At Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2010 05:45 Loui Chang wrote:
> Ask Microsoft to support every filesystem in existence on their standard
> install CD and core system and maybe us poor Archers with our limited
> time and budget can also rise to your stratospheric expectations.
Bad example because MS offer
On Tue 07 Dec 2010 18:30 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Tue, 07 Dec 2010 16:26:00 +0100
> schrieb Pierre Schmitz :
>
> > I second this. If the reason for moving a package to core is that the
> > installer cannot handle it otherwise the installer needs to be fixed.
>
> The question is not that the
On Tue 07 Dec 2010 20:12 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:12:05 +0100
> schrieb Tobias Powalowski :
>
> > This is a proper solution without making core a big monster again.
> > greetings
>
> Adding all filesystem tools to [core] won't make it a big monster. ;-)
I'm not so sure a
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 20:06 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> On 12/07/2010 08:02 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 18:49 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> >> On 12/07/2010 06:44 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 11:07 +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
> Packages moved from staging to
On 12/01/2010 08:09 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
since i recently blew up my computer "accidentally on purpose"[1]... i
decided to try this since i said i would and so many others to had
success.
works perfectly under a fresh install, e17 desktop; nice w3rk! i'm
liking it quite a bit... sharin
Am 08.12.2010 00:47, schrieb Alexander Duscheleit:
> Do you think, you can have a look at https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16625
>
> It's a constant annoyance if you use something like qemu/kvm/etc and
> have to wait ~20 seconds on every boot just for your dhcp-assigned
> IP-Address.
>
> Thanks,
>
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:39:06 +0100
Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Allan McRae
> wrote:
> > While looking through bugs for [core] packages, I notice that there
> > are a large number of bug report for these three packages. In
> > total they account for ~13% of the bugs in
Am Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:12:05 +0100
schrieb Tobias Powalowski :
> This is a proper solution without making core a big monster again.
> greetings
Adding all filesystem tools to [core] won't make it a big monster. ;-)
Heiko
Am Dienstag 07 Dezember 2010 schrieb Dieter Plaetinck:
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:30:03 +0100
>
> Heiko Baums wrote:
> > Also the netinstall iso can only install from [core] as
> > far as I know.
>
> not entirely correct, but that would be off-topic.
>
> > But on the other hand every filesystem re
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:30:03 +0100
Heiko Baums wrote:
> Also the netinstall iso can only install from [core] as
> far as I know.
not entirely correct, but that would be off-topic.
> But on the other hand every filesystem related package has to be
> removed from (base), while AIF should then be a
On 12/07/2010 08:02 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 18:49 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 12/07/2010 06:44 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 11:07 +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
Packages moved from staging to testing.
OpenOffice-base-{beta,devel} will get rebuilt whit the next up
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 18:49 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> On 12/07/2010 06:44 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 11:07 +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
> >> Packages moved from staging to testing.
> >>
> >> OpenOffice-base-{beta,devel} will get rebuilt whit the next upstream
> >> update. Go-Ope
Am Tue, 07 Dec 2010 16:26:00 +0100
schrieb Pierre Schmitz :
> I second this. If the reason for moving a package to core is that the
> installer cannot handle it otherwise the installer needs to be fixed.
The question is not that the installer can't handle it if it's not in
[core]. The question is
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 18:44, Joao Cordeiro wrote:
> 2010/12/7 Ng Oon-Ee
>
>> On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 23:24 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
>> >
>> > > Top posting vs. going off topic without changing subject lines. I'm not
>> > > sure which is wo
On 12/07/2010 06:44 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 11:07 +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
Packages moved from staging to testing.
OpenOffice-base-{beta,devel} will get rebuilt whit the next upstream
update. Go-OpenOffice has been removed from the extra repo.
Community packages sword+yaz
2010/12/7 Ng Oon-Ee
> On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 23:24 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
> >
> > > Top posting vs. going off topic without changing subject lines. I'm not
> > > sure which is worse...
> > >
> >
> > Bottom posting in Gmail is a pain in th
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 11:07 +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
> Packages moved from staging to testing.
>
> OpenOffice-base-{beta,devel} will get rebuilt whit the next upstream
> update. Go-OpenOffice has been removed from the extra repo.
>
> Community packages sword+yaz still need to be rebuilt.
>
>
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 23:24 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
>
> > Top posting vs. going off topic without changing subject lines. I'm not
> > sure which is worse...
> >
>
> Bottom posting in Gmail is a pain in the ass. --Kaiting.
>
1. Click 'Reply
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 14:03:34 Julius Caesar wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
> > On Mon 06 Dec 2010 23:24 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
> > > > Top posting vs. going off topic without changing subject lines. I
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Julius Caesar wrote:
> Sorry to butt in, but I am a GMail user and I am typing this in through
> Thunderbird. You can use GMail without using the webmail, and you can
> configure Thunderbird to automatically bottom-post. Just saying.
>
And you can bottom post in Gm
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
> On Mon 06 Dec 2010 23:24 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
> >
> > > Top posting vs. going off topic without changing subject lines. I'm not
> > > sure which is worse...
> >
> > Bottom posting in
Am 07.12.2010 14:30, schrieb Dieter Plaetinck:
>> The problem is: If blkid finds more than one valid signature, it will
>> not return anything, and we will mistakenly believe that there is no
>> file system (and happily overwrite the drive). This part of
>> initscripts is giving me a headache every
On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 01:10:12 +0100
Thomas Bächler wrote:
> The problem is: If blkid finds more than one valid signature, it will
> not return anything, and we will mistakenly believe that there is no
> file system (and happily overwrite the drive). This part of
> initscripts is giving me a headac
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 15:48:52 +0100, Rémy Oudompheng
wrote:
> On 2010/12/6 Rémy Oudompheng wrote:
>> This seems to assume that pacman and makepkg run on systems that are
>> either 32-bit or 64-bit. IMO, your proposal looks very "ad hoc", and
>> would add unnecessary complications to makepkg, with n
Packages moved from staging to testing.
OpenOffice-base-{beta,devel} will get rebuilt whit the next upstream
update. Go-OpenOffice has been removed from the extra repo.
Community packages sword+yaz still need to be rebuilt.
Now uploading new LibO-langpacks to testing.
Please report broken stuff
25 matches
Mail list logo
