This also makes it difficult to use GHC's LLVM backend, since its
compatible versions usually lag behind the current one.
Other distros like Ubuntu support the installation of multiple versions of
LLVM/Clang side by side. One of the things Clang is really good at is
support for the most recently approved upcoming features of the C++17
standard. The best support for testing such features is with the latest
On August 29, 2016 3:24:18 AM GMT+02:00, Grant wrote:
>>> I have a USB stick with a crucial file on it (and only an old backup
>>> elsewhere). It's formatted NTFS because I wanted to be able to open
>>> the file on various Gentoo systems and my research indicated that
>NTFS
>> I have a USB stick with a crucial file on it (and only an old backup
>> elsewhere). It's formatted NTFS because I wanted to be able to open
>> the file on various Gentoo systems and my research indicated that NTFS
>> was the best solution.
>>
>> I decided to copy a 10GB file from a USB hard
On Sunday 28 Aug 2016 11:49:44 Grant wrote:
> I have a USB stick with a crucial file on it (and only an old backup
> elsewhere). It's formatted NTFS because I wanted to be able to open
> the file on various Gentoo systems and my research indicated that NTFS
> was the best solution.
>
> I decided
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 11:49:44 -0700, Grant wrote:
> I have a USB stick with a crucial file on it (and only an old backup
> elsewhere). It's formatted NTFS because I wanted to be able to open
> the file on various Gentoo systems and my research indicated that NTFS
> was the best solution.
If it's
I have a USB stick with a crucial file on it (and only an old backup
elsewhere). It's formatted NTFS because I wanted to be able to open
the file on various Gentoo systems and my research indicated that NTFS
was the best solution.
I decided to copy a 10GB file from a USB hard disk directly to
>From the dev mailing list:
# Pacho Ramos (21 Aug 2016)
# Dead for a long time in favour of hopm, bug #473754.
# Removal in a month.
net-misc/bopm
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 2:40 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 08/25/2016 07:29 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> > I
On Sunday 28 Aug 2016 10:26:15 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Peter Humphrey
wrote:
--->8
> > ... part of the output of "bootctl status":
> >
> > Boot Loader Binaries:
> > ESP:
> >
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Sunday 28 Aug 2016 10:55:56 Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 10:43:17 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> > I'd still like to know where the directory /usr/lib64/systemd/boot/efi
>> > came from though.
>>
>>
On Sunday 28 Aug 2016 10:55:56 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 10:43:17 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > I'd still like to know where the directory /usr/lib64/systemd/boot/efi
> > came from though.
>
> Surely it's from systemd-boot, it is installed by systemd here. What does
> qfile
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 10:43:17 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> I'd still like to know where the directory /usr/lib64/systemd/boot/efi
> came from though.
Surely it's from systemd-boot, it is installed by systemd here. What does
qfile tell you?
$ qfile /usr/lib/systemd/boot/efi
--
Neil Bothwick
On Friday 26 Aug 2016 16:13:53 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > In my search for a suitable boot method, I'm trying Mike G's
> > systemd-boot
> > ebuild. I've installed it with no problem, and now I reach the heart-in-
> >
On 08/25/2016 07:29 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> I still use bopm, and it built fine last time I emerged it.
>
> If hopm isn't in the tree yet, why was bopm still pmasked for removal?
>
> Reason for asking is I'm curious about removal procedures. I was under
> the impression that replacement
14 matches
Mail list logo