Richard,
Are you sure that you aren't making too much of this? Does /run
actually have executables? Or are they just directories that are
usually found in /var/run:
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Linux-distributions-to-include-run-directory-1219006.html
?
As for rtkit-daemon, my fi
On 1/7/11 2:30 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Consider vs-ftpd.
Ditto. Last time I went looking for an FTP daemon, vs-ftpd was the only
one that met all of my security requirements.
Cheers,
Matt
___
vox-tech mailing list
vox-tech@lists.lugod.org
http://lists
On 11/30/10 10:59 AM, Brian Lavender wrote:
> How do you tell perl to warn or not compile if you are not using
> the correct number of arguments in a subroutine?
>
> sub foo() {
>my ($stat_ref, $record_number, $prev_line, $line, $line_number) = @_;
># do stuff
> }
>
> # say in my call, I pu
On 10/21/10 10:27 AM, Tony Cratz wrote:
>> I see some recipes that have the following on the first line.
>>
>> :0:
>
> It should.
>
> The rule ':0:' is used to not to continue on to the next rule
> if there is a match on the test. So think of it as.
>
Actually, man 5 procmailrc s
On 10/21/10 10:54 AM, Ken Bloom wrote:
> Yes, but people should be encouraged to use something with more sane
> syntax if possible. For example, sieve (from GNU mailutils) uses a
> standard syntax that is understood by many IMAP servers.
I understand that maildrop is another popular alternative.
On 10/21/10 9:59 AM, Brian Lavender wrote:
> Does this move the email to my mailbox IN.olpc-social if it is To:
> olpc-soc...@googlegroups.com?
>
> :0
> * ^To:.*olpc-soc...@googlegroups.com
> IN.olpc-social
Yep. But I might suggest:
:0:
* ^to_olpc-soc...@googlegroups.com
IN.olpc-social
Assumin
On 6/15/10 5:56 PM, Rod Roark wrote:
> You might check power consumption of this server.
You might also want to check the power supply specs to see how much
current each rail can supply. Then ensure that the devices on each rail
consume less than the nominal current of the rail.
Cheers,
Matt
On 4/21/10 3:26 PM, Jeff Newmiller wrote:
>> There are many ways to skin a cat, here's one:
>>
>> void reverse(int forward[], int backward[], unsigned int n) {
>>unsigned i = n;
>>while(i--> 0) {
>> backward[n-i-1] = forward[i];
>>}
>> }
>
> This reverses and then re-reverses it.
On 4/21/10 1:05 PM, Brian Lavender wrote:
> Well, it seems to me that to reverse a array in C, you are going to have
> to use a counter and decrement it. And, since C uses zero indexed
> arrays, it certainly seems to leave me in a quandry whether to use
> signed or unsigned. We know that an array i
On 4/20/10 7:44 PM, Brian Lavender wrote:
> Thus, I am thinking that the compiler could catch this due to the
> fact that i is unsigned. I wanted to print out the reverse of an
> array.
The problem with this is two-fold. First, writing a loop that may never
terminate isn't necessarily a bug -- c
10 matches
Mail list logo
