[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [MiNT] Was: /proc, will be: /sys

To: "MiNT mailing list" <mint@gfanrend.fishpool.fi>
Subject: RE: [MiNT] Was: /proc, will be: /sys
From: "Julian Reschke" <reschke@muenster.de>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 12:13:53 +0100
Cc: "MiNT mailing list" <mint@gfanrend.fishpool.fi>
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <Pine.MNT.4.10.9911131306001.250-100000@rakastaja>
Reply-to: <reschke@muenster.de>
Sender: owner-mint@gfanrend.fishpool.fi

> > If it works then, this is another case where the recent
> > changes for "security" have broken a useful and functional
> > interface.
>
> I use SECURELEVEL=1 in MINT.CNF, if this means anything.

Is it too much to ask to try again with security turned off and then to
report again???

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [MiNT] Was: /proc, will be: /sys
  - From: Martin-Eric Racine <q-funk@pp.fishpool.fi>

References:
- RE: [MiNT] Was: /proc, will be: /sys
  - From: Martin-Eric Racine <q-funk@pp.fishpool.fi>

Prev by Date: [MiNT] UUCP problem
Next by Date: RE: [MiNT] Was: /proc, will be: /sys
Previous by thread: RE: [MiNT] Was: /proc, will be: /sys
Next by thread: RE: [MiNT] Was: /proc, will be: /sys
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread