Am Dienstag 12 Januar 2010 schrieb Alexander Duscheleit:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:07:19 +0100
>
> Tobias Powalowski wrote:
> > Am Sonntag 10 Januar 2010 schrieb Simon Boulay:
> > > On 01/10/2010 09:48 AM, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
> > > > Am Samstag 09 Januar 2010 schrieb Simon Boulay:
> > > >> On
On Mon 11 Jan 2010 21:33 -0700, Steve Holmes wrote:
> re-read the old stuff over and over again. Nothing annoys me more
> than haveing to page through five generations of past messages in a
> single thread to get all the way to the bottom just to have a single
> line of text say something like "Th
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 21:33 -0700, Steve Holmes wrote:
> If bottom-posting is so passionately desirable, then may I suggest
> people trim down the history of a thread to the most recent 1 or 2
> generations back. Or maybe even better, just reply with no quoting
> and and briefly summarize the quo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I've been seeing some very passionate pleeds in posts lately
concerning top-posting of replies. I, for one, don't really mind
seeing top-posted e-mails like that because I can see the reply
quickly and if the thread is current in my mind, I don't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I'm fairly new to the Arch Linux scene so am still learning a lot
about package building and maintenance. Left over from my Slackware
days gone by, Iknow well the importance of the rc.d scripts and how
they work. For local stuff, there's rc.loca
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 11.01.2010 19:38, schrieb Aaron Griffin:
>> If you modify it, you should add it to the NoUpgrade line in
>> /etc/pacman.conf. The backup array is for what we INTEND to be
>> modified. Users are more than welcome to do what we don't intend
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:07:19 +0100
Tobias Powalowski wrote:
> Am Sonntag 10 Januar 2010 schrieb Simon Boulay:
> > On 01/10/2010 09:48 AM, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
> > > Am Samstag 09 Januar 2010 schrieb Simon Boulay:
> > >> On 01/09/2010 09:09 PM, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
> > >>> Am Samstag 09 Ja
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:49:50 +0100
Daniel Isenmann wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 14:20:32 +0100
> Daniel Isenmann wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > this is just a small fix for FS#13876 -[rp-pppoe] package: .so file
> > in /etc (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13876).
> > The kernel-mode plugin is now un
Am 11.01.2010 19:38, schrieb Aaron Griffin:
> If you modify it, you should add it to the NoUpgrade line in
> /etc/pacman.conf. The backup array is for what we INTEND to be
> modified. Users are more than welcome to do what we don't intend, but
> you need to control whether of not pacman mucks with
On Monday 11 January 2010 13:36:06 Carlos Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Baho Utot
wrote:
> > I always wait cat /proc/mdstat until the raid is finished, even though it
> > says you don't have to, I don't want any trouble :)
>
> I see your point but when you have 2x 1 TB drive
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Rodrigo Amorim Bahiense
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 09:40:46AM -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Rodrigo Amorim Bahiense
>> wrote:
>> > Hi all!
>> >
>> > I've posted on forum (http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=88509)
>>
On Mon 11 Jan 2010 13:54 -0500, Daenyth Blank wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 13:38, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > If you modify it, you should add it to the NoUpgrade line in
> > /etc/pacman.conf. The backup array is for what we INTEND to be
> > modified. Users are more than welcome to do what we don
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 13:38, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> If you modify it, you should add it to the NoUpgrade line in
> /etc/pacman.conf. The backup array is for what we INTEND to be
> modified. Users are more than welcome to do what we don't intend, but
> you need to control whether of not pacman mu
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Jim Pryor
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:36:55AM -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Paul Mattal wrote:
>> > On 01/06/2010 01:09 AM, Paul Mattal wrote:
>> > I've just placed dcron 4.2 into [testing]. This is a major update to dcro
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Baho Utot wrote:
> I always wait cat /proc/mdstat until the raid is finished, even though it says
> you don't have to, I don't want any trouble :)
I see your point but when you have 2x 1 TB drives, you're in for a wait.
>> #mdadm -D --scan >> /etc/mdadm.conf
>
>
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 09:40:46AM -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Rodrigo Amorim Bahiense
> wrote:
> > Hi all!
> >
> > I've posted on forum (http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=88509)
> > that the package extra/cegui was out of date and then was instructed
>
On Monday 11 January 2010 12:52:57 pm Carlos Williams wrote:
> OK - I am once again attempting to use Arch install for 2010 on my
> system which has two identical hard drives and I simply want to mirror
> both drives in a RAID1 array. I have read the Wiki so much at this
> point it has become memor
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:36:55AM -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Paul Mattal wrote:
> > On 01/06/2010 01:09 AM, Paul Mattal wrote:
> > I've just placed dcron 4.2 into [testing]. This is a major update to dcron,
> > under a new maintainer (who is an Arch user, and v
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:52:57PM -0500, Carlos Williams wrote:
> Here is my error:
>
> ::Running Hook [mdadm]
> Waiting 10 seconds for device /dev/md0
>
> Root device '/dev/md0' doesn't exist, attempting to create it
> ERROR: Failed to parse block device for ids for /dev/md0
> ERROR: Unable to
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Carlos Williams wrote:
> OK - I am once again attempting to use Arch install for 2010 on my
> system which has two identical hard drives and I simply want to mirror
> both drives in a RAID1 array. I have read the Wiki so much at this
> point it has become memorize
OK - I am once again attempting to use Arch install for 2010 on my
system which has two identical hard drives and I simply want to mirror
both drives in a RAID1 array. I have read the Wiki so much at this
point it has become memorized. I am NOT using LVM or anything, just a
Arch user who wants RAID
Am 11.01.2010 17:48, schrieb Chris Brannon:
> Is there any reason why building x86_64 packages under
> qemu-system-x86_64 would be a bad idea? It is a little slow, but it is
> usable. Plus, qemu has a curses interface.
It is not a little slow, but painfully slow (remember: the compiler runs
in a
Am Montag 11 Januar 2010 schrieb Chris Brannon:
> Is there any reason why building x86_64 packages under
> qemu-system-x86_64 would be a bad idea? It is a little slow, but it is
> usable. Plus, qemu has a curses interface.
>
> -- Chris
>
why not using a chroot for this?
ok this only works if y
Is there any reason why building x86_64 packages under
qemu-system-x86_64 would be a bad idea? It is a little slow, but it is
usable. Plus, qemu has a curses interface.
-- Chris
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Rodrigo Amorim Bahiense
wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I've posted on forum (http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=88509)
> that the package extra/cegui was out of date and then was instructed
> by Allan to post the modified PKGBUILD on the mailing list.
>
> Basically,
25 matches
Mail list logo
