"James A. Treacy" wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 01:41:39AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > The reasons that swap spaces are perenially partitions and not
> > flat files are due partly to historical hysteria and partly
> > administrative admonitions.
> >
> [snip]
>
> Having swap on it's
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 01:41:39AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The reasons that swap spaces are perenially partitions and not
> flat files are due partly to historical hysteria and partly
> administrative admonitions.
>
[snip]
Having swap on it's own partition is also more efficient s
It's been rumoured that Alan Orndorff said:
>
> Actually, I would hope that all Unices would be able
> to use files for swap.
The reasons that swap spaces are perenially partitions and not
flat files are due partly to historical hysteria and partly
administrative admonitions.
The paranoids
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> No. Should I?
Maybe I'm confused. When you say "bounced over a tar archive", did
you send it to me? Either I'm just forgetting it, or I didn't see
it...
Hmm.
--
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930
- %< -
Rob Browning writes:
> > If so, the answer was "no." And the TAR archive I bounced over is
> > better than the earlier code submission.
>
> That was it.
>
> Did you send that to Linas?
No. Should I?
> > Usually, getting the wrong address indicates that your mail client
> > is somehow misconf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> If so, the answer was "no." And the TAR archive I bounced over is
> better than the earlier code submission.
That was it.
Did you send that to Linas?
> Usually, getting the wrong address indicates that your mail client
> is somehow misconfigured and is ignoring the
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > This is starting to get a mite distant from the concerns of "how to
> > develop financial software," though...
>
> True, but it's a welcome diversion for me. Debian's getting pretty
> well pummeled in a few other venues right now.
>
> I'll try to restrain myse
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> This is starting to get a mite distant from the concerns of "how to
> develop financial software," though...
True, but it's a welcome diversion for me. Debian's getting pretty
well pummeled in a few other venues right now.
I'll try to restrain myself :>
Oh, and bac
Alex Perry wrote:
> >Actually Linux has been able to use files for a LONG time now. The
> >problem is that as recently as Redhat 5.2 (and maybe even 6.0) it still
> >REQUIRES the configuration of a swap partition in order to install. The
> >reason? Because RedHat says that's better. Absolutel
>Actually Linux has been able to use files for a LONG time now. The
>problem is that as recently as Redhat 5.2 (and maybe even 6.0) it still
>REQUIRES the configuration of a swap partition in order to install. The
>reason? Because RedHat says that's better. Absolutely nothing more
>logical th
Alan Orndorff wrote:
>
> > They're not. Debian, for example, doesn't force you to have a swap
> > partition at install at all. It suggests one, but you can ignore it
> > and set up swap files later to your hearts content. It's just RedHat
> > that he says requires one at install time.
>
> Ok,
Rob Browning wrote:
> Alan Orndorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ok, Maybe Debian's a better way to go, for me.
>
> Depends on what you want.
>
> According to many, the learning curve's steeper for Debian, but the
> long-term maintainability's much higher.
Starting to sound real good.
-
Alan Orndorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, Maybe Debian's a better way to go, for me.
Depends on what you want.
According to many, the learning curve's steeper for Debian, but the
long-term maintainability's much higher.
--
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D6
> They're not. Debian, for example, doesn't force you to have a swap
> partition at install at all. It suggests one, but you can ignore it
> and set up swap files later to your hearts content. It's just RedHat
> that he says requires one at install time.
Ok, Maybe Debian's a better way to go,
Alan Orndorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, I would hope that all Unices would be able to use files
> for swap. Under Solaris, its to damn easy to setup. That really
> galls me about Linux. Why are two partitions required.
They're not. Debian, for example, doesn't force you to have
Alan Orndorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I need drivers. Damn, I wish Sun would do something with UDI so
> I could run Linux drivers. All Solaris x86'ers wish Sun would do
> something with drivers. Theres good and bad with all OS's. I know
> Sun has Ultra 2 Scsi drivers for Adaptec, fo
> Actually Linux has been able to use files for a LONG
> time now. The
> problem is that as recently as Redhat 5.2 (and maybe
> even 6.0) it still
> REQUIRES the configuration of a swap partition in
> order to install. The
> reason? Because RedHat says that's better.
> Absolutely nothing more
> > No way. I'm shooting for the 9 GB IBM Ultra Star
> 10,000 rpm,
> > ultra 2 scsi, I will never buy IDE again for my
> home system.
> >
> > Then I'll need to replace my 2940W with a newer
> Adaptec,
> > so its going to be a while still.
>
> I'd highly recommend the Buslogic (now Mylex)
> card
Amitha Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One other point to keep in mind is the 80/20 (or 90/10, depending on
> what you read) rule. I doubt that even doubling the execution time of
> asprintf would make any significant difference to the user. (I could
> be wrong. Profiling will tell.)
I'm ne
Alan Orndorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No way. I'm shooting for the 9 GB IBM Ultra Star 10,000 rpm,
> ultra 2 scsi, I will never buy IDE again for my home system.
>
> Then I'll need to replace my 2940W with a newer Adaptec,
> so its going to be a while still.
