On Monday, 26 March 2007 15:40, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 12:36:09PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 26 March 2007 11:07, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > after reading this thread, i got the impression that we do not report
> > > errors verbosely
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 12:36:09PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 26 March 2007 11:07, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > after reading this thread, i got the impression that we do not report
> > errors verbosely enough. I mean - we normally never see those messages,
> > but if w
On Mon 2007-03-26 12:36:09, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 26 March 2007 11:07, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > after reading this thread, i got the impression that we do not report
> > errors verbosely enough. I mean - we normally never see those messages,
> > but if we do, due to a
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:07:59 +0200
Stefan Seyfried <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after reading this thread, i got the impression that we do not report
> errors verbosely enough. I mean - we normally never see those messages,
> but if we do, due to an error having happened, we always need t
On Monday, 26 March 2007 11:07, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after reading this thread, i got the impression that we do not report
> errors verbosely enough. I mean - we normally never see those messages,
> but if we do, due to an error having happened, we always need to start
> adding more de
Hi,
after reading this thread, i got the impression that we do not report
errors verbosely enough. I mean - we normally never see those messages,
but if we do, due to an error having happened, we always need to start
adding more debugging printf's before we know what happened.
Oh, yes, and pm-ops
