On 09/10/2010 08:07 AM, Галымжан Кожаев wrote:
Hi list.
Few days ago I've succesfully installed arch. It was booting really fast
first time (i.e. without gnome, networkmanager, etc).
After installing GNOME and some daemons, adding them to the rc.conf, the
system now takes 30-40 seconds to load.
I
Hi,
I just noticed that there is a sage-mathematics package in community
repository and tried to install it and found out that the package is
really huge.
I understand that sage is always shipped in a gigantic bundle, but the
arch package is considerably larger than official packages provided
for
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 11:07 +0600, Галымжан Кожаев wrote:
> Hi list.
> Few days ago I've succesfully installed arch. It was booting really fast
> first time (i.e. without gnome, networkmanager, etc).
> After installing GNOME and some daemons, adding them to the rc.conf, the
> system now takes 30-40
Hi list.
Few days ago I've succesfully installed arch. It was booting really fast
first time (i.e. without gnome, networkmanager, etc).
After installing GNOME and some daemons, adding them to the rc.conf, the
system now takes 30-40 seconds to load.
I heard that HAL daemon takes a lot of time during
On 09/09/2010 10:09 PM, Callum Scott wrote:
HI,
Is it possible an IRC OP can contact me off list?
Cheers
Callum
sure, what's up?
--
Ionuț
HI,
Is it possible an IRC OP can contact me off list?
Cheers
Callum
These comments were removed from the default pacman.conf, so let's
remove them from these default configuration files as well.
---
pacman-extra.conf|5 -
pacman-multilib.conf |6 --
pacman-staging.conf |7 ---
pacman-testing.conf |5 -
4 files changed, 0 inser
"Nathan Wayde" wrote:
>On 09/09/10 16:19, Victor Lowther wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Thomas Bächler" wrote:
>>
>>> Am 08.09.2010 06:16, schrieb Victor Lowther:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Dave Reisner
>>> wrote:
> Instead of checking for the existance of a file in
>/var/run/daemons
>>> on
>
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 18:57:18 +0300, Evangelos Foutras
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:05:47 +0200, Pierre Schmitz
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:48:06 +1000, Allan McRae
>>> wrote:
Just a reminder for people to look at their pac
Okay, sorry about that.
Here's the relevant stuff:
uptime:
22:04:53 up 26 days, 17:16, 1 user, load average: 0.03, 0.01, 0.00
Now it doesn't seem to touch even 1.
free -m:
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem: 512251260
On 09/09/10 16:19, Victor Lowther wrote:
"Thomas Bächler" wrote:
Am 08.09.2010 06:16, schrieb Victor Lowther:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Dave Reisner
wrote:
Instead of checking for the existance of a file in /var/run/daemons
on
every iteration, handle the null case by setting null
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:05:47 +0200, Pierre Schmitz
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:48:06 +1000, Allan McRae
>> wrote:
>>> Just a reminder for people to look at their packages and rebuild them
>>> for this. We seem to of stalled majorly.
"Thomas Bächler" wrote:
>Am 08.09.2010 06:16, schrieb Victor Lowther:
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Dave Reisner
>wrote:
>>> Instead of checking for the existance of a file in /var/run/daemons
>on
>>> every iteration, handle the null case by setting nullglob. The shopt
>>> call is done i
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Dan McGee wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Nilesh Govindarajan
>> wrote:
>>> I have an OpenVZ VPS running arch.
>>> For some reason pacman is superslow, and I'm not allowed to create/use
>>>
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Dan McGee wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
>> I have an OpenVZ VPS running arch.
>> For some reason pacman is superslow, and I'm not allowed to create/use
>> loopback devices.
>> pacman-optimize takes nearly 5 minutes per run, n
On 09/09/10 14:11, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:55:35 +0300, Evangelos Foutras
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Fess wrote:
Page "Local mirros" was removed from wiki by this reason:
-
It is generally frowned upon to create a local mirror due the bandwidth that is
r
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:55:35 +0300, Evangelos Foutras
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Fess wrote:
>> Page "Local mirros" was removed from wiki by this reason:
>>
>> -
>> It is generally frowned upon to create a local mirror due the bandwidth that
>> is required.
>> There is not a goo
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Fess wrote:
> Page "Local mirros" was removed from wiki by this reason:
>
> -
> It is generally frowned upon to create a local mirror due the bandwidth that
> is required.
> There is not a good reason to create a local mirror, since one of the
> alternatives b
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 13:02:02 +0200, Florian Pritz
wrote:
> On 09.09.2010 11:55, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
>> this will hopefully the last update of xz for some time. :-) Maybe this
>> is a sign for the final 5.0 version to be near. I am now using the (very
>> strange) upstream versioning scheme.
>
>
Page "Local mirros" was removed from wiki by this reason:
-
It is generally frowned upon to create a local mirror due the bandwidth that is
required.
There is not a good reason to create a local mirror, since one of the
alternatives below will likely meet your needs.
-
I think it's very
On 9 September 2010 13:02, Florian Pritz wrote:
> On 09.09.2010 11:55, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
>> this will hopefully the last update of xz for some time. :-) Maybe this
>> is a sign for the final 5.0 version to be near. I am now using the (very
>> strange) upstream versioning scheme.
>
> That's jus
On 09.09.2010 11:55, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> this will hopefully the last update of xz for some time. :-) Maybe this
> is a sign for the final 5.0 version to be near. I am now using the (very
> strange) upstream versioning scheme.
That's just git describe.
--
signoff x86_64
--
Florian Pritz --
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 22:48, Aaron Schaefer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
>> anyone knows this? http://bugseverywhere.org/be/show/HomePage
>>
>> the concept looks great, although i don't know anything about the
>> implementation/usage.
>
>
> There's quite a fe
Hi bump to latest version,
please signoff both arches,
thanks
greetings
tpowa
--
Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa)
http://www.archlinux.org
tp...@archlinux.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 03:25 +0100, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
> I confess I'm baffled as to why upstream did this change, why it was
> needed and if it actually was needed.
> I can't seem to find anything about it in the online changelog
> either.
> Seems something completely arbitrary. Or an oversi
25 matches
Mail list logo
