On Sunday 12 December 2010 05:57:19 Valmor de Almeida wrote:
On 12/11/2010 08:52 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-11-19, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
and paste this in it:
?xml version=1.0 encoding=ISO-8859-1?
deviceinfo version=0.2
device
match
On 12/12/2010 05:59 AM, Mick wrote:
[snip]
Guys I'm glad that my pointers helped you get it going - but I have to say
that soon with xorg-server-1.9 becoming stable HAL and its xml configuration
files will be a thing of the past.
Still, you have the satisfaction of cracking this one!
On Sunday 12 December 2010 17:10:10 Valmor de Almeida wrote:
Looking forward to xorg-server-1.9.
So why not install it? It's been running here for three months without a
single problem.
Just add x11-base/xorg-server to /etc/portage/package.keywords. Job
done.
--
Rgds
Peter. Linux
On 12/12/2010 07:17 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Sunday 12 December 2010 17:10:10 Valmor de Almeida wrote:
Looking forward to xorg-server-1.9.
So why not install it? It's been running here for three months without a
single problem.
Just add x11-base/xorg-server to
On 12/11/2010 08:52 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-11-19, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
and paste this in it:
?xml version=1.0 encoding=ISO-8859-1?
deviceinfo version=0.2
device
match key=info.capabilities contains=input.touchpad
merge key=input.x11_driver
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:14:13 -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
This is not about ipv6 or hal or dbus in particular. My approach is
to only have the bare minimum necessary flags, and not allow *ANY NEW
AND UNNECESSARY OPTIONAL* flags. Any additional extra stuff involves
additional bloat and
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:14:13 -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
This is not about ipv6 or hal or dbus in particular. My approach is
to only have the bare minimum necessary flags, and not allow *ANY NEW
AND UNNECESSARY OPTIONAL* flags. Any additional extra stuff involves
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 22:42:52 Alan McKinnon wrote:
Developers of any sort have to be in the upper-IQ range of humanity
(otherwise they couldn't develop shit)
Ah! Now I know where it came from...
--
Rgds
Peter. Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.
On Thursday 18 November 2010 13:37:39 Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:33:45 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
One could actually argue that the profits of pubs are reduced
because then the men don't take the women to the pubs. And that
the pubs then miss half of their customers.
On Friday 19 November 2010 04:55:23 Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-11-18, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 18 November 2010 15:48:23 Grant Edwards wrote:
You can adjust synaptics changing the configuration on the
/etc/hal/fdi/policy/11-x11-synaptics.fdi file. man 4 synaptic
Apparently, though unproven, at 13:07 on Friday 19 November 2010, Peter
Humphrey did opine thusly:
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 22:42:52 Alan McKinnon wrote:
Developers of any sort have to be in the upper-IQ range of humanity
(otherwise they couldn't develop shit)
Ah! Now I know where
On Friday 19 November 2010 13:41:32 Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 13:07 on Friday 19 November 2010,
Peter Humphrey did opine thusly:
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 22:42:52 Alan McKinnon wrote:
Developers of any sort have to be in the upper-IQ range of
humanity
Apparently, though unproven, at 17:28 on Friday 19 November 2010, Peter
Humphrey did opine thusly:
On Friday 19 November 2010 13:41:32 Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 13:07 on Friday 19 November 2010,
Peter Humphrey did opine thusly:
On Wednesday 17 November 2010
Am 18.11.2010 02:46, schrieb Grant Edwards:
On 2010-11-18, Alan McKinnonalan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like the *actual* problem is non-application of OYFEAL[1],not what the
devs do.
Google doesn't seem to know what OYFEAL means. Do we get any hints?
Google says this: OYFEAL:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:42:52 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
c. our devs are assumed to only pretend to be pedantic geeky gits who
nit-pick about words, and not to actually *be* like that their entire
life 24/7/365/75.
Indeed. After all, if they were really pedantic, they would point out that
On Thursday 18 November 2010 12:37:16 Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:42:52 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
c. our devs are assumed to only pretend to be pedantic geeky gits who
nit-pick about words, and not to actually *be* like that their entire
life 24/7/365/75.
Indeed. After
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:43:40 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
Indeed. After all, if they were really pedantic, they would point out
that you should have written either 24/7/52/75 or 24/365/75 :P
pedantic mode
Or that you both seem to forget the actual reason for the use of
leap-years.. :P
On Thursday 18 November 2010 12:52:40 Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:43:40 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
Indeed. After all, if they were really pedantic, they would point out
that you should have written either 24/7/52/75 or 24/365/75 :P
pedantic mode
Or that you both seem
Apparently, though unproven, at 13:37 on Thursday 18 November 2010, Neil
Bothwick did opine thusly:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:42:52 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
c. our devs are assumed to only pretend to be pedantic geeky gits who
nit-pick about words, and not to actually *be* like that their
Apparently, though unproven, at 05:47 on Thursday 18 November 2010, Stroller
did opine thusly:
On 18/11/2010, at 1:46am, Grant Edwards wrote:
...
