On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:57 AM, jwbirdsong
wrote:
> On 03/16/2010 10:54 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Ty John wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:08:22 +0530
>>> Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
> USB mice have worked without hal for a
On 03/16/2010 10:54 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Ty John wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:08:22 +0530
Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
USB mice have worked without hal for a long time. It's just
hotplugging that won't work.
Well, I recently co
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:24:54 +0530
Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Ty John
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:08:22 +0530
> > Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
> >
> >> > USB mice have worked without hal for a long time. It's just
> >> > hotplugging that won't work.
> >
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Ty John wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:08:22 +0530
> Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
>
>> > USB mice have worked without hal for a long time. It's just
>> > hotplugging that won't work.
>> >
>>
>> Well, I recently copied /etc/group.pacnew to /etc/group which didn't
>
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:08:22 +0530
Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
> > USB mice have worked without hal for a long time. It's just
> > hotplugging that won't work.
> >
>
> Well, I recently copied /etc/group.pacnew to /etc/group which didn't
> have the hal and gdm groups.
> HAL didn't start, and when
So far, after eliminating flush option, I achieved a speed of 3.9 MB/s
which was previously 1-2 MB/s.
If I could somehow force the async option, I think speed would
increase more. Any ideas ?
The async option appears true (configured) in hal-device, but doesn't
get mounted with that option.
--
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
> I would love to jump into pacman-dev team. But I don't know C or C++
> whatever pacman is written in. :( :( :(
> I can contribute in PHP.
You might then want to look into helping out the devs of the AUR
webapp, if you care about it. T
I would love to jump into pacman-dev team. But I don't know C or C++
whatever pacman is written in. :( :( :(
I can contribute in PHP.
--
Nilesh Govindarajan
Site & Server Administrator
www.itech7.com
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Ty John wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:08:42 -0500
> "Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr." wrote:
>
>> the usb mice don't work without hal, or do they now. They didn't used
>> to
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Damjan Georgievski
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Does anyone know how
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:08:42 -0500
"Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr." wrote:
> the usb mice don't work without hal, or do they now. They didn't used
> to
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Damjan Georgievski
> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know how much of HAL is needed in ArchLinux these days?
> > I'm aski
the usb mice don't work without hal, or do they now. They didn't used to
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Damjan Georgievski wrote:
> Does anyone know how much of HAL is needed in ArchLinux these days?
> I'm asking because I've learned that both udev and HAL configure the
> keymap of input device
Does anyone know how much of HAL is needed in ArchLinux these days?
I'm asking because I've learned that both udev and HAL configure the
keymap of input devices nowdays and
I wonder what other former HAL features are already implemented in udev.
--
damjan
I've done the ill fated -Syu right before a project deadline. Something in
the update broke mdraid and my system wouldn't boot until I booted from
livecd to redo the -Syu. I think maybe my mirror was syncing when I was
updating and my packages were mismatched.
Never update when facing a deadline.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Ananda Samaddar
> Would there be any enthusiasm for a dedicated security team? I feel
> strongly enough about it that if something can't be done then I'm
> switching to another distro. Despite the fact that I really like Arch,
> it's one deficiency is a pretty gla
On 17/03/10 10:06, Linas wrote:
Do you think this is a good idea? Which solution do you prefer?
And most important, what would be needed to reach there?
There has been discussions on the pacman-dev mailing list and is even
partial implementation for package signing available. You should
rese
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 20:06, Linas wrote:
> I had already this email draft in my head, but Ananda 'Arch Linux security
> is still poor' thread, on which the point was also brought up, moved me to
> really write it.
There's a bug on the tracker about this, please contribute there.
There's no poi
On 03/16/10 14:12, David Rosenstrauch wrote:
On 03/16/2010 01:58 PM, Thayer Williams wrote:
Welcome aboard and glad you're getting things sorted out. Once you
have used a rolling release distro, everything else just seems silly.
Reinstall every six months? No thanks!
I enjoyed the 6-month rein
I had already this email draft in my head, but Ananda 'Arch Linux
security is still poor' thread, on which the point was also brought up,
moved me to really write it.
First off, there's an implicit level of trust on the package software,
no matter which OS you use.
When using Windows, you trus
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 15:58 -0300, Guilherme M. Nogueira wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:12 PM, David Rosenstrauch wrote:
>
> >
> > 3) "If you were running Arch, you wouldn't be running into so many bugs on
> > upgrade ... because you'd never wind up upgrading so many packages all at
> > the sa
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:12 PM, David Rosenstrauch wrote:
>
> 3) "If you were running Arch, you wouldn't be running into so many bugs on
> upgrade ... because you'd never wind up upgrading so many packages all at
> the same time."
