Re: [arch-general] virt-manager empty package?

Hey, there is apparently a problem with this package (PKGBUILD). The bug mentioned in #43881 regarding the split package suggested to split the packages with their executables. And this is not happening. virt-manager has no files in it, just dependency. The virt-manager executable is shipped with

Re: [arch-general] virt-manager empty package?

> The virt-manager executable is > shipped with virt-install. The packages should contain the respective > executables. It's easier/simpler to just add desktop deps with a separate package like this. The problem is that upstream doesn't separate desktop and console packages.

Re: [arch-general] virt-manager empty package?

Try this http://sl1pkn07.wtf/paste/view/0b3c7db2 is for my personal use, need modification to sync with repos (damm you, gconf) greetings

[arch-general] Performance with Linux Bridge

Hello to all I'm using Arch Linux in a SuperMicro A1SAi-2750F motherboard and I'm having performance issues while bridging 3 Ethernet Gigabit network interfaces. The 4th network interface of that motherboard, is used to connect to the ISP. This setup is my Router/server and I use the 3 bridged int

Re: [arch-general] Performance with Linux Bridge

On 27.12.2015 19:23, Carlos Ferreira wrote: > I'm using Arch Linux in a SuperMicro A1SAi-2750F motherboard and I'm having > performance issues while bridging 3 Ethernet Gigabit network interfaces. > The 4th network interface of that motherboard, is used to connect to the > ISP. > [..] > I conducted

[arch-general] [OT?] Which is most future-proof desktop environment?

Just a call for opinions: if you use Arch, and you wanted to choose and stay with a desktop environment long-term, what would you choose - and why?

Re: [arch-general] [OT?] Which is most future-proof desktop environment?

On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 18:43:09 -0500 Francis Gerund wrote: > Just a call for opinions: if you use Arch, and you wanted to choose > and stay with a desktop environment long-term, what would you choose > - and why? Xfce wins for me by far... It's simple, light and has many features.

Re: [arch-general] [OT?] Which is most future-proof desktop environment?

Xfce. Simplistic, slow dev cycle, dev's pay attention to the desktop rather than chase the new 'tablet-like'. Lighter on resources, easily configurable. On 12/27/2015 05:43 PM, Francis Gerund wrote: Just a call for opinions: if you use Arch, and you wanted to choose and stay with a desktop en

Re: [arch-general] [OT?] Which is most future-proof desktop environment?

> Just a call for opinions: if you use Arch, and you wanted to choose > and stay with a desktop environment long-term, what would you choose > - and why? If using standalone window-managers is an option, I've been happy with Stump WM for almost five years now. Runs on even my slowest machines, ha

Re: [arch-general] [OT?] Which is most future-proof desktop environment?

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 00:52:21 +0100, Ivan wrote: >On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 18:43:09 -0500 >Francis Gerund wrote: > >> Just a call for opinions: if you use Arch, and you wanted to choose >> and stay with a desktop environment long-term, what would you choose >> - and why? > >Xfce wins for me by far...

Re: [arch-general] [OT?] Which is most future-proof desktop environment?

On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:08:04 -0500, Serge Hooge wrote: >keybinds pretty much eliminate the need for desktop icons If somebody wants to use a WM with a desktop, then it's possible to e.g. use spacefm or rodent for the desktop. If just a wallpaper is wanted, then feh does the job. FWIW parcellite

Re: [arch-general] [OT?] Which is most future-proof desktop environment?

>Thunar, the file manager >doesn't allow to split the window and requires Gnome's virtual crap to >provide mount functionality and so on and so forth. I can recommend using xfce with pcmanfm as the file manager instead of thunar. I prefer it for a variety of reasons, including its integration wit

Re: [arch-general] [OT?] Which is most future-proof desktop environment?

On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:19:36 -0500, Sean Greenslade wrote: >>Thunar, the file manager doesn't allow to split the window and >>requires Gnome's virtual crap to provide mount functionality and so >>on and so forth. > >I can recommend using xfce with pcmanfm as the file manager instead of >thunar. I

Re: [arch-general] [OT?] Which is most future-proof desktop environment?

XFCE, is that really future-? It looks dated as heck, not bashing it or anything, just saying. If Gnome Shell wasn't my long term desktop I would prob use XFCE. Gnome shell only comes alive tho if your machine isn't slow as Fu*% On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Francis Gerund wrote: > Just a cal

Re: [arch-general] [OT?] Which is most future-proof desktop environment?

Howdy, mate is nice, and seems to be pretty actively developed. Of course it wins for me because accessibility issues for blind users get fixed in a somewhat reasonable amount of time. XFCE hasn't had accessibility improvements, as far as I know, in like at least 3 years, maybe more. HTH Storm

[arch-general] ssd trim using fstrim.service and fstrim.timer

hello. Per the Arch wiki SSD page, I just enabled sysctl fstrim.timer, and then rebooted. I did not "enable" fstab.service. Now fstrim.timer is loaded, and active (but "waiting") and fstrim.service is loaded, but inactive. And the time stamp file the wiki mentions has a "0" size. So, do I have

Re: [arch-general] ssd trim using fstrim.service and fstrim.timer

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 09:45:27PM -0500, Francis Gerund wrote: > Per the Arch wiki SSD page, I just enabled sysctl fstrim.timer, and then > rebooted. I did not "enable" fstab.service. Now fstrim.timer is loaded, > and active (but "waiting") and fstrim.service is loaded, but inactive. And > the

Re: [arch-general] ssd trim using fstrim.service and fstrim.timer

I hope this doesn't sound stupid, but I'm totally new to systemd. And I am not familiar with systemd-journal. So, I did: systemctl start fstrim.service It seems to have worked. I got: systemctl status fstrim.service fstrim.service - Discard unused blocks Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/sys

Re: [arch-general] [OT?] Which is most future-proof desktop environment?

> If somebody wants to use a WM with a desktop, then it's possible to > e.g. use spacefm or rodent for the desktop. If just a wallpaper is > wanted, then feh does the job. FWIW parcellite is a nice clipboard. I suppose I should have elaborated on that setup, but yes, pretty much. I use nitrogen for

Re: [arch-general] [OT?] Which is most future-proof desktop environment?

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 01:34:51AM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > If I wouldn't use command line, then I would use engrampa instead of > file-roller, since I like menus. FWIW AUR provides engrampa-thunar. > However, I agree that spacefm is the better choice and even if I would > use Xfce4, then I wou

Re: [arch-general] [OT?] Which is most future-proof desktop environment?

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 09:06:57PM -0500, D C wrote: > XFCE, is that really future-? It looks dated as heck, not bashing it or > anything, just saying. If Gnome Shell wasn't my long term desktop I would > prob use XFCE. Gnome shell only comes alive tho if your machine isn't slow > as Fu*% Depends

Re: [arch-general] [OT?] Which is most future-proof desktop environment?

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Francis Gerund wrote: > Just a call for opinions: if you use Arch, and you wanted to choose and > stay with a desktop environment long-term, what would you choose - and why? > Regardless of distro, I always go for LXDE. -- Java