rpmforge contains unixbench 4 which is about 10 years old. There are new
versions (5.2) available from this site:
http://www.hermit.org/Linux/Benchmarking/
which also include tests to distinguish between use of cores.
Could rpmforge upgrade to Unixbench 5?
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
G
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
rpmforge contains unixbench 4 which is about 10 years old. There are new
versions (5.2) available from this site:
http://www.hermit.org/Linux/Benchmarking/
which also include tests to distinguish between use of cores.
Could rpmforge upgrade to Unixbench 5
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, RobertH wrote:
can you please freshen up perl-HTML parser for el4 and el5 etc please?
evidentally 3.59 has some special changes that helps with spamassassin
I just did that. Will become available tomorrow. A lot of the perl package
need an update, looking for some time to
>
> I just did that. Will become available tomorrow. A lot of the
> perl package need an update, looking for some time to commit to this.
>
> --
> -- dag wieers,
thanks for the update on it Dag!
:-)
we will keep you! ;-)
have a great Holiday season!
- rh
_
2008/12/11 Dag Wieers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I just did that. Will become available tomorrow. A lot of the perl package
> need an update, looking for some time to commit to this.
How do you maintain these?
I just learned about CPANPLUS::Dist::RPM
(http://search.cpan.org/~rsrchboy/CPANPLUS-Dist-RP
This is interesting... I would like to look at this for building my own
repo's.
IIRC Dag uses dar-per.py which I believe you can find here:
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/tools/dar/dar-perl.py
Amos Shapira wrote:
2008/12/11 Dag Wieers<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I just did that. Will become
I finally just used the base installed pear to install pear ole and pear
excel. I'm not sure this was the best way to do it. It did provide the
excel functionality that we needed.
These were the pear commands that I ran:
pear install channel://pear.php.net/OLE-1.0.0RC1
pear install channel://pe
Dag Wieers wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:54:15 +0100 (CET):
> Thanks for the feedback. I added the package. They will appear tomorrow :)
Thanks, Dag. Had to make it on two machines, anyway, as I needed something
to stresstest them. But now it's easier for the next machines.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl,
Roelof van der Kleij wrote on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:52:53 +0100:
These modules are optional, so they should indeed not be required!
Also, the (optional) two DKIM and the two SPF modules are mutually exclusive.
So, I think it's correct, to not require any of these.
> [3248] dbg: diag: module not ins
