Ian Snow wrote:
> On Monday 23 June 2008 15:56:04 Aaron Schaefer wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Ralph Alvy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Why is it that after the last few upgrades with pacman I can't use
>> > any 'vga=nnn' setting anymore in my grub menu.lst? I used to
>> > use 'vga=
Aaron Schaefer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Ralph Alvy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why is it that after the last few upgrades with pacman I can't use
>> any 'vga=nnn' setting anymore in my grub menu.lst? I used to
>> use 'vga=792' 'vga=795', if memory serves me here. I keep ending u
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:23:55PM +0200, Nigel Henry wrote:
> The question is though. If I go ahead with the upgrade of Firefox/Bon Echo to
> 3.0-1, is it still going to play well with the Firefox I installed from the
> Mozilla site (version 2.0.0.12). At the moment they are both happy to share
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:29:53PM -0400, David Rosenstrauch wrote:
> Whoever was involved, kudos to you on getting FF3 out into the repos. Not
> only does FF3 appear to be much faster, but it also looks like it fixes a
> very irritating bug I've been dealing with for quite a while now.
> (http
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 09:23:11PM +0200, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> On Monday 23 June 2008 19:47:23 Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > I have never NOT admitted it.
> > Our packages tend to be about "sane
> > defaults". Period.
>
> thanks
>
> > It's always been this way.
>
> really? i remember ba
David Rosenstrauch wrote:
Johannes Held wrote:
David Rosenstrauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Anyone else use the Firebug extension for Firefox? Seems like the
old version (1.05) isn't compatible with FF3.0. But I'm also unable
to upgrade to the new version (1.2.0b3). The extension home page
(htt
On Mon 2008-06-23 23:23, Nigel Henry wrote:
> I'm just about to update one of my 2 instances of Don't Panic. Firefox 3 is
> going to be installed. I'd had problems playing a radio stream from a radio
> station in the Channel Islands using Bon Echo, so downloaded and installed
> another instance
On Monday 23 June 2008 23:16:22 bardo wrote:
> > Right thats the phylosphical problem i have. I believe the apache project
> > knows alot more about apache then some random bash hackers who call
> > themself "distro developers" .
>
> Sorry for replying on this point, I really shouldn't, but I coul
I'm just about to update one of my 2 instances of Don't Panic. Firefox 3 is
going to be installed. I'd had problems playing a radio stream from a radio
station in the Channel Islands using Bon Echo, so downloaded and installed
another instance of Firefox from the Mozilla site, and installed it
I'm sorry, the first mail was incomplete.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Arvid Ephraim Picciani
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 23 June 2008 19:47:23 Aaron Griffin wrote:
>> I think you're confused
>> because "sane defaults" usually coincides with "defaults from
>> upstream". Not all upst
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Arvid Ephraim Picciani
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think you're confused
>> because "sane defaults" usually coincides with "defaults from
>> upstream". Not all upstream maintainers are sane.
>
> Right thats the phylosphical problem i have. I believe the apache p
Johannes Held wrote:
David Rosenstrauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Anyone else use the Firebug extension for Firefox? Seems like the old
version (1.05) isn't compatible with FF3.0. But I'm also unable to
upgrade to the new version (1.2.0b3). The extension home page
(https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
On Mon 2008-06-23 16:23, David Rosenstrauch wrote:
> Anyone else use the Firebug extension for Firefox? Seems like the old
> version (1.05) isn't compatible with FF3.0. But I'm also unable to
> upgrade to the new version (1.2.0b3). The extension home page
> (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-U
David Rosenstrauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Anyone else use the Firebug extension for Firefox? Seems like the old
> version (1.05) isn't compatible with FF3.0. But I'm also unable to
> upgrade to the new version (1.2.0b3). The extension home page
> (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addo
Anyone else use the Firebug extension for Firefox? Seems like the old
version (1.05) isn't compatible with FF3.0. But I'm also unable to
upgrade to the new version (1.2.0b3). The extension home page
(https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1843) tells me I need to
upgrade Firefox to u
On Monday 23 June 2008 19:47:23 Aaron Griffin wrote:
> I have never NOT admitted it.
> Our packages tend to be about "sane
> defaults". Period.
thanks
> It's always been this way.
really? i remember back when i was in irc that people got slapped around
pretty badly for asking for such blasph
On Mon 2008-06-23 18:48, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> On Monday 23 June 2008 16:59:30 Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > I agree with Simo and Jan here. While we could easily take the "do it
> > yourself" road, I always preferred the "sane defaults" side of Arch,
> > myself. That is - install some crap an
El Monday 23 June 2008 18:48:12 Arvid Ephraim Picciani escribió:
> On Monday 23 June 2008 16:59:30 Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > I agree with Simo and Jan here. While we could easily take the "do it
> > yourself" road, I always preferred the "sane defaults" side of Arch,
> > myself. That is - install so
Le Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:14:58 +0200,
Arvid Ephraim Picciani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> On Monday 23 June 2008 19:10:30 Pierre Chapuis wrote:
>
> > [1] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/misc/security_tips.html#serverroot
>
> that link states exactly the oposit of what you where saing before.
