I noticed that the latest enlightenment overlay (revision 723) brought with it
a number of changes in the USE flags (a lot of e_modules_everything are now
disabled).
One of them 'e_modules_fileman-opinfo' is both enabled and disabled ... o_O
Why is this?
[ebuild R *]
On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 01:53:39 Peter Humphrey wrote:
I hope you're pleased to know the process finished. 23 hours to move a
partition! Never heard anything like it.
Not unheard of. If you have too small/large bs and the disk is relatively
large it will take quite some hours to get it
Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Saturday 30 July 2011 15:50:11 Dale wrote:
Peter Humphrey wrote:
One thing's certain: it's a good test of the USB disk! I just hope your
power incident doesn't happen to me too. :-)
That would suck. I sure did hate to lose my videos. I bet ATT
Mick wrote:
On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 01:53:39 Peter Humphrey wrote:
I hope you're pleased to know the process finished. 23 hours to move a
partition! Never heard anything like it.
Not unheard of. If you have too small/large bs and the disk is relatively
large it will take quite some
On Sunday, July 31 at 05:44 (+0100), Stroller said:
Hi there,
I kinda feel I'm opening myself up for ridicule in asking this, but I'm on
x86 stable (i.e. not ~x86) and this behaviour seems to have changed
recently.
During a recent `emerge --sync` I received the an update to portage
Am 31.07.2011 06:44, schrieb Stroller:
Hi there,
I kinda feel I'm opening myself up for ridicule in asking this, but I'm on
x86 stable (i.e. not ~x86) and this behaviour seems to have changed
recently.
During a recent `emerge --sync` I received the an update to portage is
available -
Am 30.07.2011 16:01, schrieb Michael Mol:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net
wrote:
Hello list!
I've noticed the following in my rc.log file:
[file system mounting ...]
opt: clean, 3127/6496 files, 108510/209920 blocks
fsck.ext4: Unable to resolve
Am 30.07.2011 21:37, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
On 07/30/2011 12:42 PM, Florian Philipp wrote:
Hello list!
I've noticed the following in my rc.log file:
[file system mounting ...]
opt: clean, 3127/6496 files, 108510/209920 blocks
fsck.ext4: Unable to resolve »LABEL=backup«
* Operational
On Sun 31 July 2011 09:27:09 Mick did opine thusly:
I noticed that the latest enlightenment overlay (revision 723)
brought with it a number of changes in the USE flags (a lot of
e_modules_everything are now disabled).
One of them 'e_modules_fileman-opinfo' is both enabled and disabled
...
On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 11:51:59 Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sun 31 July 2011 09:27:09 Mick did opine thusly:
I noticed that the latest enlightenment overlay (revision 723)
brought with it a number of changes in the USE flags (a lot of
e_modules_everything are now disabled).
One of them
On Sunday 31 July 2011 09:54:07 Albert Hopkins wrote:
Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem.
He's asking why upgrading world or system doesn't include upgrading portage.
Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. :-)
--
Rgds
Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 09:49:33 Dale wrote:
Mick wrote:
On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 01:53:39 Peter Humphrey wrote:
I hope you're pleased to know the process finished. 23 hours to move a
partition! Never heard anything like it.
Not unheard of. If you have too small/large bs and the disk is
On Sun 31 July 2011 11:59:46 Mick did opine thusly:
On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 11:51:59 Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sun 31 July 2011 09:27:09 Mick did opine thusly:
I noticed that the latest enlightenment overlay (revision
723)
brought with it a number of changes in the USE flags (a lot
of
On Sun 31 July 2011 12:08:01 Peter Humphrey did opine thusly:
On Sunday 31 July 2011 09:54:07 Albert Hopkins wrote:
Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem.
He's asking why upgrading world or system doesn't include upgrading
portage.
Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the
On Sunday, July 31 at 12:08 (+0100), Peter Humphrey said:
On Sunday 31 July 2011 09:54:07 Albert Hopkins wrote:
Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem.
He's asking why upgrading world or system doesn't include upgrading portage.
Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the
On 31 July 2011, at 10:02, Florian Philipp wrote:
...
