On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Matthew Monaco wrote:
> I like having volume control for HDMI out. And I like that this mysterious
> starving audio, playing silence, glitch has disappeared. But I don't like
> that pulse uses so much CPU and i think it's a major reason why my computer
> is runn 5-
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:34:42 +0200 Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> cronie also appears to be the nicest migration choice for users who
> are not used to fcron. It seems to support anachron features, cron.d,
> daily/weekly/etc, is able to actually keep time and works just like
> expected whereas fcron
On 04/07/2011 03:01 PM, Arch Linux: Recent news updates: Ionuț Mircea Bîru
wrote:
Ionuț Mircea Bîru wrote:
GNOME 3.0.0 packages are now available in the [testing] repository. These bring
with it an update to gtk2, as well as the new gtk3.
This is a major update and you should take note of a co
Kaiting Chen wrote:
>
> The thing is that cronie is forked from vixie-cron which is much older than
> fcron. And I would venture to say that vixie-cron or some derivative is the
> default crond for the vast majority of distributions out there. --Kaiting.
>
Why do you have --disable-anacron in the
> cronie also appears to be the nicest migration choice for users who are
> not used to fcron. It seems to support anachron features, cron.d,
> daily/weekly/etc, is able to actually keep time and works just like
> expected whereas fcron has fcrontab with a slightly different syntax. We
> could actu
On 08.04.2011 00:15, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Heiko Baums wrote:
>
>> Why do you need vixie cron syntax? Can't you migrate once to a new
>> syntax? Btw., most of fcron's syntax is the same as the syntax of every
>> cron daemon. You can easily take your previous crontab
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Why do you need vixie cron syntax? Can't you migrate once to a new
> syntax? Btw., most of fcron's syntax is the same as the syntax of every
> cron daemon. You can easily take your previous crontabs. You probably
> have only to do some changes
Am Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:16:46 +0200
schrieb Heiko Baums :
> But let's try to get objective again.
Btw., generally it doesn't really matter that much which cron daemon is
installed by AIF. Another cron daemon can easily be installed
afterwards. A cron daemon is not such an important and sensible
sof
Am Thu, 7 Apr 2011 21:53:58 +0200
schrieb Marek Otahal :
> Sorry to sound rude, but Heiko, it's you who is pushing fcron so
> unhealthily heavily. I wouldn't have no opinion on the two crons but
> after reading the discussion I'd stick to cronie. Just my 2c.
Well, on the one hand yes, on the oth
On Thursday 07 of April 2011 12:32:50 Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Wed, 6 Apr 2011 22:03:23 -0600
> > I spent quite some time as a trainer for Red Hat and taught classes on
> > SELinux.
>
> Is this why you want to push cronie so heavily?
>
> Heiko
Sorry to sound rude, but Heiko, it's you who is pushin
Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
>
>> I guess you mean http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.arch.general/32759
>
> Thanks for the link, I did not want to bring up SELinux yet, because I will
> not be getting to it for a few months, but this will help
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> Yaro Kasear wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 18:13:04 Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> >> Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Yes the systemd topic keeps popping up, right now we don't know
> >> > if certain upstream changes are going
Yaro Kasear wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 18:13:04 Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
>> Thomas S Hatch wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes the systemd topic keeps popping up, right now we don't know
>> > if certain upstream changes are going to force Arch into using systemd
> or
>> > not.
>>
>> I dont think s
On Thursday 07 April 2011 18:08:39 Yaro Kasear wrote:
> Selinux is another unneeded thing, but even worse is that it practically
> requires a doctorate in computer science to manipulate. Can't deny its
> security, though. +1 to leaving it out of Arch, not that anyone's asking
> Arch to.
I don't
On 04/07/2011 11:41 AM, David C. Rankin wrote:
but I can't help but wondering if something is checking ownership expecting to
find the files owned by the 'fax' user and then not executing the faxrcvd or
notify commands as a result.
