RE: list
Rick Sivernell wrote: List stupid problem needing simple answer. I have rebuilt my system and remounted several partitions when completed. I now have permission denied on the binary programs. They all have : rwxrwxr__ rick users program name and I am loged in as rick in group users. I have tried re chmod but nothing changes the ability to have the programs perform. Any help or suggestions appreciated. cheers Is the directory executable? Tom :-}) Thomas A. Condon Plain Text Emails Don't Spread Virii! ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: list
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Rick Sivernell wrote: stupid problem needing simple answer. I have rebuilt my system and remounted several partitions when completed. I now have permission denied on the binary programs. They all have : rwxrwxr__ rick users program name and I am loged in as rick in group users. I have tried re chmod but nothing changes the ability to have the programs perform. Any help or suggestions appreciated. So you're saying thatr even after setting the binaries to 777 you cannot execute them? THen you most likely need to use chattr (see the man page). How did you back this stuff up that the perms on the binaries are all screwed? -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: List
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 08:06:41PM -0700, Collins wrote: On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:47:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's got to be a highly specific mix. I'm running kernels built with 2.95.3, 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2; a C library built with 3.2; XFree86 built with 3.2 and 2.95.3; and applications built with all of them. I've had ZERO problems. I'm glad to hear that. I have ZERO experience with mix and match, only with distros that are totally based on one compiler version or the other. Your experience is definitely the most common one. As a rule, I wouldn't recommend mixing and matching the way I have because doing so might well trigger obscure compiler or library bugs. So far, I haven't experienced this, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. In theory, though, this type of mix 'n' match should not be an issue in user-space apps because the compiler ordinarily can be relied upon to Do The Right Thing. Kurt -- Cynic, n.: One who looks through rose-colored glasses with a jaundiced eye. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: List
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:47:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:37:57AM -0700, Collins wrote: I suppose it all depends on the meaning of is, to quote Bill Clinton. Separately compiled components that have no interaction can be compiled with either compiler, and neither is aware of the other, but early adaptors on gentoo did indeed report disastrous results when a mix of components compiled with the two different compilers was attempted (I don't have the details). It's got to be a highly specific mix. I'm running kernels built with 2.95.3, 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2; a C library built with 3.2; XFree86 built with 3.2 and 2.95.3; and applications built with all of them. I've had ZERO problems. I'm glad to hear that. I have ZERO experience with mix and match, only with distros that are totally based on one compiler version or the other. That said, I'm not going to argue with you about this. Your message said recompile everything with 3.2, which is perniciously false. No arguments needed. I'm happy to hear this bit, too. From everything I read, the major vendors in their rush to get out 3.2 based products have done their usual sloppy work (not enough testing before release), so I'll let the pioneers fend off the arrows (most of the arrows have nothing to do with 3.2). At some point the mix will change, and there will be a compelling reason to switch to 3.2, and there will be a reliable RH, etc.. distro (gentoo is, of course, just as stable with 3.2 as with the older compiler), but I don't believe that time has come yet. Well, then, the problem is not the compiler, but the vendors who havedone their usual sloppy work. We could fill volumes with vendors who have done their usual sloppy work, most especially with binary only products, but there don't seem to be a lot of alternatives to these in the plugin world. With this one exception, I have no objection to a new compiler, but I'm not convinced that I really need it yet. BTW, I was the last in my neighborhood to get a microwave, so just color me behind the times. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area Redhat 7.3 system ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: List
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:37:57AM -0700, Collins wrote: I suppose it all depends on the meaning of is, to quote Bill Clinton. Separately compiled components that have no interaction can be compiled with either compiler, and neither is aware of the other, but early adaptors on gentoo did indeed report disastrous results when a mix of components compiled with the two different compilers was attempted (I don't have the details). It's got to be a highly specific mix. I'm running kernels built with 2.95.3, 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2; a C library built with 3.2; XFree86 built with 3.2 and 2.95.3; and applications built with all of them. I've had ZERO problems. That said, I'm not going to argue with you about this. Your message said recompile everything with 3.2, which is perniciously false. From everything I read, the major vendors in their rush to get out 3.2 based products have done their usual sloppy work (not enough testing before release), so I'll let the pioneers fend off the arrows (most of the arrows have nothing to do with 3.2). At some point the mix will change, and there will be a compelling reason to switch to 3.2, and there will be a reliable RH, etc.. distro (gentoo is, of course, just as stable with 3.2 as with the older compiler), but I don't believe that time has come yet. Well, then, the problem is not the compiler, but the vendors who have done their usual sloppy work. Kurt -- Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come. -- Matt Groening ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: List
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 07:03:46AM -0700, Collins wrote: On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:53:38 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:00:01PM -0500, Brett I. Holcomb wrote: How do you upgrade from gcc 2.9x to 3.2? Can't that be a perilous path? You don't upgrade, really. The default configuration is to install 3.2 in /usr/local, alongside whatever you already have. The upgrade path is to recompile everything that you have with the new compiler. The perilous part of the path is getting the sequence right, and anything that has mixed components (compiled with and without 3.2) will fail miserably. Poppycock. I have a mixed system and no problems whatsoever. Kurt -- Acid -- better living through chemistry. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: List