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:34 PM, David Rosenstrauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It'd be nice to have, though not crucial. It's helpful to be able to see
the contents of a package without installing it.
Yeah, you may want to post a bug to the tracker, and we can give it
of
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:43 PM, David Rosenstrauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Rosenstrauch wrote:
>>
>> Aaron Griffin wrote:
We could still save this data, especially considering Pierre wrote a
script to generate file lists in the repos themselves[1] but we
haven't got
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Arvid Ephraim Picciani
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes this is debian "out of the box ease". And i would really apprechiate if
> you finally admit it. You not willing to take a clear position is quite
> painfull and weakens the position of any fork that may come u
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:34 PM, David Rosenstrauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:27 AM, David Rosenstrauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> David Rosenstrauch wrote:
Used to be that when viewing a package's info on the Arch web s
David Rosenstrauch wrote:
Aaron Griffin wrote:
We could still save this data, especially considering Pierre wrote a
script to generate file lists in the repos themselves[1] but we
haven't gotten around to it.
1: ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/extra/os/i686/extra.files.tar.gz
Point of reference: htt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 13:14, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> that link states exactly the oposit of what you where saing before.
> no user owned files anywhere. all owned by root.
The link states that all the directories should be owned by root, no
Aaron Griffin wrote:
We could still save this data, especially considering Pierre wrote a
script to generate file lists in the repos themselves[1] but we
haven't gotten around to it.
1: ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/extra/os/i686/extra.files.tar.gz
Point of reference: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewt
On Monday 23 June 2008 19:16:28 Aaron Griffin wrote:
> Not to be snide, but your emails are always confrontational.
yeah well are YOU sitting here running server farms with arch?
if you would, you would be as pissed as me. ask glenn.
For a desktop machine, who the heck cares if they crash, but m
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:27 AM, David Rosenstrauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Rosenstrauch wrote:
Used to be that when viewing a package's info on the Arch web site that
there was a link to click on that would take you to a page that would list
the files contained i
On Monday 23 June 2008 19:10:30 Pierre Chapuis wrote:
> [1] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/misc/security_tips.html#serverroot
that link states exactly the oposit of what you where saing before.
no user owned files anywhere. all owned by root.
--
best regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Arvid E
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Arvid Ephraim Picciani
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 23 June 2008 16:59:30 Aaron Griffin wrote:
>> I agree with Simo and Jan here. While we could easily take the "do it
>> yourself" road, I always preferred the "sane defaults" side of Arch,
>> myself. That
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:27 AM, David Rosenstrauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> David Rosenstrauch wrote:
>>>
>>> Used to be that when viewing a package's info on the Arch web site that
>>> there was a link to click
Le Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:48:12 +0200,
Arvid Ephraim Picciani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> so this is the official announcment that the vanilla-style-do-it-yourself for
> professional engineers and manual readers is no more, and that in future
> there will be rather debian-style-out-of-the-box s
On Monday 23 June 2008 15:56:04 Aaron Schaefer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Ralph Alvy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why is it that after the last few upgrades with pacman I can't use
> > any 'vga=nnn' setting anymore in my grub menu.lst? I used to
> > use 'vga=792' 'vga=795', if memo
On Monday 23 June 2008 16:59:30 Aaron Griffin wrote:
> I agree with Simo and Jan here. While we could easily take the "do it
> yourself" road, I always preferred the "sane defaults" side of Arch,
> myself. That is - install some crap and it works out-of-the-box in a
> pretty decent manner. It's a v
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:27 AM, David Rosenstrauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Rosenstrauch wrote:
>>
>> Used to be that when viewing a package's info on the Arch web site that
>> there was a link to click on that would take you to a page that would list
>> the files contained in that pack
Whoever was involved, kudos to you on getting FF3 out into the repos.
Not only does FF3 appear to be much faster, but it also looks like it
fixes a very irritating bug I've been dealing with for quite a while
now. (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10066)
Thanks again!
DR
David Rosenstrauch wrote:
Used to be that when viewing a package's info on the Arch web site that
there was a link to click on that would take you to a page that would
list the files contained in that package. (i.e., equivalent to the
output of "pacman -Ql ") Seems like that functionality is
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Simo Leone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 06:36:41PM +0200, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
>>
>> before a specific point in arch history we used to tell people that making a
>> system "secure" and "easy" is the job of a sysadmin.
>>
>> For peopl
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Ralph Alvy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is it that after the last few upgrades with pacman I can't use
> any 'vga=nnn' setting anymore in my grub menu.lst? I used to
> use 'vga=792' 'vga=795', if memory serves me here. I keep ending up with a
> message at boot t
39 matches
Mail list logo