It's not just ownership of the executables, but also the files
On 04/01/2011 09:13 AM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
It's probably going to be build with gcc4.6 ;)
Jelle,
When the next version is built, we need to take a look at the file
ownership for the files under /var/spool/hylafax. Currently the files are
owned by root or uucp. However, we have a 'fa
Am Thu, 7 Apr 2011 11:08:39 -0500
schrieb Yaro Kasear :
> Selinux is another unneeded thing, but even worse is that it
> practically requires a doctorate in computer science to manipulate.
> Can't deny its security, though. +1 to leaving it out of Arch, not
> that anyone's asking Arch to.
For peo
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 18:13:04 Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis
wrote:
> >> Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> >> > I am saving the "include SELINUX support in base for a latter date"
> >> >
> >> > my understanding though is tha
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 15:27:27 Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 05.04.2011 09:19, schrieb Thomas S Hatch:
> > I can think of three considerations for a cron daemon:
> > 1 . Minimal - its a cron daemon, it does not need to be complex
> > 2. Active development
> > 3. Anacron functionality
> >
> > A
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Florian Pritz wrote:
> Has upstream accepted that patch?
The corresponding bug report is:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=865
It seems there is still some work to be done before the patch can be
accepted upstream.
--
Cédric Girard
On 07.04.2011 17:05, Kirill Churin wrote:
> Can this patch https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=33142 be
> applied to Arch's xorg?
Has upstream accepted that patch?
--
Florian Pritz -- {flo,bluewind}@server-speed.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Can this patch https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=33142 be
applied to Arch's xorg?
It solves famous problem
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=865 with broken keyboard
input for users who use multiple keyboard layouts without any
noticeable side-effects. It's known this patch
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 07.04.2011 04:30, schrieb Thomas S Hatch:
> > Right, both are viable choices, btw I will be migrating my datacenters
> away
> > from dcron in the near future and doing a series of tests on cronie and
> > fcron, I will post my findings to
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 07.04.2011 04:36, schrieb Thomas S Hatch:
> > I like to hear that Tom!
> > Unfortunately many people think that having SELinux compiled in means
> that
> > it is running, having SELinux compiled into the core utils and the kernel
> > but
Am Wed, 6 Apr 2011 20:30:46 -0600
schrieb Thomas S Hatch :
> Right, both are viable choices, btw I will be migrating my
> datacenters away from dcron in the near future and doing a series of
> tests on cronie and fcron, I will post my findings to the list.
Data center? So the systems are running
Am Wed, 6 Apr 2011 22:03:23 -0600
schrieb Thomas S Hatch :
> I would say that we should consider compatibility with vixie cron
> syntax - this is and has been the expected syntax for the default
> cron daemon for a LONG time and avoids hindering Arch Linux adoption.
Why do you need vixie cron syn
On Thursday 07 April 2011 00:25:42 Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> As for adding SELinux support in base but keeping it turned off by default,
> +1
+1
--
Divan Santana
On Thursday 07 April 2011 00:25:42 Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> As for adding SELinux support in base but keeping it turned off by default,
> +1
+1
--
Divan Santana
Am 07.04.2011 04:30, schrieb Thomas S Hatch:
> Right, both are viable choices, btw I will be migrating my datacenters away
> from dcron in the near future and doing a series of tests on cronie and
> fcron, I will post my findings to the list.
I think that will be more valuable than any continuatio
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 21:22:14 -0600
Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> I think that Arch would benefit from inducing SELinux as an option
> because it expands the venues available for Arch Linux systems, I
> also think that inclusion in base of SELinux requires a minimal
> amount of maintenance and SELinux is
Am 07.04.2011 04:36, schrieb Thomas S Hatch:
> I like to hear that Tom!
> Unfortunately many people think that having SELinux compiled in means that
> it is running, having SELinux compiled into the core utils and the kernel
> but leaving it turned off has 0 negative effect on the system.
If that
31 matches
Mail list logo
