Ionuț Bîru [2011.04.12 0318 +0300]:
[...]
> >And things got even stranger just now, with a silver lining. The
> >version of mdadm found in [core] is 3.2.1. ABS, on the other hand,
> >still has the old version (3.1.5). Isn't ABS supposed to be the
> >official source tree for the official repos?
On 04/12/2011 03:17 AM, Norbert Zeh wrote:
Norbert Zeh [2011.04.11 2102 -0300]:
Divan Santana [2011.04.11 2132 +0200]:
On Monday 11 April 2011 20:58:40 Norbert Zeh wrote:
I just upgraded to the latest kernel. The /etc/rc.d/mdadm script, which
starts mdadm in monitor mode, reports a segmentati
Norbert Zeh [2011.04.11 2102 -0300]:
> Divan Santana [2011.04.11 2132 +0200]:
> > On Monday 11 April 2011 20:58:40 Norbert Zeh wrote:
> > > I just upgraded to the latest kernel. The /etc/rc.d/mdadm script, which
> > > starts mdadm in monitor mode, reports a segmentation fault in
> > > mdadm --moni
Divan Santana [2011.04.11 2132 +0200]:
> On Monday 11 April 2011 20:58:40 Norbert Zeh wrote:
> > I just upgraded to the latest kernel. The /etc/rc.d/mdadm script, which
> > starts mdadm in monitor mode, reports a segmentation fault in
> > mdadm --monitor --oneshot --scan.
> >
> > I also tried to
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Nephyrin Zey wrote:
> Gnome 3 is, frankly, not ready yet. It's a bit like the original KDE4
> situation - it has promise, but also serious rough edges (20% CPU usage when
> moving the mouse, complete no-go with binary nvidia drivers, ...),
I'm using the binary nv
On Monday 11 April 2011 21:32:30 Divan Santana wrote:
> On Monday 11 April 2011 20:58:40 Norbert Zeh wrote:
> > I just upgraded to the latest kernel. The /etc/rc.d/mdadm script, which
> > starts mdadm in monitor mode, reports a segmentation fault in
> > mdadm --monitor --oneshot --scan.
> >
> >
>
On Monday 11 April 2011 20:58:40 Norbert Zeh wrote:
> I just upgraded to the latest kernel. The /etc/rc.d/mdadm script, which
> starts mdadm in monitor mode, reports a segmentation fault in
> mdadm --monitor --oneshot --scan.
>
> I also tried to manually start, e.g., mdadm --monitor /dev/md0, and
This is a message to all past/present/future translators that I'd like
to do the pacman 3.5.2 release around the end of this week, so if you
could take a look at the translations and get them up to date that
would be great:
https://www.transifex.net/projects/p/archlinux-pacman/r/3-5-2/
There are o
Hi folks,
I just upgraded to the latest kernel. The /etc/rc.d/mdadm script, which
starts mdadm in monitor mode, reports a segmentation fault in
mdadm --monitor --oneshot --scan.
I also tried to manually start, e.g., mdadm --monitor /dev/md0, and get
a segmentation fault there, too.
Since this d
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 11/04/11 10:48, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
>> AFAICR users who relink python to python2 are on their own. This
>> breaks repo packages as well, not just AUR packages.
>>
>
> Correct. This currently breaks all sort of stuff so is completely
> unsuppor
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Piyush P Kurur wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 05:57:02PM +0800, Auguste Pop wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
>>
>
>> by gmail, do you mean the gmail web interface or the gmail mail
>> service?
>
> The threading is done by the mail clie
On 04/11/2011 01:38 PM, Jan de Groot wrote:
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:50 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote:
1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by
gnome 3.
2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems.
3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the option
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:50 +0200, Dennis Beekman wrote:
> 1. You cannot change the panels anymore you stuck with the 2 given by
> gnome 3.
> 2. Changing themes also is inpossible.. or so it seems.
> 3. Why do we need a system settings menu with all the options in one
> menu ? where are my sepera
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 05:57:02PM +0800, Auguste Pop wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
>
> by gmail, do you mean the gmail web interface or the gmail mail
> service?
The threading is done by the mail client and has nothing to do with the
mail protocol SMTP/IMAP etc.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Auguste Pop wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:49 PM, SanskritFritz
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote:
>>>
2. Next time, please create a new mail, instead of replying
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:49 PM, SanskritFritz
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote:
>>
>>> 2. Next time, please create a new mail, instead of replying to an existing
>>> thread and changing the topic
>>>
>>
>> W
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:49 PM, SanskritFritz wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote:
>
>> 2. Next time, please create a new mail, instead of replying to an existing
>> thread and changing the topic
>>
>
> What's wrong with that?
>
Changing the topic has no effect on th
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:36:19 +0200
Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 11.04.2011 11:32, schrieb Geoff:
> > I hope this does not count as noise on this list, but can anybody confirm /
> > deny that the lilo issue which I read about here has been resolved in the
> > kernel version now available for downloa
On 04/11/2011 12:36 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 11.04.2011 11:32, schrieb Geoff:
I hope this does not count as noise on this list, but can anybody confirm /
deny that the lilo issue which I read about here has been resolved in the
kernel version now available for download?
No, you must update
Am 11.04.2011 11:32, schrieb Geoff:
> I hope this does not count as noise on this list, but can anybody confirm /
> deny that the lilo issue which I read about here has been resolved in the
> kernel version now available for download?
No, you must update lilo to the latest version.
Reference:
htt
I hope this does not count as noise on this list, but can anybody confirm /
deny that the lilo issue which I read about here has been resolved in the
kernel version now available for download?
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote:
> 2. Next time, please create a new mail, instead of replying to an existing
> thread and changing the topic
>
What's wrong with that?
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Jan de Groot wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 12:06 +0800, Auguste Pop wrote:
>> relinking python is a bad idea, but imho, explicitly envoking python3
>> when packaging it not.
>> using python to install python3 packages is like linking to foo.so
>> instead of foo.so
On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 12:06 +0800, Auguste Pop wrote:
> relinking python is a bad idea, but imho, explicitly envoking python3
> when packaging it not.
> using python to install python3 packages is like linking to foo.so
> instead of foo.so.3.
Which is what is done by default when you tell gcc to l
24 matches
Mail list logo
