ok, this isn't exactly on-topic here, but i'm trying to find a mirroring
program that's like decent. i tried mirror, and fmirror, and both suck.
it'll just create symlinks, and not get the darned files. I just want to
get the Sparc stuff, I dont' want to have to transfer any of the
'binary-all'
Heh.. well put dude They do SUCK.
Cheers to the wanker that wrote them. A mirror by definition, I thought ..
was something that could download the damn planet at any given time... if
you felt like down loading such a large volume :)
So, go rename it you loosers.
I have just been informed,
Has anyone herd or seen a thing called Encrypted File system on any Debian
or Linux distribution???
I am told it's lurking around, but this source is not all that reliable.
I am interested in this, as I am sure everyone else might be.
If it's a load of crap and doesn't exist, maybe
Hello,
there is such a file system, called either cfs(for cryptographic file
system) or tcfs(for transparent cfs). I don't know if these are one and
the same piece of software, I believe so. I also spent 5 minutes and dug
up a url fr you(since I forget the one that I had so long ago)
try this
I seem to remember a big stink a while back about unimplemented system
calls,
including 103 119. This was fixed in later stable kernel snapshots. I'm
just guessing here, but it could be that libc6 2.0.95 is using more of these
syscalls than previous versions, so if you don't have the
Chris == Chris Trainor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris ok, this isn't exactly on-topic here, but i'm trying to
Chris find a mirroring program that's like decent. i tried
Chris mirror, and fmirror, and both suck. it'll just create
Chris symlinks, and not get the darned files. I
I need some help to finish the upgrade to debian of my old red hat sparc
web server.
After the upload I found that I can't compile anymore many packages
because there are some headers missing. Someone on IRC explained me
that if I use a 2.0 libc I must install the source for the kernel
2.0.35,
At 08:33 -0700 1998-09-14, Derrick J Brashear wrote:
There are a few more syscalls in the newest code which won't report errors
anymore but won't do anything, which will be in the next snapshot. The problem
is presumably that glibc is testing for existance but not usefulness of
syscalls and so it
At 08:33 -0700 1998-09-14, Derrick J Brashear wrote:
There are a few more syscalls in the newest code which won't report errors
anymore but won't do anything, which will be in the next snapshot. The
problem
is presumably that glibc is testing for existance but not usefulness of
syscalls
9 matches
Mail list logo