Looks like the *actual* problem is non-application of OYFEAL[1],not what
the devs do.
Google doesn't seem to know what OYFEAL means. Do
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:42:39 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Indeed. After all, if they were really pedantic, they would point out
that you should have written either 24/7/52/75 or 24/365/75 :P
y'know, you have this very annoying habit of catching me out every time
I talk shit in public
Apparently, though unproven, at 11:31 on Thursday 18 November 2010, Sebastian
Beßler did opine thusly:
Am 18.11.2010 02:46, schrieb Grant Edwards:
On 2010-11-18, Alan McKinnonalan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like the *actual* problem is non-application of OYFEAL[1],not what
the devs
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:32:42 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
I thought the real reason for leap years was to boot the turnover of
the wedding industry.
s/boot/boost/
Oh? How does that work?
There's a tradition here that women propose to men on the leap day, which
is why most men go into
Apparently, though unproven, at 15:18 on Thursday 18 November 2010, Neil
Bothwick did opine thusly:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:32:42 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
I thought the real reason for leap years was to boot the turnover of
the wedding industry.
s/boot/boost/
Oh? How does that
On Thursday 18 November 2010 14:18:55 Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:32:42 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
I thought the real reason for leap years was to boot the turnover of
the wedding industry.
s/boot/boost/
Oh? How does that work?
There's a tradition here that women
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:33:45 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
There's a tradition here that women propose to men on the leap day,
which is why most men go into hiding on that day thereby boosting the
profits of pubs and other hiding places.
One could actually argue that the profits of pubs
Am 18.11.2010 13:47, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
Apparently, though unproven, at 11:31 on Thursday 18 November 2010, Sebastian
Beßler did opine thusly:
Am 18.11.2010 02:46, schrieb Grant Edwards:
On 2010-11-18, Alan McKinnonalan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like the *actual* problem is
Apparently, though unproven, at 16:12 on Thursday 18 November 2010, Sebastian
Beßler did opine thusly:
Am 18.11.2010 13:47, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
Apparently, though unproven, at 11:31 on Thursday 18 November 2010,
Sebastian
Beßler did opine thusly:
Am 18.11.2010 02:46, schrieb Grant
Am 18.11.2010 15:21, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
Apparently, though unproven, at 16:12 on Thursday 18 November 2010, Sebastian
Beßler did opine thusly:
Am 18.11.2010 13:47, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
Apparently, though unproven, at 11:31 on Thursday 18 November 2010,
Sebastian
Beßler did opine
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:21:23 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
What were we talking about again?
OYFEAL
--
Neil Bothwick
Top Oxymorons Number 1: Microsoft Works
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 18 November 2010 15:48:23 Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-11-18, Fernando Antunes fs.antu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Grant Edwards
grant.b.edwa...@gmail.comwrote:
Can anybody point me to a hint on how to configure synaptics touchapad
sensitivity?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 04:21:23PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
I must be getting old and forgetful. Forgot about that post.
What were we talking about again?
They say that memory is the second thing to go; I forget what the
first is.
--
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 02:59:32AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
How would your method of handling USE have assisted in preventing
that breakage? Please note that the breakage in jpeg is much *much*
more common than changes to default USE.
This is not about ipv6 or hal or dbus in particular.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 04:52:39AM +, Stroller wrote
You claim to be a control freak but you seem to be doing this to
avoid the chore of properly inspecting USE flags each time you
emerge. If you `emerge --pretend` before every update you make,
you would see what's changed! What's the
On 16/11/2010, at 10:28pm, David W Noon wrote:
...
Again, the defaults are chosen for stability with Gentoo first;
secondly, there are no fixed defaults -- or out-of-box configuration
-- from upstream, as the USE flags are simply parameterizing
the ./configure script via autotools.
I'm not
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:40:02 +0100, Grant Edwards wrote about
[gentoo-user] Re: How to configure thochpad sensitivity (using hal)?:
On 2010-11-16, David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Again, the defaults are chosen for stability with Gentoo first;
secondly, there are no fixed defaults
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:00:01 +0100, Stroller wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] Re: How to configure thochpad sensitivity (using hal)?:
[snip]
Surely what `./configure` does if I don't make any choice about its
compilation option is to be considered a default?
