On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
On lun, dic 01, 2014 at 11:18:19 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Is this intentional, or is that a bug in either gnutls, curl, or the software
using these libraries?
AFAICT this is due to the gnutls26 -> gnutls28 switch. Using libgnutls-dev to
buil
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, dacer wrote:
Dear Maintainer,
I have some problem with USB, mass storage devices and printer (it detect some
component as storage device), sometimes it send a lot of logs to
/var/log/syslog, like these:
Mar 7 08:02:20 dacer kernel: [668285.604061] usb 1-8: reset high-speed
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:11:39AM +0100, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
[..]
Regarding the objections above, which are primarily concerned with the
creation of a non-generic initramfs, how does this alternative suggestion
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
[..]
Regarding the objections above, which are primarily concerned with the
creation of a non-generic initramfs, how does this alternative suggestion
sound:
- The addition of usr= options analogous to the root= options which
permit the bootloader to sp
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
[..]
The same argument applies to encryption. / and /usr both contain a
selection of programs, libraries etc. If you're encrypting one, why
would you not encrypt all of it?
Speed.
On one of my relatively low-power portable systems, I have everything
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 16:30 +0100, Kai Wasserbäch wrote:
[..]
Apart from that I wonder how many "embedded" x86 CPUs (instruction set < 586)
are out there. Are they still sold in current products?
As I said, Soekris still seems to have some for sale,
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:55 PM, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
That's not our problem, is it?
It is, if we are trying to be as compatible as possible.
Compatible with what? Bugs in other impl
On Sun, 24 May 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Hi folks
>
> I would like to raise the minimum CPU requirement for the shipped Linux
> kernels in the i386 port to i686 (with cmov).
[..]
Popcon gives us some rough numbers to think about:
linux-image-2.6-68649518
linux-image-2.6-486
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Jari Aalto wrote:
> FOREWORD
>
> I have seen following construct to be used in shell-context
> (makefiles, sh-scripts, Perl):
>
> `cmd` [1]
>
> However, the POSIX standard and SUSv[23] declares alternative way of
> accomplishing the same with in *sh co
Invitation / Call For Help
Debian Booth at SANE2006 Free Software Bazaar
Delft, The Netherlands, TUDelft Aula Congress Centre
Wednesday, May 17th 2006, 18:30 - 22:00 (local time = CEST)
25+ projects/communities represented; free entrance, free parking!
Hi all,
Debian has been offered
[Sorry for the cross-posting, but I want to reach as many .nl (would-be-)
developers as possible, and there doesn't seem to be one single list they all
subscribe to. FOLLOW-UPs to debian-events-eu@lists.debian.org ONLY please.]
Call for Participation:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 01:06:53AM +0100, Robert van der Meulen wrote:
> > Quoting Bas Zoetekouw ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > Now you can boost the reliability of ordinary Windows 3.x, 95 and 98 to
> > > > nearly the level of Windows NT or 2000, Microsoft
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Florian Hinzmann wrote:
> When typing german umlauts my system behaves
> inconsistent:
>
> In most X programs they appear fine (i.e. Netscape, several
> mail clients, XEmacs, ..)
>
> When typing in xterm|gnome-terminal windows they
> don't appear. Some chars do beep, but no
Hi!
In the recent past, there have been multiple (bug) reports about the behaviour
of potato (& woody?) gpm in the presence of X (or vice versa, really). I've
done some research, with these results:
1. On slink and probably before (because I don't remember things being
differently), gpm did
On 17 Aug 2000, Philip Hands wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > WTF is the difference? Nothing but a naming scheme. It's still a change,
> > either way you do it, why do you want to nitpick the mechanism?
>
> Personally, I'd favour doing something that makes it as clear as
>
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> I've gotten reports that the ISO for CD#1 on sparc is completely broken.
> Although the packages and dist files are there, the CD will not boot,
> since almost none of the boot1 files are on the image.
I'd hardly call this "completely broken". I guess yo
16 matches
Mail list logo
