On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
> As a distro, we only update packages to "latest stable". There are a
> few exceptions, especially those that are slow in releasing stable
> versions of their software or are generally high-level tools that
> rarely break. So if the maintainer of
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> On 08/27/2010 08:58 PM, Denis Kobozev wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be easier for you and everybody else if you deleted vala
>> from the repo completely? There are no packages that require it and
>> users who need it have to g
> for the 99 time, vala 0.9.x is the devel branch and i'm not going to
> update it.
>
> shotwell was updated to 0.7 and vala 0.9.5 is a _makedepends_ not a depends
> for this app
Wouldn't it be easier for you and everybody else if you deleted vala
from the repo completely? There are no package
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
> Always check the wiki :)
> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Getting_Involved
I seem to remember a website where you could post things like "I want
somebody to implement feature X in Arch and I will pay $N for it" or
"I would be willing
I also successfully use Arch on Thinkpad X61. Sound, wifi and track
point work with minimal setup. Extra keys require some tweaking. The
display has a bluish tint by default, so installing a color profile
might be a good idea [1].
There's a whole wiki dedicated to running Linux on Thinkpads [2].
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Jan de Groot wrote:
> We did that before, and we got permission to ship with branding. The
> issue here is that whenever we update the package or add/remove a patch,
> we have to ask for permission again.
I did not know that Firefox is packaged without the official
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:
> seems that you are not very inform about the lwn article about mozilla and
> trademark [1].
Nor do I claim to be :) It's just something I stumbled upon and wanted
to hear the community's opinion about. I'll read the article.
Denis.
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Xavier Chantry
> Mozilla actually contradicts itself on this matter. [...]
> But just below, the trademark policy then says this :
> "Again, any modification to the Mozilla product, including adding to,
> modifying in any way, or deleting content from the files incl
Hi archers,
If you believe the comment on Mozilla's bugtracker [1] and the change
to the license file [2], the previously non-free Firefox graphics are
now licensed under the MPL. Does that mean that we'll be able to have
official logo in the supported Firefox package?
[1]: https://bugzilla.mozil
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Xavier Chantry
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
>>
>> That's the main aim for which I want to do this. By showing them the
>> screenshots which will look "awesome" to them, it may be possible to win
>> their minds.
>>
>
> This i
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Michishige Kaito
wrote:
> Aren't "raster" and "bitmap" similar, if not equal, concepts?
Yes, they are equal (or similar). There are bitmap (or raster, or
pixel, whatever you want to call them) fonts that only work well for
specific resolutions. Examples are Dina
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Denis Kobozev wrote:
> [..] bitmap fonts, ms-ttf-fonts (which are raster fonts, but include [...]
Buh, ms-ttf-fonts are vector or outline fonts, not raster fonts.
Denis.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Carlos Mennens wrote:
> Is there any suggestion on Arch Linux running Gnome 2.6.30 to improve
> the crisp / clearness of my fonts? [...]
> It just never seems as clear and crisp when I compare side by side to
> Ubuntu or Windows 7.
I, too, have been on a quest to
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Andre "Osku" Schmidt
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> im getting tired to be forced to remember many different options for
> various package managers on different distros. so i did a little script
> that allows me to do like "asd install foo" on any distro i got that
> script i
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Dan Vratil wrote:
> Hi,
> I was surprised when I read today that scientists found a pacman installed on
> one of Saturn's moons!
>
> See yourself:
> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/features/2010/pac-man-mimas.html
>
> This probably makes ArchLinux the fur
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
> anti-aliasing was disabled, enabled to see what it does (:?)
Most fonts, except for pixel fonts and ttf-ms-fonts, don't work well
without anti-aliasing - they will look dirty or crooked. ttf-ms-fonts
are a special case because they act
> On 03/25/2010 05:06 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
>
> Appearance of sites in Chromium is very dirty, though I didn't change
> the default font settings.
Out of curiosity: do you have font anti-aliasing turned off on your
system? Do you use ttf-ms-fonts for GUI apps?
Denis.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:
> On 03/23/2010 11:12 PM, Carlos Mennens wrote:
>> Any suggestions?
>
> yes. read the wiki about LAMP. installing packages is not enough. you have
> to tell apache to use php and is described on the wiki.
That's a hefty article on the wiki :) I t
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Denis Kobozev wrote:
>> Interesting. Judging from a quick glance at the NixOS homepage, nix
>> deals with shared dependencies by having very precise rules about
>> which package requi
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Isaac Dupree
wrote:
> NixOS does better
> (at least at the theoretical stuff, though it has fewer users..it was born
> in academia..Basically it is archtected so that you can have multiple
> versions of any package installed and they inherently won't conflict with
Hi archers,
It has been repeated a lot of times that doing piecemeal updates with
pacman -Sy pkgname is not a very good idea. What about ignoring
packages? Is it as dangerous?
And a more general question: is it even theoretically possible to have
a bleeding edge distro with piecemeal updates and
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Ananda Samaddar
> Would there be any enthusiasm for a dedicated security team? I feel
> strongly enough about it that if something can't be done then I'm
> switching to another distro. Despite the fact that I really like Arch,
> it's one deficiency is a pretty gla
The only advantage of top posting I can think of is that it enables
you to forward the entire chain of emails to a new person with one
click. You could, of course, bottom post and keep the entire chain in
each email, but it's probably even worse than top posting, since you
would have to scroll thro
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Logan Rathbone wrote:
> David, are you running (Arch) Linux in your law office? If so, could
> you describe your experiences? What do you use for time and billing?
I too would be interested to hear about solutions for billing and
keeping track of time on Linux.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> The config files are so powerful you can just add whichever
> repositories you need and add packages/groups to install
> whatever you want.
> http://github.com/Dieterbe/aif/blob/master/examples/generic-install-on-sda
> This should also an
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:50 AM, David C. Rankin
> Seriously, I like the Arch installer just fine, but I can tell you that the
> Ubuntu/SuSE install rating most likely come from the fact that the gui
> installers they employ are easy on the eye and they have put a lot of effort
> into automating
2009/12/17 Ng Oon-Ee :
> Ubuntu's installer goes much faster though, if the benchmark is 'to a
> working gnome system', especially for those of us with slow internet
> connections who aren't able to download half a Gb here and there at the
> snap of a finger.
Maybe "user-friendliness" was the wron
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> did that guy actually say that point and click visual installers are a
> time *saver* ?? is he out of his mind?
It seems that most reviews on distrowatch.com come from the standpoint
that Ubuntu is the ultimate user-friendly system. Arch
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Brendan Long wrote:
> My problem isn't creating a custom php package, the problem is creating one
> that installs to /usr but doesn't conflict with the official php package.
> I'd like to be able to install it just like you can install php-mcrypt and
> php-mysql.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Brendan Long wrote:
> I'm
> wondering if anyone has any ideas of how to make this a simple php-embed
> package that would only install the needed parts.
I became curios how other distros package phc - turns out they don't.
There are two packages provided on phc we
30 matches
Mail list logo