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 07:03:46AM -0700, Collins wrote: On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:53:38 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:00:01PM -0500, Brett I. Holcomb wrote: How do you upgrade from gcc 2.9x to 3.2? Can't that be a perilous path? You don't upgrade, really. The default configuration is to install 3.2 in /usr/local, alongside whatever you already have. The upgrade path is to recompile everything that you have with the new compiler. The perilous part of the path is getting the sequence right, and anything that has mixed components (compiled with and without 3.2) will fail miserably. Poppycock. I have a mixed system and no problems whatsoever. Kurt -- ... the Mayo Clinic, named after its founder, Dr. Ted Clinic ... -- Dave Barry ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: List
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:55:37 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 07:03:46AM -0700, Collins wrote: On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:53:38 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:00:01PM -0500, Brett I. Holcomb wrote: How do you upgrade from gcc 2.9x to 3.2? Can't that be a perilous path? You don't upgrade, really. The default configuration is to install 3.2 in /usr/local, alongside whatever you already have. The upgrade path is to recompile everything that you have with the new compiler. The perilous part of the path is getting the sequence right, and anything that has mixed components (compiled with and without 3.2) will fail miserably. Poppycock. I have a mixed system and no problems whatsoever. I suppose it all depends on the meaning of is, to quote Bill Clinton. Separately compiled components that have no interaction can be compiled with either compiler, and neither is aware of the other, but early adaptors on gentoo did indeed report disastrous results when a mix of components compiled with the two different compilers was attempted (I don't have the details). Putting all that aside, I'm still not convinced that there is any great advantage to the new compiler at present. I ran with the latest gentoo (gcc 3.2 based) for several months with no problems including upgrades (except for the fact that binary plugins for moz, etc., are not available). Now I'm running RH 7.3 which uses the old compiler. I'm not noticing any performance difference on my desktop machine. The last recommendation I read on the 2.5.x development kernel still recommended 2.95.xx. gcc 3.2 does have extra support for the AMD chips, but I have a PIII machine. From everything I read, the major vendors in their rush to get out 3.2 based products have done their usual sloppy work (not enough testing before release), so I'll let the pioneers fend off the arrows (most of the arrows have nothing to do with 3.2). At some point the mix will change, and there will be a compelling reason to switch to 3.2, and there will be a reliable RH, etc.. distro (gentoo is, of course, just as stable with 3.2 as with the older compiler), but I don't believe that time has come yet. At present, if you want a fully functional browser with all the plugins (many of these are binary only), you need to compile your browser with 2.95.xx, and I can't see screwing around with 2 compilers on my system. This is not meant to discourage those who like to tinker - lord knows I've been bitten by that bug often enough. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area Redhat 7.3 system ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: List
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 07:03:46 -0700 Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:53:38 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:00:01PM -0500, Brett I. Holcomb wrote: How do you upgrade from gcc 2.9x to 3.2? Can't that be a perilous path? You don't upgrade, really. The default configuration is to install 3.2 in /usr/local, alongside whatever you already have. The upgrade path is to recompile everything that you have with the new compiler. The perilous part of the path is getting the sequence right, and anything that has mixed components (compiled with and without 3.2) will fail miserably. If you are a typical user of RPMs, you'll need to find a lot of RPMs, or use SRPMa ro rebuild everything. Most distros are beginning to provide 3.2 based installs, but these are a mixed bag at present, since they always drag in something poisonous (i.e. untested) in addition to 3.2. I've used a 3.2 based distro (gentoo), and it's totally innocuous, if done properly. OTOH, it's no fantastic improvement, so you're probably better off (TM) waiting for everything (binary plugins, especially) to catch up. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area Redhat 7.3 system ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users I think I will wait a while, this is going to be too much trouble. Thanks for your reply. cheers -- Rick Sivernell Dallas, Texas 75287 972 306-2296 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Caldera Open Linux eWorkStation 3.1.1 Registered Linux User .~. / v \ /( _ )\ ^ ^ In Linux we trust! ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: List
Kurt At http://www.gnu.org/directory/devel/Compilers/gpp.html all they have is 3.0.4. where do I get 3.2. Is there any thing else I need to upgrade to make this work? cheers -- Rick Sivernell Dallas, Texas 75287 972 306-2296 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Caldera Open Linux eWorkStation 3.1.1 Registered Linux User .~. / v \ /( _ )\ ^ ^ In Linux we trust! ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: List
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:00:01PM -0500, Brett I. Holcomb wrote: How do you upgrade from gcc 2.9x to 3.2? Can't that be a perilous path? You don't upgrade, really. The default configuration is to install 3.2 in /usr/local, alongside whatever you already have. Kurt -- The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense. -- E. W. Dijkstra ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: List
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:56:20 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 05:34:15PM -0600, Richard R. Sivernell wrote: Kurt At http://www.gnu.org/directory/devel/Compilers/gpp.html all they have is 3.0.4. where do I get 3.2. Is there any thing else I need to upgrade to make this work? For GCC in general, http://gcc.gnu.org/. For 3.2 in particular, http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.2/. You should have everything else that you need. Kurt -- Conway's Law: In any organization there will always be one person who knows what is going on. This person must be fired. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Kurt many thanks here. When installed , g++ 3.2, this will not affect my system will it, and I suppose that I will need to set CC other variables for g++ 3.2? cheers -- Rick Sivernell Dallas, Texas 75287 972 306-2296 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Caldera Open Linux eWorkStation 3.1.1 Registered Linux User .~. / v \ /( _ )\ ^ ^ In Linux we trust! ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: List
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 08:44:25AM -0600, Richard R. Sivernell wrote: List I am trying to compile a library call AI Loom, seems it may require g++ 3. What do I need to install other than g++ 3, an problems here to watch out for. gcc 3.x. 3.2 is better than the others in the series. Kurt -- And what will you do when you grow up to be as big as me? asked the father of his little son. Diet. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