>
Except when there's a new KDE release then it's easily 100+
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> Is this a feature request in the bug tracker? Please add it if you
> want this functionality. That's the only way it will ever happen
>
It's been there for years: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11091
I just wanted to point out that the "md
On 03/16/2010 01:58 PM, Thayer Williams wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Joe(theWordy)Philbrook wrote:
It does look like getting Arch Linux configured the way I need it is going
to take a bit more work than I'm used to. But if the "rolling release" part
of what I've read about it means I
On 15-03-10 20:01, Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Guus Snijders wrote:
On 15-03-10 14:07, Jeffrey Parke wrote:
[installing XFCE, xorg]
[...]
Actually, you should /remove/ the '#' from the start of that line... ;)
that's exactly what I said, just wanted to
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Joe(theWordy)Philbrook wrote:
> It does look like getting Arch Linux configured the way I need it is going
> to take a bit more work than I'm used to. But if the "rolling release" part
> of what I've read about it means I won't have to recreate my personal user
> e
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 13:24, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
>> Let this thread not be just another "Will be nice" one. Pacman devs,
>> please start implementing these package verification things.
> And you're paying them how much that allows
On 03/16/2010 07:24 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Jared Casper wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
I don't think we need any security team for Arch. New packages are
rele
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Jared Casper wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Aaron Griffin
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Nilesh Govindarajan
>> wrote:
>>> I don't think we need any security team for Arch. New packages are
>>> released within a week of their updates.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Jared Casper wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Aaron Griffin
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Nilesh Govindarajan
>>> wrote:
I don't think we need any security team for
Am Dienstag, 16. März 2010 18:24:46 schrieb Nilesh Govindarajan:
> Let this thread not be just another "Will be nice" one. Pacman devs,
> please start implementing these package verification things.
You got it wrong. Nothing will change until you start working on this. I have
seen those discussio
On 03/15/2010 01:16 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> No idea if it is time for signoff yet, I have to check that with tpowa.
> However, I put 2.6.31.1 in testing with these changes:
>
> - Added a trivial patch to support my touchpad (selfish, I know, but it
> is already accepted upstream for 2.6.34)
>
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 13:24, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
> Let this thread not be just another "Will be nice" one. Pacman devs,
> please start implementing these package verification things.
And you're paying them how much that allows you to tell them what to
work on? Seriously, patches welcome.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Jared Casper wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Aaron Griffin
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Nilesh Govindarajan
>> wrote:
>>> I don't think we need any security team for Arch. New packages are
>>> released within a week of their updates.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Nilesh Govindarajan
> wrote:
>> I don't think we need any security team for Arch. New packages are
>> released within a week of their updates. GPG signing and md5sum
>> verification is a must though.
>
> md
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
> I don't think we need any security team for Arch. New packages are
> released within a week of their updates. GPG signing and md5sum
> verification is a must though.
md5sum verification has ALWAYS been done
On 03/16/2010 06:53 PM, Chris Allison wrote:
I would have thought that this only makes sense in the context of a
"point-in-time release". i.e. you have a server which isn't updated as
regularly as your desktop. The onus then is on the user to ensure
that the versions of packages they are using a
I would have thought that this only makes sense in the context of a
"point-in-time release". i.e. you have a server which isn't updated as
regularly as your desktop. The onus then is on the user to ensure
that the versions of packages they are using are "safe".
I don't see this as a problem with
On Tuesday 16 March 2010 14:41:41 Nathan Wayde wrote:
> On 16/03/10 00:48, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > [...]
> > But as far as file system performance goes, the overhead should be
> > identical for both the runs, no?
>
> I'm not too sure about that. I'm guessing there is less seeking going on
>
On 16/03/10 00:48, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
[...]
But as far as file system performance goes, the overhead should be identical
for both the runs, no?
I'm not too sure about that. I'm guessing there is less seeking going on
with Btrfs. Some files systems (reiserfs + reiserfs4 IIRC) are very go
It would appear that on Mar 15, Damien Churchill did say:
> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners'_Guide is always a good
> place to start.
Yeah, I guess maybe I woulda if only my brain hadn't run out of steam. Now
that I've looked a little closer at it than the quick glance I did
pre-in
39 matches
Mail list logo
