lines. that's 80x more lines!

impulse, no. . . just old.

impulse, I typically just leave root's shell as the csh default. . . and I alsomost every need to use it, 'cause I set my own shell as bash and 'sudo -s' keeps most of my environment, so. . . win-win.

root's shell is /bin/sh by default now (since 13?)

on my system, root's shell seems to be sh

impulse, Yes, I have `bind "^[." vi-history-word` in my ~/.editrc

I notice it's set to sh on this VPS I IRC from. . . and I don't remember if I set that or if it changed somewhere.

This is an old VPS. . . it was prolly installed as 5.x or 6.x

Huh. . . must have changed to /bin/sh in a merge I didn't pay much attention too.

oh. libedit doesn't have yank-last-arg. i guess it's not really a dropin replacement for readline

Yeah, the vi-history-word is not exactly the same. Adds an extra space. Close enough for my muscle memory