Gentoo ebuilds do not run ./configure
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:48:30 +, David W Noon wrote:
Surely what `./configure` does if I don't make any choice about its
compilation option is to be considered a default?
Gentoo ebuilds do not run ./configure without options, unless there are
no options available.
No, but they
Apparently, though unproven, at 23:18 on Wednesday 17 November 2010, Grant
Edwards did opine thusly:
No, but they generally set the USE defaults to give the same settings
as running ./configure with none. In other words, they are following
the upstream defaults.
We seem to be going
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:00:48AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
If you then mentioned that their defaults broke Dale's setup, they'd
likely answer Who's Dale? followed shortly by None of us have
hardware like Dale to test. Sorry 'bout that. Set USE=-hal
Of course the USE flag advice is given
Apparently, though unproven, at 02:43 on Thursday 18 November 2010, Walter
Dnes did opine thusly:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:00:48AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
If you then mentioned that their defaults broke Dale's setup, they'd
likely answer Who's Dale? followed shortly by None of us
On 18/11/2010, at 1:46am, Grant Edwards wrote:
...
Looks like the *actual* problem is non-application of OYFEAL[1],not what the
devs do.
Google doesn't seem to know what OYFEAL means. Do we get any hints?
Yes, if you're patient he'll give you [1].
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-11-18, Strollerstrol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
On 18/11/2010, at 1:46am, Grant Edwards wrote:
...
Looks like the *actual* problem is non-application of OYFEAL[1],not what the
devs do.
Google doesn't seem to know what OYFEAL means. Do we
On 18/11/2010, at 12:43am, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:00:48AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
If you then mentioned that their defaults broke Dale's setup, they'd
likely answer Who's Dale? followed shortly by None of us have
hardware like Dale to test. Sorry 'bout that. Set
On 18/11/2010, at 3:59am, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-11-18, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
On 18/11/2010, at 1:46am, Grant Edwards wrote:
...
Looks like the *actual* problem is non-application of OYFEAL[1],not what
the
devs do.
Google doesn't seem to know what
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 07:10:02 +0100, Grant Edwards wrote about
[gentoo-user] Re: How to configure thochpad sensitivity (using hal)?:
On 2010-11-15, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether Xorg uses HAL or not is controlled by a USE flag isn't it?
So upstream choses the defaults
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:20:02 +0100, Grant Edwards wrote about
[gentoo-user] Re: How to configure thochpad sensitivity (using hal)?:
On 2010-11-16, David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com wrote:
[snip]
No, the USE flags are purely a Portage thing. The USE flags
determine which options are enabled
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:28 on Wednesday 17 November 2010, David W
Noon did opine thusly:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:20:02 +0100, Grant Edwards wrote about
[gentoo-user] Re: How to configure thochpad sensitivity (using hal)?:
On 2010-11-16, David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com wrote
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:28 on Wednesday 17 November 2010, David W
Noon did opine thusly:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:20:02 +0100, Grant Edwards wrote about
[gentoo-user] Re: How to configure thochpad sensitivity (using hal)?:
On 2010-11-16, David W
Apparently, though unproven, at 17:31 on Monday 15 November 2010, Grant
Edwards did opine thusly:
On 2010-11-14, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, if xorg-server-1.8 is around the corner to be stabilised I
suggest that you unmask it and use the xorg.conf file that we all
know
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:51 on Monday 15 November 2010, Grant
Edwards did opine thusly:
On 2010-11-15, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 17:31 on Monday 15 November 2010, Grant
Edwards did opine thusly:
On 2010-11-14, Mick
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 17:31 on Monday 15 November 2010, Grant
Edwards did opine thusly:
On 2010-11-14, Mickmichaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, if xorg-server-1.8 is around the corner to be stabilised I
suggest that you unmask it and use the
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:56 on Tuesday 16 November 2010, Dale did
opine thusly:
Actually, it rendered mine broken and not usable. If upstream walks off
the edge of a cliff, does Gentoo follow upstream then? What would have
been nice is if Gentoo would have at least made it
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:56 on Tuesday 16 November 2010, Dale did
opine thusly:
Actually, it rendered mine broken and not usable. If upstream walks off
the edge of a cliff, does Gentoo follow upstream then? What would have
been nice is if Gentoo would have
On Sunday 14 November 2010 15:36:43 Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-11-14, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
Before you go to great pains to get this working, you do know that hal
is checking out right?
Yes, I knew that. Maybe I'll just live without the touchpad until HAL
goes away for
55 matches
Mail list logo
