Hello
2009/9/12 Felix Zielcke :
> Am Samstag, den 12.09.2009, 14:58 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 05:54:19PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 13:03 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>> >
>> > > Pavel, if you could confirm that you're ok with checking for mo
Am Samstag, den 12.09.2009, 14:58 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 05:54:19PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 13:03 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > > Pavel, if you could confirm that you're ok with checking for module
> > > existance, maybe Felix' pat
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 05:54:19PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 13:03 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> > Pavel, if you could confirm that you're ok with checking for module
> > existance, maybe Felix' patch can be made simpler.
>
> Generally, I would prefer not to rely on the
On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 13:03 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Pavel, if you could confirm that you're ok with checking for module
> existance, maybe Felix' patch can be made simpler.
Generally, I would prefer not to rely on the existence of modules, as
it's a poor substitute for the knowledge whether
Am Dienstag, den 25.08.2009, 21:35 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 01:03:21PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 10:22:49AM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag, den 20.08.2009, 18:18 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
> > > >
> > > > Fine with me.
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 01:03:21PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 10:22:49AM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 20.08.2009, 18:18 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
> > >
> > > Fine with me. Just please don't rely on existence of modules.
> >
> > Here's now a pat
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 10:22:49AM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 20.08.2009, 18:18 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
> > On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 17:18 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > > The eye candy is nice but not so important. For me, gfxterm should be
> > > default on platforms
Am Donnerstag, den 20.08.2009, 18:18 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
> On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 17:18 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> > The eye candy is nice but not so important. For me, gfxterm should be
> > default on platforms where it's available, because it implements UTF-8,
> > which is necessary
2009/8/21 Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko :
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 17:18 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>>
>>> The eye candy is nice but not so important. For me, gfxterm should be
>>> default on platforms where it's available, because it implem
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 17:18 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
>> The eye candy is nice but not so important. For me, gfxterm should be
>> default on platforms where it's available, because it implements UTF-8,
>> which is necessary to support l10
On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 17:18 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> The eye candy is nice but not so important. For me, gfxterm should be
> default on platforms where it's available, because it implements UTF-8,
> which is necessary to support l10n.
Fine with me. Just please don't rely on existence of m
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 07:53:30PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry, I'm very busy these days. I don't know what message you are
> > talking about, but I still have a lot of mail to read.
> >
> > I don't insist on changing the default, as long as GRUB behaves
> > corre
2009/8/18 Felix Zielcke :
> Am Dienstag, den 18.08.2009, 13:58 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
>> On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 08:44 +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
>> > Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2009, 21:09 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
>> > > Quoting Felix Zielcke :
>> > >
>> > > >> So you would prefer something l
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 19:53 +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry, I'm very busy these days. I don't know what message you are
> > talking about, but I still have a lot of mail to read.
> >
> > I don't insist on changing the default, as long as GRUB behaves
> > correctly.
Am Dienstag, den 18.08.2009, 13:58 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
> On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 08:44 +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2009, 21:09 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
> > > Quoting Felix Zielcke :
> > >
> > > >> So you would prefer something like the attached patch?
> > > >>
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 08:44 +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2009, 21:09 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
> > Quoting Felix Zielcke :
> >
> > >> So you would prefer something like the attached patch?
> > >> Though then we'll need to tell people to explicit enable gfxterm.
> > >
>
>
> I'm sorry, I'm very busy these days. I don't know what message you are
> talking about, but I still have a lot of mail to read.
>
> I don't insist on changing the default, as long as GRUB behaves
> correctly. I have verified that setting GRUB_TERMINAL_OUTPUT=console
> in /usr/local/etc/defaul
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 13:04 +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2009, 18:09 +0200 schrieb Vladimir 'phcoder'
> Serbinenko:
> > The correct solution would be to check the presence of graphical
> > backend and base the default on it. Or even better is to make the
> > default depend
Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2009, 21:09 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
> Quoting Felix Zielcke :
>
> >> So you would prefer something like the attached patch?
> >> Though then we'll need to tell people to explicit enable gfxterm.
> >
> > Pavel? Seems like you missed my mail.
>
> No, it's still in my IN
Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2009, 18:09 +0200 schrieb Vladimir 'phcoder'
Serbinenko:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 03.06.2009, 16:55 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
> >> On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 11:43 +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> >> > I wonder why nobody on thi
Quoting Felix Zielcke :
So you would prefer something like the attached patch?
Though then we'll need to tell people to explicit enable gfxterm.
Pavel? Seems like you missed my mail.
No, it's still in my INBOX. The patch looks reasonable, but I didn't
have a chance to test it yet.
--
Re
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 03.06.2009, 16:55 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
>> On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 11:43 +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
>> > I wonder why nobody on this list noticed this yet.
>> > Jordi reported this already on Debian a while ago [0]
>> >
>
Am Donnerstag, den 04.06.2009, 00:11 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> Am Mittwoch, den 03.06.2009, 16:55 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
> > On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 11:43 +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > > I wonder why nobody on this list noticed this yet.
> > > Jordi reported this already on Debian a while
Am Mittwoch, den 03.06.2009, 16:55 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
> On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 11:43 +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > I wonder why nobody on this list noticed this yet.
> > Jordi reported this already on Debian a while ago [0]
> >
> > It fails with `No suitable backend could be found for gf
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 11:43 +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> I wonder why nobody on this list noticed this yet.
> Jordi reported this already on Debian a while ago [0]
>
> It fails with `No suitable backend could be found for gfxterm.'
> The problem is that gfxterm is used when nothing is explicitly
I wonder why nobody on this list noticed this yet.
Jordi reported this already on Debian a while ago [0]
It fails with `No suitable backend could be found for gfxterm.'
The problem is that gfxterm is used when nothing is explicitly specified
and the fonts were compiled, but the fails because vbe.m
26 matches
Mail list logo
