Excerpts from Baho Utot's message of Mo Jun 15 03:14:10 +0200 2009:
> I can do thatif you can stand all the bug reports :)
I hope you understand that the problem is with upstream (if the package won't
compile because the source is not standards compliant), so it should be
reported there and no
Jonathan Brown wrote:
> Nice write-up.. I've never used hardware raid.. always just software raid1,
> but was never actually aware of all the inherent advantages software (md)
> raid has over the (dm) hardware raid that you spoke of. Very good
> information as always sir.
>
>
Thanks
Baho Utot wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 10:46 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
Baho Utot wrote:
I have setup a new computer with a clean install with
kernel26-2.6.29.4-1 does this kernel support unionfs?
This is the second system I have had trouble with.
Devtools always complains like this
bu
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 10:45 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 00:51 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 18:46 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I have encountered many packages in extra that don't compile with
> >>> gcc-4.4.0.
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 10:46 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
> > I have setup a new computer with a clean install with
> > kernel26-2.6.29.4-1 does this kernel support unionfs?
> > This is the second system I have had trouble with.
> >
> > Devtools always complains like this
> >
> > bui
Baho Utot wrote:
I have setup a new computer with a clean install with
kernel26-2.6.29.4-1 does this kernel support unionfs?
This is the second system I have had trouble with.
Devtools always complains like this
building union chroot
ERROR: No unionfs available. Abandon ship!
FAILURE: vsftpd-2.
Baho Utot wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 00:51 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 18:46 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
I have encountered many packages in extra that don't compile with
gcc-4.4.0. The easy way to fix them is to compile them with gcc-3.4
The easy way to fix
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 18:43 -0500, Dwight Schauer wrote:
> I'd have to agree with Jan on this one. The reason why packages don't
> compile on the with newer compilers is generally because the code is
> not standards compliant and needs fixing anyways. So the right thing
> to do is fix the broken pa
I'd have to agree with Jan on this one. The reason why packages don't
compile on the with newer compilers is generally because the code is
not standards compliant and needs fixing anyways. So the right thing
to do is fix the broken packages in extra and move on. Then again,
I'm not an Arch Linux d
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 00:51 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 18:46 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>
> > I have encountered many packages in extra that don't compile with
> > gcc-4.4.0. The easy way to fix them is to compile them with gcc-3.4
>
> The easy way to fix them is by reportin
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
> Hi guys,
> kernel26-2.6.30-3
> please signoff, both arches.
>
I'm having network problems (x86_64, forcedeth driver) with the kernel
in testing. Upon boot up, netcfg fails to start the network. I just
get a "- No connection" error messag
I have setup a new computer with a clean install with
kernel26-2.6.29.4-1 does this kernel support unionfs?
This is the second system I have had trouble with.
Devtools always complains like this
building union chroot
ERROR: No unionfs available. Abandon ship!
FAILURE: vsftpd-2.1.0-2-i686.pkg.tar
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 18:46 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> I have encountered many packages in extra that don't compile with
> gcc-4.4.0. The easy way to fix them is to compile them with gcc-3.4
The easy way to fix them is by reporting bugs. Bugfixing most of these
packages is very easy and takes us
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 00:13 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Baho Utot schrieb:
> > -1 from me
> >
> >
> > IMHO I would like it to see them stay in extra
> >
> > For example : imlib which has errors compiling with gcc-4.4.0
> > compiles fine
Baho Utot schrieb:
-1 from me
IMHO I would like it to see them stay in extra
For example : imlib which has errors compiling with gcc-4.4.0
compiles fine with gcc-3.4
Every normal package can be fixed to compile with the latest gcc, th
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 21:23 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Biru Ionut schrieb:
> > Jan de Groot wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 19:06 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> >>> Can we kill gcc3 and gcc34 from extra? We used to need them for qemu,
> >>> but that's fixed, so they're useless. Objections?
>
Is there any way to tell which version of gcc an executable is compiled
with?
Biru Ionut schrieb:
Jan de Groot wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 19:06 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Can we kill gcc3 and gcc34 from extra? We used to need them for qemu,
but that's fixed, so they're useless. Objections?
Move it to AUR. We don't need these anymore.
virtualbox recommendation are
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 15:12, Dan McGee wrote:
> Did the guideline for naming bugs with the [package] prefix end up in
> the relevant places? I know flyspray has a place for instructions, and
> I believe we have a wiki article as well.
It was in the header of every page in Arch Linux project on bu
Biru Ionut wrote:
Jan de Groot wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 19:06 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Can we kill gcc3 and gcc34 from extra? We used to need them for qemu,
but that's fixed, so they're useless. Objections?
Move it to AUR. We don't need these anymore.
virtualbox recommendation are gc
Jan de Groot wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 19:06 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Can we kill gcc3 and gcc34 from extra? We used to need them for qemu,
but that's fixed, so they're useless. Objections?
Move it to AUR. We don't need these anymore.
virtualbox recommendation are gcc3.3 or later excep
Dear Greg and Levlist!
So my problem is can't compile 2.6.24. kernel on my system.
More detail can be seen here:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=569145#p569145
Please help me!
Sincerelly,
Laszlo Papp
Angol, német,
spanyol,
2009/6/14 Papp László :
> http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=569145#p569145
>
> Angol, német,
> spanyol, olasz, francia nyári intenzív nyelvtanfolyamok indulnak június
> 22-től a Bonus
> Nyelviskolában.http://ad.adverticum.net/b/cl,
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=569145#p569145
Angol, német,
spanyol, olasz, francia nyári intenzív nyelvtanfolyamok indulnak június 22-től
a Bonus
Nyelviskolában.http://ad.adverticum.net/b/cl,1,6022,335167,414321/click.prm
Nice write-up.. I've never used hardware raid.. always just software raid1, but
was never actually aware of all the inherent advantages software (md) raid has
over the (dm) hardware raid that you spoke of. Very good information as always
sir.
- Original Message
From: David C. Ranki
David C. Rankin wrote:
> David C. Rankin wrote:
>> David C. Rankin wrote:
>>> Listmates,
>>>
>>> My Seagate drives are dropping like flies with less than 1400 hours of
>>> run
>>> time. (that's less than 58 days of service!)
>>
>>> That's pretty much where I am now. My next thought is to
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:12:52 +0200
Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> Did you disable DRM support in Okular?
>
pierre,
checking or unchecking the
Obey DRM limitations box
has no effect.
is there another way to disable DRM?
--
In friendship,
prad
... with you on you
Am Sonntag 14 Juni 2009 06:33:49 schrieb prad:
> when i try to do a print preview with okular i get a dialogbox saying
> it couldn't open an okular.ps file in /tmp. this is weird too because
> the file has rw permissions for the user. suggestions?
Did you disable DRM support in Okular?
--
Pierr
28 matches
Mail list logo
