На Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:13:21 +0200
Faidon Liambotis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> записано:
> Splittting to 50 (or 40, or 30, or...) packages for "maintainance"
> reasons: over my dead body :-)
> Just trying to be clear here, there's no point of discussing this
> further.
Ok, I've agreed with everybody th
На Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:10:05 +0100
Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> записано:
> That doesn't buy anything, you've just had a false good idea.
May be idea is not so false but implementation ;) Think of a modules
configuration script, like apache. It will allow to achieve the same
thing.
--
With
На Sat, 5 Jan 2008 03:10:21 +0200
Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> записано:
> What functionality is "extra"? For me chan_zap is a rather core
> functionality and app_ices isn't.
>
> I can't easily know what functionality will be used.
In other hand, you can easily know what will be not, right
На Sat, 05 Jan 2008 03:03:05 +0200
Faidon Liambotis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> записано:
> You can always disable autoload and load only the modules that you
> want to. You can leave them unconfigured or even remove the
> configuration files. With the current infrastructure you can even
> provide a confi
На Sat, 5 Jan 2008 05:32:25 +0500
jamhed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> записано:
> На Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:34:59 +0200
> Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> записано:
Even more, will it be better to pre-package modules not included in
main asterisk tree as a separate sub-package, making it
На Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:34:59 +0200
Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> записано:
> ls /usr/lib/asterisk/modules/ |wc
> 164 1642483
>
> So I suggest you be more specific about what you want to move to
> subpackages. Why would you want app_voicemail.so in a separate
> package? What harm is
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 21:00:07 +0100
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, it worked for me, and seemingly for most other people. I'm not sure
> what makes your configuration special, though :-)
I was suspecting my 'special config', because of upgrade, so
I've installed fresh etc
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:52:11 +0100
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 11:48:31PM +0500, jamhed wrote:
> > Which GCC version did you used ?
Here is what I've got:
when wmaker source package is compiled with default gc
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:55:58 +0100
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Which GCC version did you used ?
I've downloaded a source etch package, and compiled it with
GCC-3.4 (it doesnt compile with gcc-4.1), doing export CC=gcc-3.4 ;
dpkg-buildpackage,
and everything works just fine
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:13:17 +0100
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 11:59:27PM +0500, jamhed wrote:
> >> Well, could you please try the debug2 version too? It looks like this was
> >> the debug1 version -- or does
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:55:58 +0100
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 05:13:17PM +0500, jamhed wrote:
> > .xinitrc:
> > valgrind --tool=memcheck --leak-check=full --log-file=/tmp/wmaker.grind
> > wmaker
>
> We
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 12:41:00 +0100
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
By the way, I've checked wmaker on additional machine,
where I installed fresh etch, It crashes there too.
Both are Intel Pentiums, one Mobile, another Celeron.
I guess it will crash on every other ?
--
С Уваже
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 12:41:00 +0100
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is what I got with Valgrind:
==6506== Memcheck, a memory error detector.
==6506== Copyright (C) 2002-2006, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==6506== Using LibVEX rev 1658, a library for dynamic binary
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 12:41:00 +0100
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What is strange to me that different compiler optimization
produces such a devastating difference.
Could it be a compiler bug also ?
I will try to run it with valgrind, but I've not got much experience with it.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:33:31 +0100
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, here's a version of wmaker built with -g -O2 (the other one was built
> with -g -O0 -DDEBUG). Is it capable of giving a proper backtrace?
>
> http://people.debian.org/~sesse/wmaker_0.92.0-6.1~debug2_i386.
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:54:56 +0100
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm unable to reproduce this. Could you please provide a backtrace? (Start
> wmaker, attach to it using "gdb -p $( pidof WindowMaker )", provoke the
> crash, do a "bt" and output the results.)
#0 0x080a4ffc i
16 matches
Mail list logo
