On 02/10/2011 09:52 PM, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 18:32 -0500, Valmor de Almeida wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Is there a way to install a 32bit version of xulrunner?
>>
>> An application I am using on top of eclipse apparently needs a 32bit
>> version. Don't know exactly why... Curren
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 18:32 -0500, Valmor de Almeida wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is there a way to install a 32bit version of xulrunner?
>
> An application I am using on top of eclipse apparently needs a 32bit
> version. Don't know exactly why... Currently I have:
xulrunner is in the multilib layman ove
Hello,
Is there a way to install a 32bit version of xulrunner?
An application I am using on top of eclipse apparently needs a 32bit
version. Don't know exactly why... Currently I have:
/usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.2
/usr/lib64/xulrunner-devel-1.9.2
/usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.2/LICENSE
/usr/lib64/xulr
On 10:22 Thu 10 Feb , Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Stroller
> wrote:
> > I don't really know what the "-fomit-frame-pointer" part does - I imagine
> > someone suggested it, perhaps on here, years ago, and it has got copied
> > from system to system.
>
> I think it
Apparently, though unproven, at 17:18 on Thursday 10 February 2011, Stroller
did opine thusly:
> On 8/2/2011, at 9:55pm, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > ...
> > If you're a gambling man, play it by the numbers:
> >
> > A re-install for a Gentoo user with a clue is a certain 1 hour of your
> > life tops
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:10:06 -0800 (PST), Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > The trouble is that binpkgs keep a copy of the ebuild in them, so
> > even if you remove the downgrade check fro the in-tree ebuild, it
> > still fails. That one had me scratching my head for a few minutes.
>
> what happe
On Thursday 10 February 2011 00:02:07 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:48:18 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > And it's very difficult to downgrade it due to that hidden barf check
> > in the ebuild. I have yet to find a supported, documented way to back
> > out of glibc screw-ups; my wa
On 10/2/2011, at 4:22pm, Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Stroller
> wrote:
>> I don't really know what the "-fomit-frame-pointer" part does - I imagine
>> someone suggested it, perhaps on here, years ago, and it has got copied from
>> system to system.
>
> I think it re
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Stroller
wrote:
> I don't really know what the "-fomit-frame-pointer" part does - I imagine
> someone suggested it, perhaps on here, years ago, and it has got copied from
> system to system.
I think it removes your ability to get a stack trace when programs
cras
Neil Bothwick digimed.co.uk> writes:
> > These aren't needed to get a system up and running. Yeah, Ubuntu uses
> > them for various ID purposes, but nothing really critical. Unless
> > there's a clear need for them, for example if some package in the
> > @system set will use them in a way that
walt gmail.com> writes:
> Correct, they are two different (but equivalent) ways of naming
> a filesystem (partition) for use in fstab.
> mkfs generates a UUID automatically when the fs is created, but
> it does *not* generate a "label" unless you give it one using the
> -L flag, or create one l
On 9/2/2011, at 2:27pm, Mark Knecht wrote:
> ...
> Following Walt's recent thread about his experiences using grub2 I
> think getting folks used to disk labels at installation time, be they
> names or even better UUID's, might fit in very well with installation
> instructions that cover using grub
On 8/2/2011, at 9:11pm, Nils Holland wrote:
> On 12:41 Tue 08 Feb , Stroller wrote:
>
>> If my process wasn't clear from my last email: it looks like, following that
>> document, you have to do the whole thing with changed CHOST, *before* making
>> any changes to CFLAGS. It appears like onl
On 8/2/2011, at 9:55pm, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> ...
> If you're a gambling man, play it by the numbers:
>
> A re-install for a Gentoo user with a clue is a certain 1 hour of your life
> tops to get it redone with a recent stage 3, more likely 30 minutes. That
> will
> give you a working system
Apparently, though unproven, at 04:07 on Thursday 10 February 2011, Keith Dart
did opine thusly:
> === On Wed, 02/09, Dale wrote: ===
>
> > Now some of you know how much I hate windows. Of course, DOS wasn't
> > much better,
>
> ===
>
> Yep. I've been using Linux on my desktop since version 1
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:45:53 -0600, Dale wrote:
Kewl !! That works. Wonder if I should try this way out. See if I
can mess this up. o_O
Why would you want to swap a concise, readable fstab for one that needs
to be filled with comments to make any sense at all
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:45:53 -0600, Dale wrote:
> Kewl !! That works. Wonder if I should try this way out. See if I
> can mess this up. o_O
Why would you want to swap a concise, readable fstab for one that needs
to be filled with comments to make any sense at all?
signature.asc
Description:
On Thursday 10 February 2011 06:45:53 Dale wrote:
> Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Thursday 10 February 2011 06:31:12 Dale wrote:
> >> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:00:24 +0200, Petri Rosenström wrote:
> If you use vi(m) you don't have to type too much neither. Just use
> >>
Joost Roeleveld wrote:
On Thursday 10 February 2011 06:31:12 Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:00:24 +0200, Petri Rosenström wrote:
If you use vi(m) you don't have to type too much neither. Just use
:r!blkid /dev/sda in vi(m) and you have the UUID, with
On Thursday 10 February 2011 06:31:12 Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:00:24 +0200, Petri Rosenström wrote:
> >> If you use vi(m) you don't have to type too much neither. Just use
> >>
> >> :r!blkid /dev/sda in vi(m) and you have the UUID, with some
> >> :additional
>
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:00:24 +0200, Petri Rosenström wrote:
If you use vi(m) you don't have to type too much neither. Just use
:r!blkid /dev/sda in vi(m) and you have the UUID, with some additional
information, but the rest is just vi(m) magic.
None of which make
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 16:27 on Wednesday 09 February 2011, Mark
> Knecht did opine thusly:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Dale wrote:
>> > James wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> So looking at the handbook, I was wondering
>> >
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 22:50:44 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:09:14 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
> >> (1) I never use testing versions of system pkgs like Glibc &
> > Someone has to or they'll never get tested.
>
> Come on ! -- not on a production system !
Who mentioned prod
23 matches
Mail list logo
