Nice to get your suggestions. I'd better try git, since many recommend. As
for svn, just "svnadmin create "a repository does work?
PS: Sorry for my stupidity. I'm new to mailing list, and don't know how to
reply a certain post.
Thank you all
2010/8/27
> Send arch-general mailing list submission
@Dave
I readed your man page draft and it's quite useful - to me, a simple
end-user.
About your concerns with comments in rc.* files being outdated, a short
advice can be put
at the beginning of each file warning users to take comments in the file as
a very general
reference, guiding them to the m
On Friday 27 August 2010 00:15:15 Stefano Avallone wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 August 2010 19:05:46 Andrea Scarpino wrote:
> > On Wednesday 18 August 2010 11:06:43 Ronald van Haren wrote:
> > > so far I've seen people reporting the following chipsets to be
> > > affected, but there may be others
> > > i
On Wednesday 25 of August 2010 01:02:21 Mauro Santos wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 11:44 PM, Tavian Barnes wrote:
> > On 24 August 2010 16:02, Mauro Santos wrote:
> >> On 08/24/2010 10:20 PM, Marek Otahal wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday 24 of August 2010 23:03:23 Mauro Santos wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 08:14 PM
On 27 August 2010 06:15, Stefano Avallone wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 August 2010 19:05:46 Andrea Scarpino wrote:
>> On Wednesday 18 August 2010 11:06:43 Ronald van Haren wrote:
>> > so far I've seen people reporting the following chipsets to be
>> > affected, but there may be others
>> > intel 910
>>
On 26-08-2010 23:09, Thomas Bächler wrote:
[multilib]
Include = /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist
Also planning a a multilib-testing?
On Tuesday 24 August 2010 19:05:46 Andrea Scarpino wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 August 2010 11:06:43 Ronald van Haren wrote:
> > so far I've seen people reporting the following chipsets to be
> > affected, but there may be others
> > intel 910
> > intel 945
> > intel 965
> > ati 3450
>
> After the upd
Is this the same as 'flashplayer-universal'?
MfG
2010/8/26 Jason Reardon
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
>
> > On 08/26/2010 11:44 PM, Jason Reardon wrote:
> >
> >> I just noticed flashplugin x86_64 in the 'Recent Updates' section of the
> >> frontpage. Adobe is supporting
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> On 08/26/2010 11:44 PM, Jason Reardon wrote:
>
>> I just noticed flashplugin x86_64 in the 'Recent Updates' section of the
>> frontpage. Adobe is supporting Flash for 64 bit Linux again?
>>
>
> no. that's in multilib repo and depends on nsplugi
Le jeudi 26 août 2010 22:44:51, Jason Reardon a écrit :
> I just noticed flashplugin x86_64 in the 'Recent Updates' section of the
> frontpage. Adobe is supporting Flash for 64 bit Linux again?
No, it's flashplugin 32 bits through 32 bit layer provide via multilib repo.
++
On 08/26/2010 11:44 PM, Jason Reardon wrote:
I just noticed flashplugin x86_64 in the 'Recent Updates' section of the
frontpage. Adobe is supporting Flash for 64 bit Linux again?
no. that's in multilib repo and depends on nspluginwrapper.
we will announce shortly this repo. :D
--
Ionuț
I just noticed flashplugin x86_64 in the 'Recent Updates' section of the
frontpage. Adobe is supporting Flash for 64 bit Linux again?
It would appear that on Aug 26, Dave Reisner did say:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 01:35:33PM -0400, Joe(theWordy)Philbrook wrote:
> > As a mere arch user who happens to think that the concept of well
> > commented configuration files such as Arch's rc.conf are WONDERFUL.
> > Especially when they in
"I used SVN at first then moved to git and havnt looked back since,
fantastic all round. Check out http://githup.com";
I think you meant github.com
www.linuxgeek.ca
On 26 August 2010 06:23, Ray Rashif wrote:
> On 26 August 2010 19:16, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote:
>>> My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring.