@system used to contain portage. It doesn't by default, anymore. If you
do `emerge -pv --depclean`, portage should try to remove itself. Just
add it to @world by doing `emerge --noreplace portage`
Many thanks!
Perfect answer.
Stroller.
On 31 July 2011, at 13:15, Albert Hopkins wrote:
Yeah, sorry about that. I think my understanding was clouded by all the
peripheral discussion regarding stable/unstable and different versions
of portage. That and the fact that I had just gotten out of bed when I
read it :P
They OP could
On 31 July 2011, at 00:56, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
...
I got x11-themes/gtk-engines:3 from the gnome overlay installed so GTK 3
engines are there. My problem is I don't know how to set a global theme
for GTK 3 (and the default is dead ugly). If it is file
~/.config/gtk-3.0/settings.ini
On Sunday, July 31 at 13:31 (+0100), Stroller said:
Yeah, I specifically wanted to stave off suggestions of you should
unmask the ~86 versions of portage, anyway, as I think I saw that
view aired fairly robustly in another thread recently and it's really
not for me.
I was also quite
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net wrote:
Am 30.07.2011 16:01, schrieb Michael Mol:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net
wrote:
Hello list!
I've noticed the following in my rc.log file:
[file system mounting ...]
opt:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Peter Humphrey
pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote:
On Saturday 30 July 2011 15:50:11 Dale wrote:
Peter Humphrey wrote:
One thing's certain: it's a good test of the USB disk! I just hope your
power incident doesn't happen to me too. :-)
That would suck. I
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 09:49:33 Dale wrote:
Mick wrote:
On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 01:53:39 Peter Humphrey wrote:
I hope you're pleased to know the process finished. 23 hours to move a
partition! Never heard anything like it.
On Sunday 31 July 2011 14:15:20 Joshua Murphy wrote:
Well, GParted, if I recall, does a couple checks to guess 'best' block
size when cloning or moving a partition, but I'm really not sure how
it does things when shrinking and shifting it sideways to a spot that
overlaps with where it
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Stroller
strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
On 31 July 2011, at 00:56, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
...
I got x11-themes/gtk-engines:3 from the gnome overlay installed so GTK 3
engines are there. My problem is I don't know how to set a global theme
for GTK 3
On Friday 29 July 2011 14:18:41 Michael Mol wrote:
Something that's been tickling my brain for a couple years now, and
you guys are probably the right ones to ask.
I haven't dropped coin for an SSD (yet), but I was wondering about
uses for them beyond using them for / or /home.
1) What
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Peter Humphrey
pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote:
On Sunday 31 July 2011 14:15:20 Joshua Murphy wrote:
Well, GParted, if I recall, does a couple checks to guess 'best' block
size when cloning or moving a partition, but I'm really not sure how
it does things when
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Friday 29 July 2011 14:18:41 Michael Mol wrote:
Something that's been tickling my brain for a couple years now, and
you guys are probably the right ones to ask.
I haven't dropped coin for an SSD (yet),
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
no, /var/tmp is very not important from a performance point of view - with the
exception of /var/tmp/portage - and that is a candidate for tempfs.
Actually I recently tested that theory and it was faster when
/var/tmp/portage was on a hard drive instead of
On Sunday 31 July 2011 15:17:16 Joshua Murphy wrote:
There probably is a fair chunk of difference in maximum speed the disk
can work at on each end (I've even seen around a 20MB/s difference on
several 160GB drives I've dealt with), but outside of some older
drives that've been heavily abused
Hi,
to compile the Mitsuba renderer I need glewmx (whatever this means).
Postings on the net let me believe, that glewmx is a part of glew,
which in turn is a gentoo package.
But I found no USE-flags telling the package to build glew with
glewmx...or I misunderstood the whole thing ...
Can
Hello list,
My little Atom box's hard disk spins up every minute or so, and watching
iotop I see it's jbd2 that does it.
This is a kernel component, and the menuconfig help text says it's set
automatically by having the block layer included (and who hasn't?) together
with ext4.
Google shows
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Peter Humphrey
pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote:
Hello list,
My little Atom box's hard disk spins up every minute or so, and watching
iotop I see it's jbd2 that does it.
