On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Alex Schuster wrote:
> Mark Knecht writes:
>
>> One minor annoyance is that the task bar at the bottom is about 1/3
>> black on the left. Resolution is 1920x1080 so I'd guess about the
>> first 800 pixels are painted the wrong color. The task bar still
>> works
Mark Knecht writes:
>One minor annoyance is that the task bar at the bottom is about 1/3
> black on the left. Resolution is 1920x1080 so I'd guess about the
> first 800 pixels are painted the wrong color. The task bar still
> works, it just doesn't look right.
I think I have the same problem,
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Paul Hartman
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> Notes about what I think happened here:
>> 1) I missed the message about running perl-cleaner so I had to do that.
>> 2) I had a gcc build that didn't allow the profile to get set so
>> e
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> OK, so I've been pushing forward and finally I'm emerge -e @world
> clean. xfce still doesn't work right. It's in fact pretty unusable at
> the moment as it has no menus at all, but it's only a backup
> environment so I'm going to ignore that f
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Notes about what I think happened here:
> 1) I missed the message about running perl-cleaner so I had to do that.
> 2) I had a gcc build that didn't allow the profile to get set so
> emerge -1 gcc fixed that.
> 3) After that I tried emerge -e @
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:30 AM, William Kenworthy wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 09:09 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On Monday 12 April 2010 18:33:21 KH wrote:
>> > Am 12.04.2010 14:57, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
>> >
>>
>> So, in the rare case of a user who can discipline himself to say within the
On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 09:09 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Monday 12 April 2010 18:33:21 KH wrote:
> > Am 12.04.2010 14:57, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> >
>
> So, in the rare case of a user who can discipline himself to say within the
> limits you describe, your advice is fine. But that's a theore
On Monday 12 April 2010 18:33:21 KH wrote:
> Am 12.04.2010 14:57, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> [...]
>
> > 2. when devs commit to ~arch, they tend to run ~arch on their test boxes.
> > Issues are easy to spot and get fixed quickly. If you have a mixture of
> > the two, then you have a combination that
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Paul Hartman
wrote:
> I'm not a gnome user but I can try this if you want (135 packages to
> emerge in my case), or if you have more specific info about which part
> doesn't build I can try only the specifics.
I went ahead and emerged gnome-base/gnome-2.28.2 whi
Am 12.04.2010 14:57, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
[...]
2. when devs commit to ~arch, they tend to run ~arch on their test boxes.
Issues are easy to spot and get fixed quickly. If you have a mixture of the
two, then you have a combination that no-one but you is using, and it will not
have been tested.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> ...is not so good actually. Certainly not the way I'd want others to
> experience Gentoo.
>
> OK, the ~amd64 upgrade to @system was easy and relatively painless.
> The documents were fairly clear. There are things to learn, and old
> friends li
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 05:29:00 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> It's certainly not working for me at this point but I'm not upset,
> mad, or anything like that. I'm asking a simple question. That's it.
Except you didn't really ask a question, at least not in manner that
could be answered. Posting the o
On Monday 12 April 2010 14:29:00 Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Alan McKinnon
wrote:
> > Are you merely ranting or asking for help?
> >
> > If the former, well, OK i Hear you. But I don't care.
> >
> > If the latter, then you need to provide info like logs, output etc.
>
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:42 AM, William Kenworthy wrote:
>
>> I am however documenting my experiences for others than come after me
>> to this question of "to ~amd64 or not ~amd64". Nothing more. It worked
>> for Alan who is a __very__ experienced and capable person. It didn't
>> work for Mark (a
> I am however documenting my experiences for others than come after me
> to this question of "to ~amd64 or not ~amd64". Nothing more. It worked
> for Alan who is a __very__ experienced and capable person. It didn't
> work for Mark (at this point) who is a 10 year Gentoo user but
> __nothing__ mor
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Zeerak Mustafa Waseem
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 04:57:39AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> ...is not so good actually. Certainly not the way I'd want others to
>> experience Gentoo.
>>
>> OK, the ~amd64 upgrade to @system was easy and relatively painless.
>> Th
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Are you merely ranting or asking for help?
>
> If the former, well, OK i Hear you. But I don't care.
>
> If the latter, then you need to provide info like logs, output etc.
>
> ~amd64 works like a charm for me here.
>
>
Neither. I think I as
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 04:57:39AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> ...is not so good actually. Certainly not the way I'd want others to
> experience Gentoo.
>
> OK, the ~amd64 upgrade to @system was easy and relatively painless.
> The documents were fairly clear. There are things to learn, and old
> f
Are you merely ranting or asking for help?
If the former, well, OK i Hear you. But I don't care.
If the latter, then you need to provide info like logs, output etc.
~amd64 works like a charm for me here.
On Monday 12 April 2010 13:57:39 Mark Knecht wrote:
> ...is not so good actually. Ce
19 matches
Mail list logo
