On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Hubert Grzeskowiak
wrote:
> for the mirrorlist, i think an update script would suit best, but that
> may be kind of not arch-way. i run vimdiff every time there is a new
> mirrorlist, but actually you could do all that with a script, that adds
> new and deletes old
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:18, Hubert Grzeskowiak
> wrote:
>> i like the idea. what would be the disadvantages, Daenyth?
> I just think it's very ugly "solution". IMO, the current behavior is
> fine. Keep it elegant.
>
I agree... Dan made t
setting user's umask to 0022 before sudo pacman works and it's
independent of root's umask.
H.G.
Hi guys, new kernel adresses the following things:
- bump to latest version
please signoff for both arches,
greetings
tpowa
--
Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa)
http://www.archlinux.org
tp...@archlinux.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally s
I've pushed a glibc 2.9-2 to testing. I have added all changes made in
Fedora's FC10 2.9-3 rpm. They have included some minor fixes and a
workaround for the name resolving issue. This should fix our FS #12215.
Now we need to know if there are still DNS problems. If it's solved I'd
like to push it
Paul Ezvan wrote:
I have just saw this message on the LKML : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/13/95
It is the same behaviour, maybe it is related to our bug ?
Sounds quite likely: a) it's the same kernel version as us, and b) it
seems to involve inotify, which is where the dovecot people suspect
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:18, Hubert Grzeskowiak
wrote:
> i like the idea. what would be the disadvantages, Daenyth?
I just think it's very ugly "solution". IMO, the current behavior is
fine. Keep it elegant.
Pierre Chapuis schrieb:
> Le Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:03:03 +0200,
> "Grigorios Bouzakis" a écrit :
>
>> May i ask why pacman requires pacman-mirrorlist and not the other way
>> around? Pacman can operate without a mirrorlist. Pacman-mirrorlist can
>> not operate without pacman..
>
> Agreed, but I th
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 06:01, Pierre Chapuis wrote:
> Le Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:03:03 +0200,
> "Grigorios Bouzakis" a écrit :
>
>> May i ask why pacman requires pacman-mirrorlist and not the other way
>> around? Pacman can operate without a mirrorlist. Pacman-mirrorlist can
>> not operate without p
Le Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:03:03 +0200,
"Grigorios Bouzakis" a écrit :
> May i ask why pacman requires pacman-mirrorlist and not the other way
> around? Pacman can operate without a mirrorlist. Pacman-mirrorlist can
> not operate without pacman..
Agreed, but I think a lot of users would forget to in
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:40 AM, Dan McGee wrote:
> This is a dual signoff. I have split the pacman mirrorlist into its
> own package because
> 1) Pacman releases are not all that common (because its perfect
> software, of course!)
> 2) Our packaged mirrorlist often lags waaay behind the actual o
11 matches
Mail list logo
