On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 22:50:44 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:09:14 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
(1) I never use testing versions of system pkgs like Glibc
Someone has to or they'll never get tested.
Come on ! -- not on a production system !
Who mentioned production
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 16:27 on Wednesday 09 February 2011, Mark
Knecht did opine thusly:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
James wrote:
Hello,
So looking at the
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:00:24 +0200, Petri Rosenström wrote:
If you use vi(m) you don't have to type too much neither. Just use
:r!blkid /dev/sda in vi(m) and you have the UUID, with some additional
information, but the rest is just vi(m) magic.
None of which
On Thursday 10 February 2011 06:31:12 Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:00:24 +0200, Petri Rosenström wrote:
If you use vi(m) you don't have to type too much neither. Just use
:r!blkid /dev/sda in vi(m) and you have the UUID, with some
:additional
Joost Roeleveld wrote:
On Thursday 10 February 2011 06:31:12 Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:00:24 +0200, Petri Rosenström wrote:
If you use vi(m) you don't have to type too much neither. Just use
:r!blkid /dev/sda in vi(m) and you have the UUID,
On Thursday 10 February 2011 06:45:53 Dale wrote:
Joost Roeleveld wrote:
On Thursday 10 February 2011 06:31:12 Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:00:24 +0200, Petri Rosenström wrote:
If you use vi(m) you don't have to type too much neither. Just use
:r!blkid
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:45:53 -0600, Dale wrote:
Kewl !! That works. Wonder if I should try this way out. See if I
can mess this up. o_O
Why would you want to swap a concise, readable fstab for one that needs
to be filled with comments to make any sense at all?
signature.asc
Description:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:45:53 -0600, Dale wrote:
Kewl !! That works. Wonder if I should try this way out. See if I
can mess this up. o_O
Why would you want to swap a concise, readable fstab for one that needs
to be filled with comments to make any sense at
Apparently, though unproven, at 04:07 on Thursday 10 February 2011, Keith Dart
did opine thusly:
=== On Wed, 02/09, Dale wrote: ===
Now some of you know how much I hate windows. Of course, DOS wasn't
much better,
===
Yep. I've been using Linux on my desktop since version 1.2, and
On 8/2/2011, at 9:55pm, Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
If you're a gambling man, play it by the numbers:
A re-install for a Gentoo user with a clue is a certain 1 hour of your life
tops to get it redone with a recent stage 3, more likely 30 minutes. That
will
give you a working system albeit
On 8/2/2011, at 9:11pm, Nils Holland wrote:
On 12:41 Tue 08 Feb , Stroller wrote:
If my process wasn't clear from my last email: it looks like, following that
document, you have to do the whole thing with changed CHOST, *before* making
any changes to CFLAGS. It appears like only after
On 9/2/2011, at 2:27pm, Mark Knecht wrote:
...
Following Walt's recent thread about his experiences using grub2 I
think getting folks used to disk labels at installation time, be they
names or even better UUID's, might fit in very well with installation
instructions that cover using grub2
walt w41ter at gmail.com writes:
Correct, they are two different (but equivalent) ways of naming
a filesystem (partition) for use in fstab.
mkfs generates a UUID automatically when the fs is created, but
it does *not* generate a label unless you give it one using the
-L flag, or create one
Neil Bothwick neil at digimed.co.uk writes:
These aren't needed to get a system up and running. Yeah, Ubuntu uses
them for various ID purposes, but nothing really critical. Unless
there's a clear need for them, for example if some package in the
@system set will use them in a way that
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Stroller
strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
I don't really know what the -fomit-frame-pointer part does - I imagine
someone suggested it, perhaps on here, years ago, and it has got copied from
system to system.
I think it removes your ability to get a
On 10/2/2011, at 4:22pm, Paul Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Stroller
strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
I don't really know what the -fomit-frame-pointer part does - I imagine
someone suggested it, perhaps on here, years ago, and it has got copied from
system to
On Thursday 10 February 2011 00:02:07 Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:48:18 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
And it's very difficult to downgrade it due to that hidden barf check
in the ebuild. I have yet to find a supported, documented way to back
out of glibc screw-ups; my way is
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:10:06 -0800 (PST), Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
The trouble is that binpkgs keep a copy of the ebuild in them, so
even if you remove the downgrade check fro the in-tree ebuild, it
still fails. That one had me scratching my head for a few minutes.
what happens if
Apparently, though unproven, at 17:18 on Thursday 10 February 2011, Stroller
did opine thusly:
On 8/2/2011, at 9:55pm, Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
If you're a gambling man, play it by the numbers:
A re-install for a Gentoo user with a clue is a certain 1 hour of your
life tops to get it
On 10:22 Thu 10 Feb , Paul Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Stroller
strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
I don't really know what the -fomit-frame-pointer part does - I imagine
someone suggested it, perhaps on here, years ago, and it has got copied
from system to
Hello,
Is there a way to install a 32bit version of xulrunner?
An application I am using on top of eclipse apparently needs a 32bit
version. Don't know exactly why... Currently I have:
/usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.2
/usr/lib64/xulrunner-devel-1.9.2
/usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.2/LICENSE
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 18:32 -0500, Valmor de Almeida wrote:
Hello,
Is there a way to install a 32bit version of xulrunner?
An application I am using on top of eclipse apparently needs a 32bit
version. Don't know exactly why... Currently I have:
xulrunner is in the multilib layman overlay;
On 02/10/2011 09:52 PM, Mike Edenfield wrote:
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 18:32 -0500, Valmor de Almeida wrote:
Hello,
Is there a way to install a 32bit version of xulrunner?
An application I am using on top of eclipse apparently needs a 32bit
version. Don't know exactly why... Currently I have:
23 matches
Mail list logo