This is a kernel component, and the menuconfig help text says it's set
automatically by
On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 01:53:39 Peter Humphrey wrote:
All I have to do now is to persuade Win-XP to find the disk. No luck so
far...
I don't know what's your partition topology, but you may want to use:
fixboot (to rewrite the partition boot record on the WinXP partition)
fixmbr (to rewrite
On Sunday 31 July 2011 17:05:39 Michael Mol wrote:
However, if it's doing that, then it probably has something it needs to
write to disk. That might be metadata updates.
What, at least once a minute? While the system's idling, waiting for
something to do? Doesn't sound likely to me.
Have
On Sunday 31 July 2011 18:20:02 Mick wrote:
If the partition of the WinXP installation is intact then the position of
the partition on the disk may be causing you trouble, in which case play
around with the GRUB hide and chainload options to hide other
disks/partitions, so that WinXP thinks
Peter Humphrey wrote:
In fact it is so, by design. I don't know what I did, but after enough
reboots Win-XP was happy. Thanks anyway.
That sounds like winders. lol
Dale
:-) :-)
On Sun 31 July 2011 18:39:21 Peter Humphrey did opine thusly:
On Sunday 31 July 2011 17:05:39 Michael Mol wrote:
However, if it's doing that, then it probably has something it
needs to write to disk. That might be metadata updates.
What, at least once a minute? While the system's idling,
Hi,
Am Sonntag, 31. Juli 2011, 17:09:08 schrieb meino.cra...@gmx.de:
Hi,
to compile the Mitsuba renderer I need glewmx (whatever this means).
Postings on the net let me believe, that glewmx is a part of glew,
which in turn is a gentoo package.
But I found no USE-flags telling the package
That fixed it. Thank you very much. I'm a little puzzled because I
don't get the unable to apply firmware patch messages on my desktop
which also uses the r8169 driver and doesn't have linux-firmware
installed.
Maybe you have an older firmware installed from a different package?
Run
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Peter Humphrey
pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote:
On Sunday 31 July 2011 17:05:39 Michael Mol wrote:
However, if it's doing that, then it probably has something it needs to
write to disk. That might be metadata updates.
What, at least once a minute? While the
Am 31.07.2011 17:50, schrieb Peter Humphrey:
Hello list,
My little Atom box's hard disk spins up every minute or so, and watching
iotop I see it's jbd2 that does it.
This is a kernel component, and the menuconfig help text says it's set
automatically by having the block layer included
Am Sonntag 31 Juli 2011, 10:44:28 schrieb Michael Mol:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Friday 29 July 2011 14:18:41 Michael Mol wrote:
Something that's been tickling my brain for a couple years now, and
you guys are probably the
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Sonntag 31 Juli 2011, 10:44:28 schrieb Michael Mol:
While I take your point about write-cycle limitations, and I would
*assume* you're familiar with the various improvements on
wear-leveling technique
Maybe you have an older firmware installed from a different package?
Run emerge -p linux-firmware on that box to see if there's a blocker.
linux-firmware is blocked by radeon-ucode and rt61-firmware,
I'm guessing that radeon-ucode and rt61-firmware and all the others
are being deprecated in
Open java replaced with Sun java and now it is working fine.
Tks,
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:41 PM, akio.tam...@gmail.com
akio.tam...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Srdjan,
Thank you, but *user.**properties* has all lines commented so I believe it
is not the cause of this issue...
USE=-gtk does not
Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example,
2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0).
Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go
directly to `make menuconfig`?
Rgds,
--
--
Pandu E Poluan - IT Optimizer
My website:
Better to run make oldconfig. It merges the changes.
--
Jeremy McSpadden
def...@uberpenguin.net
On Jul 31, 2011, at 9:06 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example,
2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0).
Is
Jeremy McSpadden wrote:
Better to run make oldconfig. It merges the changes.
--
Jeremy McSpadden
def...@uberpenguin.net
Yep. I always run make oldconfig then just run make make
modules_install. Once oldconfig is done, the kernel should be
configured and ready to build.
Dale
:-)
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example,
2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0).
Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go
directly to `make
On Jul 31, 2011 7:06 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example,
2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0).
Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go
directly to `make
50 matches
Mail list logo