I'd highly recommend the Busl
Alan Orndorff wrote:
> Rob Browning wrote:
>
> > Alan Orndorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > to Unix. Its providing Windows like apps for Unix. It still has
> > > some things that I don't like, like the need for a seperate
> > > partition just for swap.
> >
> > FWIW, linux allows you to
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Alan Orndorff wrote:
> Rob Browning wrote:
>
> > Alan Orndorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > to Unix. Its providing Windows like apps for Unix. It still has
> > > some things that I don't like, like the need for a seperate
> > > partition just for swap.
> >
> > FWIW
> Yep, and 10GB IBM IDE drives are pretty cheap these days. About $150
> for $160 for the 7200RPM version..
No way. I'm shooting for the 9 GB IBM Ultra Star 10,000 rpm,
ultra 2 scsi, I will never buy IDE again for my home system.
Then I'll need to replace my 2940W with a newer Adaptec,
so its
On 05 Jul 1999 20:20:10 -0500, Rob Browning wrote:
> It would probably be worth a little time to go look at the liberty
> code and see if we can just snatch their implementation without too
> much rewriting. My guess is that we can't, but if we could, then we'd
> be bug/feature compatible for the
Alan Orndorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, I didn't know that. The last version I used was Redhat 4.2?
> I think. I'll get around to trying it again sometime soon. I need
> a bigger hard disk. I'm out of space with just Windows and
> Solaris. Solaris does suck up a lot of disk space for
Rob Browning wrote:
> Alan Orndorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > to Unix. Its providing Windows like apps for Unix. It still has
> > some things that I don't like, like the need for a seperate
> > partition just for swap.
>
> FWIW, linux allows you to use files. Whether that's a recent
>
Alan Orndorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> to Unix. Its providing Windows like apps for Unix. It still has
> some things that I don't like, like the need for a seperate
> partition just for swap.
FWIW, linux allows you to use files. Whether that's a recent
invention or not, I don't know. It
Amitha Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have been meaning to write them up and post a patch to you guys,
> but other things keep intruding. I will try to get that done before
> mid-week, and hopefully that'll take care of this particular
> problem.
It would probably be worth a little time
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's been rumoured that Alan Orndorff said:
> >The one thing I know about binutils on Solaris systems is that
> > most admins don't like to install it. the ld that comes with binutils
> > does not compile on Solaris 7. Most of the other utils that compose
> > binu
It's been rumoured that Alan Orndorff said:
>The one thing I know about binutils on Solaris systems is that
> most admins don't like to install it. the ld that comes with binutils
> does not compile on Solaris 7. Most of the other utils that compose
> binutils are available natively. Not su
It's been rumoured that Rob Browning said:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > libiberty comes with gcc, binutils and a number of other gnu tools
> > as a means of not having to rely on the vagaries of vendor libc
> > implmenetations.
>
> So is it installed with gcc on those platforms? If so,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > libiberty comes with gcc, binutils and a number of other gnu tools
> > as a means of not having to rely on the vagaries of vendor libc
> > implmenetations.
>
> So is it installed with gcc on those platforms? If so, do you think
> it's reasonable to require it a
> stpcpy(char *dest, const char *src) {
I've added a HAVE_STPCPY to configure
- %< >% --
The GnuCash / X-Accountant Mailing List
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
put "unsubscribe gnucash-devel [EMAIL PROTECTED]" in the body
Rob Browning wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > libiberty comes with gcc, binutils and a number of other gnu tools
> > as a means of not having to rely on the vagaries of vendor libc
> > implmenetations.
>
> So is it installed with gcc on those platforms? If so, do you think
> it's reasona
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> libiberty comes with gcc, binutils and a number of other gnu tools
> as a means of not having to rely on the vagaries of vendor libc
> implmenetations.
So is it installed with gcc on those platforms? If so, do you think
it's reasonable to require it as long as we put
It's been rumoured that Rob Browning said:
>
> Alan Orndorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > /usr/local/lib/libiberty.a contains asprintf, so vi
> Hmm. Maybe we can steal liberty. Sounds like exactly what we need.
libiberty comes with gcc, binutils and a number of other gnu tools as a means
Rob Browning wrote:
> Alan Orndorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > /usr/local/lib/libiberty.a contains asprintf, so vi
> > /src/motif/Makefile and added -liberty to it, and got past that. I
> > can't remeber which gnu package compiles up libiberty but I think it
> > was fileutils?
>
> Hmm. M
Alan Orndorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> /usr/local/lib/libiberty.a contains asprintf, so vi
> /src/motif/Makefile and added -liberty to it, and got past that. I
> can't remeber which gnu package compiles up libiberty but I think it
> was fileutils?
Hmm. Maybe we can steal liberty. Sounds
There are now, no unresolved dependancies.
/usr/local/lib/libiberty.a contains asprintf, so
vi /src/motif/Makefile and added -liberty to it,
and got past that. I can't remeber which gnu
package compiles up libiberty but I think it
was fileutils?
In gnucash.c changed stpcpy
to strcpy and got pas
39 matches
Mail list logo
