Re: [PATCH] Building the Hurd with gcc-4.0

2006-02-05 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
Are there any objections that can convince me not to commit those to the Hurd's trunk? Other than you not having any permissions as far as I can see? ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd

Re: Remove GNU Mach's unused device drivers

2006-02-05 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device drivers from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore? Care to explain what that would achive? Wouldn't it be better to simply make the native drivers work? ___ Bug-hurd mailing

Re: No to StowFS!

2006-02-05 Thread Filip Brcic
Дана Sunday 05 February 2006 18:35, Richard M. Stallman је написао(ла): > What he's saying is, > rather than doing this, you should just have a utility that keeps the > PATH environment variable updated (by adding hte packages' bin/ and > sbin/ directories), updates ld.so.conf, and

Re: Checking out /gnumach exits with error, cause 'aux' reserved on cvsnt

2006-02-05 Thread Ashish Gokhale
I checked for the error message "cvs [checkout aborted]: could not chdir to gnumach/i386/aux: Invalid argument" I am using windows2000 to download & study the GnuMach source code. It seems 'aux' is a reserved word & its causing problem when cvsnt doing chdir to "gnumach/i386/aux". Has anybody expe

Re: No to StowFS!

2006-02-05 Thread Gianluca Guida
Hi, On 2/5/06, Filip Brcic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about a daemon (or service, or translator, or whatever) that would monitor > the "/Programs" directory where the new programs are installed. And when that > daemon sees a new program it automagicaly does a "ln -s" for binaries, > includes

Re: No to StowFS!

2006-02-05 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
How about a daemon (or service, or translator, or whatever) that would monitor the "/Programs" directory where the new programs are installed. And when that daemon sees a new program it automagicaly does a "ln -s" for binaries, includes, libraries, etc. That is exactly what stowfs does

Re: No to StowFS!

2006-02-05 Thread Leonardo Pereira
StowFS doesn't create links, it uses unionfs. The difference of both is almost simple, since with links you can remove stow and everything will keep working. With StowFS you need to have stowfs running to get things working (this "curiously" create a bootstrap problem2006/2/5, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EM

Re: No to StowFS!

2006-02-05 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
StowFS doesn't create links, it uses unionfs. And unionfs creates virtual symbolic links that don't really exist. ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd

Re: No to StowFS!

2006-02-05 Thread Gianluca Guida
Hi. On 2/5/06, Leonardo Pereira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > StowFS doesn't create links, it uses unionfs. The difference of both is > almost simple, since with links you can remove stow and everything will keep > working. With StowFS you need to have stowfs running to get things working > (this "