>>> Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or
>
I used SVN at first then moved to git and havnt looked back since,
fantastic all round. Check out http://githup.com
On 26 August 2010 16:02, wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:56:45PM +0800, jewelshaw wrote:
>
>> I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually, I
>> have
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:56:45PM +0800, jewelshaw wrote:
> I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually, I
> have to test and revise the source code,
> while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and what's
> old. I tried subversion, but a svn server
Excerpts from Florian Pritz's message of 2010-08-26 16:58:39 +0200:
> On 26.08.2010 16:56, jewelshaw wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually, I
> > have to test and revise the source code,
> > while after lots of revisions, I get confused about wha
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 16:02, David Rosenstrauch wrote:
> On 08/26/2010 10:56 AM, jewelshaw wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually, I
>> have to test and revise the source code,
>> while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 15:58, Florian Pritz wrote:
> On 26.08.2010 16:56, jewelshaw wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually, I
>> have to test and revise the source code,
>> while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and what's
On 08/26/2010 10:56 AM, jewelshaw wrote:
Hi,
I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually, I
have to test and revise the source code,
while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and what's
old. I tried subversion, but a svn server
with root privilege
I've been using git and mercurial.
They're quite similar, but have a few differences that are important.
Like the svn-like commit of mercurial vs git commit.
--
Guilherme M. Nogueira
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke
On 26.08.2010 16:56, jewelshaw wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually, I
> have to test and revise the source code,
> while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and what's
> old. I tried subversion, but a svn server
> with root pri
Hi,
I'm a normal user on a workstation, without root privilege. Usually, I
have to test and revise the source code,
while after lots of revisions, I get confused about what's new and what's
old. I tried subversion, but a svn server
with root privilege is required as daemon. So I wonder if there
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 01:35:33PM -0400, Joe(theWordy)Philbrook wrote:
>
> It would appear that on Aug 24, Dave Reisner did say:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 05:37:29PM -0400, David Campbell wrote:
> > > I like this manpage, although, I am not so sure it is wise to
> > > have a manpage for rc.c
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 15:01, Magnus Therning wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 14:50, Thomas Jost wrote:
>> Le 26/08/2010 15:03, Magnus Therning a écrit :
>>> I've located the sieve plugin, now shipping with dovecot itself:
>>>
>>> % tree /usr/lib/dovecot/modules|head -n 15
>>> /usr/lib/dovecot/
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 14:50, Thomas Jost wrote:
> Le 26/08/2010 15:03, Magnus Therning a écrit :
>> I've located the sieve plugin, now shipping with dovecot itself:
>>
>> % tree /usr/lib/dovecot/modules|head -n 15
>> /usr/lib/dovecot/modules
>> ├── auth
>> │ ├── libauthdb_ldap.a
>> │ └── lib
Le 26/08/2010 15:03, Magnus Therning a écrit :
> I've located the sieve plugin, now shipping with dovecot itself:
>
> % tree /usr/lib/dovecot/modules|head -n 15
> /usr/lib/dovecot/modules
> ├── auth
> │ ├── libauthdb_ldap.a
> │ └── libauthdb_ldap.so
> ├── doveadm
> │ ├── lib10_doveadm_expire
I've run into a slight problem with the configuration of dovecot after the
recent upgrade to version 2.
I used v1.2 with the sieve plugin[1]. But I can't get it to work with v2.0.
I've located the sieve plugin, now shipping with dovecot itself:
% tree /usr/lib/dovecot/modules|head -n 15
/usr/li
My only concerns about having a man page is that eventually the
configuration file (in this case rc.conf) might gradually become less well
commented, or it's comments become outdated. And that man pages tend to
be long on highly technical explanations that I for one have a hard time
understanding
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:15 AM, wrote:
> Hi, all
> I found the texlive-x-doc packages vanished, 32/64 bit are all
> vanished.
> anyone are kind enough to tell me the reason?
>
they were outdated and broken: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/19166
On 26.08.2010 11:15, goodme...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, all
I found the texlive-x-doc packages vanished, 32/64 bit are all
vanished.
anyone are kind enough to tell me the reason?
I suppose the reason is that the packages were outdated and no longer in sync with the
corresponding texliv
Hi, all
I found the texlive-x-doc packages vanished, 32/64 bit are all vanished.
anyone are kind enough to tell me the reason?
33 matches
Mail list logo
