At Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:56:18 +0200,
Neal H. Walfield wrote:
>
> At Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:10:01 -0700,
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [1 ]
> > On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 21:44 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > We're still being again and again annoyed by p
On 4/11/07, Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello!
Hi there! :-)
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 08:19:59AM +0200, Joachim Nilsson wrote:
> On 8/11/06, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Thomas Schwinge has been working on finding a replacement for the wiki,
> >but he is on vacati
Hello!
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 08:19:59AM +0200, Joachim Nilsson wrote:
> On 8/11/06, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Thomas Schwinge has been working on finding a replacement for the wiki,
> >but he is on vacation currently and will be back in September.
>
> OK, sounds good.
Sorry f
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 12:57 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 10:10:01PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 21:44 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > We're still being again and again annoyed by programs that use `PATH_MAX'
> > > unconditio
Well, looking at the kernel, this driver was moved from ne.c to ne2k
because ne.c was for ISA and then ne2k was created for PCI NE2000
cards. The card is at the absolute bottom of the list. Anyway, I took
a peak at the ne.c and ne2k.c drivers in Linux-2.6.17:
http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/l
Hello!
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 12:16:25PM +0200, I wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 01:26:51PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > The old device_emulation_ops stuff in i386at is similar,
> > i.e. it provides hooks to implement the device RPCs.
>
> But where would be the correct place in GNU Mach to
Hello!
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 03:23:17AM -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> For anyone who's been following the epic story unfolding in IRC,
> after a few days of fighting with it, I was able to get it working
> (it was surprisingly easy after Tom got me pointed in the right
> direction).
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 12:50:55PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> 12:22:41 up 6 days, 6:00, 20 users, load average: 145.63, 71.19, 28.72
> Does somebody want to try that on a GNU/Hurd system? ;-)
I "tried" that when I built the Debian gcc-4.1 package from experimental
it had something like "
Hello!
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 10:10:01PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 21:44 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > We're still being again and again annoyed by programs that use `PATH_MAX'
> > unconditionally.
>
> Why stop with this one?
So, if I interpret things correct
Hello!
| mach doesn't like being built with -j2
Indeed. I installed the following to fix this:
#v+
CVSROOT:/cvsroot/hurd
Module name:gnumach
Branch: gnumach-1-branch
Changes by: Thomas Schwinge 07/04/11 10:41:54
Modified files:
. : ChangeLog c
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 10:56:18AM +0200, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> Legacy compatibility has always ruled the day.
Standards compatibility, not bug compatibility...
-antrik-
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
At Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:10:01 -0700,
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [1 ]
> On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 21:44 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > We're still being again and again annoyed by programs that use `PATH_MAX'
> > unconditionally.
>
> Why stop with this one?
For anyone who's been following the epic story unfolding in IRC,
after a few days of fighting with it, I was able to get it working
(it was surprisingly easy after Tom got me pointed in the right
direction). Anyway, here's my patch, and the changelog entry:
2007-04-11 Michael Casadevall
*
13 matches
Mail list logo
