On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 09:09:27AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 11/11/10 07:29, Nezmer wrote:
> >But with those changes pacman did not like my ZFS pool.
>
> From a bit of google, it looks like the statvfs call is probably
> returning EOVERFLOW on that so we can probably just assume LOTS of
> spa
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:46:44PM +0200, Nezmer wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 09:09:27AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> > On 11/11/10 07:29, Nezmer wrote:
> > >But with those changes pacman did not like my ZFS pool.
> >
> > From a bit of google, it looks like the statvfs call is probably
> > retu
On 12/11/10 00:46, Nezmer wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 09:09:27AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
On 11/11/10 07:29, Nezmer wrote:
But with those changes pacman did not like my ZFS pool.
From a bit of google, it looks like the statvfs call is probably
returning EOVERFLOW on that so we can probab
On 12/11/10 00:49, Nezmer wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:46:44PM +0200, Nezmer wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 09:09:27AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
On 11/11/10 07:29, Nezmer wrote:
But with those changes pacman did not like my ZFS pool.
From a bit of google, it looks like the statvfs call
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 12/11/10 00:49, Nezmer wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:46:44PM +0200, Nezmer wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 09:09:27AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
On 11/11/10 07:29, Nezmer wrote:
>
> But with those changes pa
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 09:42:13AM -0600, Dan McGee wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> > On 12/11/10 00:49, Nezmer wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:46:44PM +0200, Nezmer wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 09:09:27AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
>
>
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Nezmer wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 09:42:13AM -0600, Dan McGee wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
>> > On 12/11/10 00:49, Nezmer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:46:44PM +0200, Nezmer wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Nov 1
Hi,
If two repos (obviously not both official) provide the same binary package,
pacman will install the package from the repo that is listed first in
pacman.conf, if specified on the command line, e.g. "pacman -S foo".
If another package depends on "foo", the same thing happens, but if it instead
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Xyne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If two repos (obviously not both official) provide the same binary package,
> pacman will install the package from the repo that is listed first in
> pacman.conf, if specified on the command line, e.g. "pacman -S foo".
>
> If another package d
Xavier Chantry wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Xyne wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > If two repos (obviously not both official) provide the same binary package,
> > pacman will install the package from the repo that is listed first in
> > pacman.conf, if specified on the command line, e.g. "pacma
So, looking into this further:
getmntent:
used by glibc, uclibc, cygwin
getmntinfo with statfs:
used by bsd4.4 (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OSX)
getmntinfo with statvfs:
NetBSD
I can work with that... the mount point struct can hold a statfs or
statvfs object depending on what function we ar
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:07:14AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> So, looking into this further:
>
> getmntent:
>used by glibc, uclibc, cygwin
>
> getmntinfo with statfs:
>used by bsd4.4 (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OSX)
>
> getmntinfo with statvfs:
>NetBSD
>
> I can work with that... the moun
12 matches
Mail list logo
