On 2/2/07, Richard Maxwell Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Often I will do a pacman -S which will saturate my (slow) network connection
and then I will decide I want to visit web pages and then I'll ^C the pacman
-S
process so I don't have to wait forever.
How likely is it that sending
On Friday 02 February 2007, Richard Maxwell Underwood wrote:
How likely is it that sending ^C to a pacman -S will if done often enough
mess up some database or file critical to pacman?
As soon as you cancell the program while downloading no harm to your system
will happen. Perhaps you'll get
We're planning to upgrade dbus to 1.0.x in a short while. The new
configuration files used by dbus 1.0.x is incompatible with the version
in our repositories, which causes dbus to crash as soon as it tries to
reload the configuration.
Due to a bug in gnome-session and the XFCE Terminal program,
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 04:09 -0800, Richard Gananathan wrote:
On 2/2/07, Jan de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fixed in 0.2.6-2, which has been released on/after January 23rd ;)
Ah, thanks. I wanted the version number because I might not have been
100% up to date.
(I top posted again, my
Tobias Powalowski wrote:
Am Mittwoch 31 Januar 2007 schrieb Dale Blount:
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 17:33 -0500, joe henderson wrote:
All,
I have a compaq prolient. with a smart array 5i raid card.
I used both 0.7.1 and 0.7.2 cd's to detect the array..
0.7.2 detected the array
i used the Base image for 0.8... I installed just fine..
When i went to install the boot loader, the installer could not install
the MBR
on any of the disks found..
I had to use lilo instead of grub on my cciss device.
Dale
___
arch mailing
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 06:54 -0700, Derek Carlson wrote:
Thx for the heads up ref: the dbus configuration file. This advice
will
help.
From a slightly different perspective, it is unfortunate that any
program would crash upon reading an invalid config file. It should
simply report and
we have fixed the bad linker issues that were made in early arch64
days. we are preparing to drop /lib64/ld* completly.
now we have the fixed gcc package we need to rebuild all packages that
are linked to /lib64/ld* - several houndreds to do. this will take
some time. when we have finished we
Interesting, have anybody carried out performance tests and benchmarks to
compare arch64 and arch32 installed on the same computer? I did no regular
tests, but once have compared xvid video encoding - it was faster under
arch32.
Cheers,
Sergey
we have fixed the bad linker issues that were made
On Friday 02 February 2007, Sergey Manucharyan wrote:
Interesting, have anybody carried out performance tests and benchmarks to
compare arch64 and arch32 installed on the same computer? I did no regular
tests, but once have compared xvid video encoding - it was faster under
arch32.
Most
On Friday 02 February 2007 17:30:32 Andreas Radke wrote:
we have fixed the bad linker issues that were made in early arch64
days. we are preparing to drop /lib64/ld* completly.
now we have the fixed gcc package we need to rebuild all packages that
are linked to /lib64/ld* - several houndreds
Most benchmarks I have seen show no real performance gain with x64. If
the
piece of software in question is built and optimized for x64, then we'll
see
gains, but not much software is in that boat right now.
The biggest gains come with number crunching. I'm working with
cryptographics hash
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:21:08 -0800 (PST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most benchmarks I have seen show no real performance gain with
x64. If the
piece of software in question is built and optimized for x64, then
we'll see
gains, but not much software is in that boat right now.
The
On Saturday 03 February 2007 01:02:20 Jason Chu wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:21:08 -0800 (PST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most benchmarks I have seen show no real performance gain with
x64. If the
piece of software in question is built and optimized for x64, then
we'll see
gains,
14 matches
Mail list logo
