Y
Yeewy..2..a-..22.2...667_%~ Von meinem iPhone gesendet ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
[ports/science/paraview]: /usr/local/lib/paraview-2.4/tk8.4/tk.tcl: no event type or button # or keysym
Before posting a PR I'll ask whether this error I receive after a fresh
installation of paraview from ports today on FreeBSD 8.0-RC1/amd64 is an
serious issue or something related on misconfiguration.
Besides, tcl/tk 8.4 is up to date and present on the system.
Hope someone can help,
regards,
Oliver
--
ParaView error: InitializeTcl failed
Tk_Init error: Can't find a usable tk.tcl in the following directories:
/usr/local/lib/paraview-2.4/tk8.4
/usr/local/lib/paraview-2.4/tk8.4/tk.tcl: no event type or button # or
keysym
no event type or button # or keysym
while executing
bind Listbox {
%W yview scroll [expr {- (%D / 120) * 4}] units
}
(file /usr/local/lib/paraview-2.4/tk8.4/listbox.tcl line 182)
invoked from within
source /usr/local/lib/paraview-2.4/tk8.4/listbox.tcl
(in namespace eval :: script line 1)
invoked from within
namespace eval :: [list source [file join $::tk_library $file.tcl]]
(procedure SourceLibFile line 2)
invoked from within
SourceLibFile listbox
(in namespace eval ::tk script line 4)
invoked from within
namespace eval ::tk {
SourceLibFile button
SourceLibFile entry
SourceLibFile listbox
SourceLibFile menu
SourceLibFile panedwindow
SourceLibFile ...
invoked from within
if {$::tk_library ne } {
if {[string equal $tcl_platform(platform) macintosh]} {
proc ::tk::SourceLibFile {file} {
if {[catch {
namesp...
(file /usr/local/lib/paraview-2.4/tk8.4/tk.tcl line 397)
invoked from within
source /usr/local/lib/paraview-2.4/tk8.4/tk.tcl
(uplevel body line 1)
invoked from within
uplevel #0 [list source $file]
This probably means that tk wasn't installed properly.
Hello,
this happens because Xorg changed the event model in 7.4 and Tk not. A quick
fix is to comment out the mouse events in paraview. A better fix is to patch
Tk, someone already wrote it.
Greetings,
Heiner
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: please help to uninstall FreeBSD!!!
Am Mittwoch, den 19.08.2009, 07:59 + schrieb freebsd-questions-requ...@freebsd.org: On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 01:45:27PM -0400, Karl Vogel wrote: On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:23:29 -0700, Walt Pawley w...@wump.org said: W As speculation on my part, perhaps the six character limitation is less W a software issue than an early architecture issue - DEC's PDP-6/10 W design used 36-bit words and packed six characters (clearly from a W limited subset of the then current ASCII) per word, making simple W searches very effective through symbol tables with a simple word level W compare loop. I'll second that. My first job for Uncle Sugar was on a DEC 10/55 for the Air Force, and 36-bit words were a fact of life. There were lots of programs around for conversion to/from 32-bit words, just so we could talk to everybody else on Earth. CDC (Control Data) mainframe machines used 6 bit characters. I believe the 3600 series had 36 bit words. The 6000 series (6400, 6500, etc, plus 170/750) used 60 bit words but still used 6 bit characters. So, everything was all upper case. It had 12 bit 'peripheral processors' which tended the 60 bit main processor[s] so later started to use 12 bit characters or sometimes 8 in 12 to allow for upper/lower case. That was a Seymour Cray thing. He designed their early mainframes before he bolted to make his own companies (so he wouldn't have to conform to corporate control). And I always thought it was 14 bit with 7 bit characters, perhaps this is why my outputs looked strange :) This was the last model I've used: http://www.cray-cyber.org/systems/cy960.php Later CDC came out with their 180 series that used 64 bit words and 8 bit bytes. It was kind of a nice system but it was too late for them. The world was turning to clusters of cheap CPU chips running UNIX instead of massive mainframes running proprietary OSen and CDC didn't jump on that bandwagon soon or strongly or cheaply enough. Anyway, in those earliest of days, 6 bits was the economical character set. But it was an obstacle to upper/lower case characters without using some shift code. IBM and DEC started doing 8 bit bytes - I don't know just when - and that allowed eash use of upper/lower characters and so quickly determined the standard character size for a long time. Didn't need lower case at this time. REAL PROGRAMMERS USED FORTRAN http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html The problem was, the programmers packed the string into integer arrays. 2 characters in 1 integer saved a lot of space, but the VAX didn't like this style. Now that 8 bit byte is a thorn in the side of those who want to create and universalize a character set that is international. jerry Wasn't it just 3 or 4 releases ago FreeBSD went 8 bit clean ? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: please help to uninstall FreeBSD!!!
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 06:18:45PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: On 17 August 2009 pm 18:09:06 cpghost wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:25:29AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: By the way, where did I read that #define macro names have to be unique within the first 6 (six) letters? :-) The 6 letters limit was actually a restriction of earlier linkers and it affected all identifiers of linkable objects I did not know that linkers resolved macros those days. Of course they didn't. But knowing that linkers restricted the identifiers' length to 6 chars, it made sense for preprocessors to restrict them as well before passing them to the compiler and linker. Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that, but the basic restriction came from the linkers, the preprocessors only inherited it. Interesting. Erich Regards, -cpghost. Putting the symbol names in one word helped the linker / loader a lot. Live was so easy. Heiner C(one word = 32 bit) .NOT. (some word processor software) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 5000' ethernet?
Option 2: Put an ordinary DSL modem at one end and a DSLAM at the other end. Again I'm not sure what the range is, but DSL used to be referred to as the solution for the last mile from the telco to the customer so it may be up to the job. I could recommend this too, because a Lucent Stinger IP DSLAM with 24 ports with 8 Mbit Downstream and 1 Mbit upstream cost arround 800 US$ and you can use inexpensive 2 wire (or multiple) telephone cable. The Lucent Stinger IP DSLAM support 8 Mbit in a distance of 6000ft and DSL lite with 384 kbit on 15000ft. If T1/E1 speed is enough, there are cards working with FreeBSD. If the CSU/DSU is on the card, I think you don't need extra equip and you have a symmetrical line. Should be OK for some miles with ordinary field telephone cable. You configure these cards almost like normal network cards if you run IP over them. Greetings, Heiner ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
