On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 00:31 +0100, Xavier Chantry wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Giovanni Scafora
> wrote:
> > Il 26/03/2010 00:02, Ng Oon-Ee ha scritto:
> >>
> >> Repository : extra
> >> Name : gsfonts
> >> Version: 1.0.7pre44-1
> >> Installed : 8.11-5
> >>
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Giovanni Scafora
wrote:
> Il 26/03/2010 00:02, Ng Oon-Ee ha scritto:
>>
>> Repository : extra
>> Name : gsfonts
>> Version : 1.0.7pre44-1
>> Installed : 8.11-5
>> URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/
>>
>> I'm assumi
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 00:07 +0100, Giovanni Scafora wrote:
> Il 26/03/2010 00:02, Ng Oon-Ee ha scritto:
> > Repository : extra
> > Name : gsfonts
> > Version: 1.0.7pre44-1
> > Installed : 8.11-5
> > URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/
> >
> > I'm as
Il 26/03/2010 00:02, Ng Oon-Ee ha scritto:
Repository : extra
Name : gsfonts
Version: 1.0.7pre44-1
Installed : 8.11-5
URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/
I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version
numbers? The linked s
2010/3/25 Ng Oon-Ee
> Repository : extra
> Name : gsfonts
> Version: 1.0.7pre44-1
> Installed : 8.11-5
> URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/
>
> I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version
> numbers? The linked sourcefor
Repository : extra
Name : gsfonts
Version: 1.0.7pre44-1
Installed : 8.11-5
URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/
I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version
numbers? The linked sourceforge page still lists 8.11 as the stabl
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 01:47 +0900, Juan Diego wrote:
> I wanted to remove them because I was cleaning my fstab of old entries
> that I dont use anymore, so I found those two in the middle of the
> way, I guess they will have to stay there
Bottom-posting, please...
And yes, I've wanted to remove t
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 15:18, Daenyth Blank wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 14:20, Dan McGee wrote:
>>> I'm not super thrilled about this regression. Either way, I think we
>>> should probably add an option to the scripts to use a desig
I wanted to remove them because I was cleaning my fstab of old entries
that I dont use anymore, so I found those two in the middle of the
way, I guess they will have to stay there
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 25.03.2010 17:12, schrieb Xavier Chantry:
>> On Thu, Mar
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> Upstream big update.
>
> Local changelog:
> - Removed the multibyte locale speed-up patch (and all the patches to fix
> the issues it created...) as it is now included upstream.
> - Removed the other patches as it appears they are not being
Am 25.03.2010 17:12, schrieb Xavier Chantry:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>>
>> This is definitely NOT SAFE!
>>
>> If you don't have /dev/shm, POSIX shared memory will use the same tmpfs
>> filesystem as /dev, which is currently limited to 10MB - POSIX shared
>> memory
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 15:18, Daenyth Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 14:20, Dan McGee wrote:
>> I'm not super thrilled about this regression. Either way, I think we
>> should probably add an option to the scripts to use a designated file
>> as the target for rankmirrors testing; this way
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>
> This is definitely NOT SAFE!
>
> If you don't have /dev/shm, POSIX shared memory will use the same tmpfs
> filesystem as /dev, which is currently limited to 10MB - POSIX shared
> memory blocks might be much larger.
>
> As for removing /dev
Am 25.03.2010 16:53, schrieb Juan Diego:
> Good day everyone,
>
> I want to delete the next two lines from my fstab:
>
> none /dev/pts devpts defaults 0 0
> none /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0
>
> however I would like to know the secondary effects of doing such
> thing, all the information I could
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 00:53 +0900, Juan Diego wrote:
> Good day everyone,
>
> I want to delete the next two lines from my fstab:
>
> none /dev/pts devpts defaults 0 0
> none /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0
>
> however I would like to know the secondary effects of doing such
> thing, all the informat
Good day everyone,
I want to delete the next two lines from my fstab:
none /dev/pts devpts defaults 0 0
none /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0
however I would like to know the secondary effects of doing such
thing, all the information I could get on the internet is that shm is
for POSIX shared memory
On 03/25/2010 05:06 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
Appearance of sites in Chromium is very dirty, though I didn't change
the default font settings.
Oops, it seems its related to the site. Sorry ignore this thread.
--
Nilesh Govindarajan
Site & Server Administrator
www.itech7.com
On 03/25/2010 01:18 PM, Andreas Radke wrote:
Am Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:35:55 +0530
schrieb Nilesh Govindarajan:
On 03/25/2010 02:29 AM, Andreas Radke wrote:
Am Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:34:40 +0530
schrieb Nilesh Govindarajan:
I installed kernel26-lts.
It will boot properly upto Udev then screen wil
Appearance of sites in Chromium is very dirty, though I didn't change
the default font settings.
--
Nilesh Govindarajan
Site & Server Administrator
www.itech7.com
On 25 March 2010 00:36, Damien Churchill wrote:
> On 24 March 2010 23:52, Linas wrote:
>> Damien Churchill wrote:
>>> I've got a rather confusing issue with man. Whenever I try and view a
>>> man page I just end up with a blank screen.
>>>
>>> http://www.imagebam.com/image/41dd5973332829
>>>
>>>
Am Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:35:55 +0530
schrieb Nilesh Govindarajan :
> On 03/25/2010 02:29 AM, Andreas Radke wrote:
> > Am Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:34:40 +0530
> > schrieb Nilesh Govindarajan:
> >
> >> I installed kernel26-lts.
> >>
> >> It will boot properly upto Udev then screen will flicker and then
> >
21 matches
Mail list logo
