ord is *not* setuid root, the
other will not burn at all.
I do not use an initrd, so there's one major difference between your system
and mine. Have you tried rebuilding the initrd lately?
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
, though I haven't managed to get
it to work in Konqueror yet (only FireFox).
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 05:09, Renzo Rosales wrote:
> Is anyone going to help this guy? lol
He doesn't want us to. He'd rather we all delete his email! =p
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 02:09, Joseph LeMoyne IV wrote:
> Hate to burst your bubble, guys, but Simone was joking. Notice the
> almost word-for-word reply. "I hope this will be appreciated." Come on.
I was primarily replying to Mark, not Simone.
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
ht
is should not be the problem...
However, Gentoo's GCC *is* broken and *does* prevent vanilla KDE from
compiling.
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 01:51, B Vance wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 01:21 +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 01 March 2005 20:33, Creamer, Mark wrote:
> > > > This e-mail transmission contains information that is intended to be
> > > > confidential an
ent you/us from
reading or retaining it. Likewise, you/we are not legally obligated to delete
or erase his emails, nor to inform him of any such "mistakes" simply because
he tells you to.
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
visibility
feature and they don't seem to care to fix it.
I disabled it for my GCC by adding this to make.conf:
GENTOO_PATCH_EXCLUDE='13_all_gcc34-visibility1.patch.bz2
15_all_gcc34-visibility3.patch.bz2 14_all_gcc34-visibility2.patch.bz2'
YMMV.
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopi
ucam.org/~mjg59/thinkpad/hack.c
This should, in theory, at least, remove the whitelist restrictions...
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
t; 64-bit support? Is the speed difference (if any) worth the potential loss
> of stability?
From what I've heard, Intel's x86_64 CPUs really are just x86 with added
64-bit emulation on the chip. 64-bit code therefore runs slower, etc...
Might want to confirm it from someone who ac
ck google didn't come up with any drivers,
let alone libre vs proprietary info)
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Luke-Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 10:08 PM
> >
> > On Sunday 23 January 2005 2:50 am, [EMAI
On Friday 11 February 2005 01:04, Mark Constable wrote:
> Luke-Jr wrote:
> > ...
> > Not related to the problem you are having, but don't expect to be able to
> > compile KDE with the more recent Gentoo revisions of GCC. They enable a
> > broken backport of the v
ompile KDE with the more recent Gentoo revisions of GCC. They enable a
broken backport of the visibility stuff which breaks KDE.
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thursday 10 February 2005 09:45, Duncan wrote:
> Luke-Jr posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below,
>
> on Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:41:33 +:
> > on PPC...
> >
> > mkdir -p /etc/portage
> > for d in /usr/portage/kde-base/*; do
> > pkg="${d/
On Thursday 10 February 2005 03:51, Mark Constable wrote:
> Luke-Jr wrote:
> > mkdir -p /etc/portage
> > for d in /usr/portage/kde-base/*; do
> > pkg="${d/\/usr\/portage\//}";
> > echo "${pkg} ~x86 x86" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
(and video) focussed liveCD a
> bit like Agnula/CCRMA ?
>
> --markc
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
avy into multimedia development, particularly on Unix
> (xine and FFmpeg).
Xv should work fine without any immoral/proprietary software/drivers with any
nVidia or ATi cards.
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, January 28, 2005 6:39 am, Duncan said:
> Dylan Carlson posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Fri, 28 Jan 2005 06:40:07 -0500:
>> This is because the installer for sun-jdk tries to access /dev/random
which violates the sandbox. So, the solution is to emerge sun-jdk
without
>> usi
On Wed, January 26, 2005 1:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Luke-Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't care that x86_64 CPUs are compatible with x86. If the price
range was the same for a non-x86-based 64-bit CPU, I would have gone
with that. I chose x86_64 for its pric
it CPU, I would have gone with that. I chose
x86_64 for its price, not compatibility.
> I'm a home computer user and the "pure 64-bit" approach has turned out, in
> practice, to be a PITA, because it is too dogmatic about the 64-bit aspect.
How is that? I am using a pure 64-bi
; I am about to buy a new machine, should I go for
> a Radeon card or stick to some nVidia card that I know
> will easily work thanks to the nvidia-kernel ebuild ?
>
> --markc
>
> --
> gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
supports 32-bit modules? I was under the impression that only
modules matching the arch could be used...
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
o using moral software. Even
if this one problem is solved, there will always be disadvantages to using
proprietary software.
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
m in my head... When you talk about the Base
> system, I think you have a very different idea in your head than I do?
IIRC, the "base system" in Gentoo terminology refers to the part of your
system that packages assume exists. For example, plenty of packages need GCC
to compile, but many don't actually DEPEND on it.
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
Just saw why people might prefer to get a Broadcom, though...
$10 for a 802.11g card as opposed to $84 (Orinoco)-- if there were open
drivers, I'd get it. :/
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sunday 23 January 2005 1:29 pm, Mike Williams wrote:
> On Sunday 23 January 2005 04:25, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > > Do you know a place that sells 802.11g mini-pci nics that are linux
> > > compatible? In my case it is because I bought a laptop.
> >
> > Never heard o
onico (sp?) work fine...
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke-Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 10:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] 64-bit Broadcom wireless works!
>
> On Sunday 23 January 2005 2:50 am, [EMAIL PROTE
at would be PPC, not x86_64...
> Follow instructions at:
> http://ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net/phpwiki/index.php?Installation
> (be sure "CONFIG_NET_RADIO=y" is compiled into the kernel)
...or just emerge Cardoe's ebuild from
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/ndiswrapper-1
not run with
> hardware acceleration at all when the kernel is 64 bit compiled. This is
> the case even in a chrooted environment. Does anyone have ideas?
Check perms on /dev/dri/*
--
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tuesday 11 January 2005 12:28 pm, Nick Warrington wrote:
> If I do glxInfo I get all the right info about my NVIDIA card
> etc etc, but DRI is off.(Before anyone asks, it is turned on in the 64 bit
> world).
Is this even possible? Last I checked, nVidia doesn't support DRI.
and have the server plugin translate
the stdin back to API calls.
Of course, since I'm part of the group that is against proprietary software
for "idealistic" reasons, I'm not going to be inclined to write anything like
this myself... though it would be an interesting pro
31 matches
Mail list logo
