On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:03:27 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> More precisely: When changing the names anyway,
> >> >> IMHO it would be a very good idea to follow the convention of
> >> >> the "flag" names in /proc/cpuinfo and add all flags supported
> >> >>
Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> >>
>> >> More precisely: When changing the names anyway,
>> >> IMHO it would be a very good idea to follow the convention of the
>> >> "flag" names in /proc/cpuinfo and add all flags supported
>> >> there as possible USE-flags, no matter, whether they are currently
>> >> u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/15/2015 11:01 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Sergey Popov
> wrote:
>> So, i like your idea to stick stable to the LTS kernel. While it
>> can lead to potential problems with some external modules(which
>> are, for e
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:50:25 +0100
"viv...@gmail.com" wrote:
> Il 15/01/2015 11:30, Alexis Ballier ha scritto:
> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:20:15 + (UTC)
> > Martin Vaeth wrote:
> >
> >> Christopher Head wrote:
> >>> All that requires is knowing the names, though; it would be
> >>> fine if no
Il 15/01/2015 11:30, Alexis Ballier ha scritto:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:20:15 + (UTC)
> Martin Vaeth wrote:
>
>> Christopher Head wrote:
>>> All that requires is knowing the names, though; it would be
>>> fine if no package actually uses the feature yet.
>> ++
>>
>> More precisely: When chan
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:20:15 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Christopher Head wrote:
> >
> > All that requires is knowing the names, though; it would be
> > fine if no package actually uses the feature yet.
>
> ++
>
> More precisely: When changing the names anyway,
> IMHO it would be a very
Christopher Head wrote:
>
> All that requires is knowing the names, though; it would be
> fine if no package actually uses the feature yet.
++
More precisely: When changing the names anyway,
IMHO it would be a very good idea to follow the convention of the
"flag" names in /proc/cpuinfo and add a
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
> So, i like your idea to stick stable to the LTS kernel. While it can
> lead to potential problems with some external modules(which are, for
> example, marked stable now but does not support 3.4 kernel) the majority
> of really stable external
03.01.2015 00:53, Mike Pagano пишет:
> On Saturday, January 03, 2015 12:39:39 AM Mikle Kolyada wrote:
>> 02.01.2015 20:25, Mike Pagano пишет:
>>> This is in no way complaining about how long it takes to stabilize a
>>> kernel.
>> As for this fact.
>>
>>
>>
>> The main problem is that: we only can
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:59:37 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> That said, long time ago I was taught that "instruction set
> use-flags" should be avoided as much as possible. I don't remember
> the source for that anymore.
>
> Question to all, is that documented anywhere, and what are the
> s
10 matches
Mail list logo
