> Okay, now I'm trying to figure out how dircolors works. I've modified
> /etc/LS_COLORS, then have done things like
>
> dircolors -b /etc/LS_COLORS > MyColors
> . ./MyColors
That's one way. Another is the method used by /etc/profile:
eval "`dircolors -b /path/to/database`"
>
> but it doesn
Eric Blake wrote:
Timothy King timothyking.com> writes:
The re-install fixed the path problem, but I still have strange things
going on with the directory colors. Attached is a screen print.
Notice some directores are the correct blue on white while others are
black on green.
Not
Timothy King timothyking.com> writes:
> The re-install fixed the path problem, but I still have strange things
> going on with the directory colors. Attached is a screen print.
> Notice some directores are the correct blue on white while others are
> black on green.
Not a bug, but a feature im
On 3/9/06, Igor Peshansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Setup actually does a bit more than leave .new files around -- it also
> schedules the original files to be replaced by .new files on reboot. If
> you have since rebooted, Windows would have done the job of renaming the
> .new files for you.
From: "Dave Korn"
On 09 March 2006 19:37, Larrie Carr wrote:
Sure I RTFM'ed and yes it says that. But I would argue that Keep does
not
exactly work the way that you say it does. So not using Keep does not
indicate RTFM status.
Well, since keep ABSOLUTELY DOES work EXACTLY how I described
On 09 March 2006 19:37, Larrie Carr wrote:
> Sure I RTFM'ed and yes it says that. But I would argue that Keep does not
> exactly work the way that you say it does. So not using Keep does not
> indicate RTFM status.
Well, since keep ABSOLUTELY DOES work EXACTLY how I described it, you really
n
From: "Dave Korn"
On 09 March 2006 18:22, Dave Korn wrote:
... one paragraph that needs a little clarification:
On 09 March 2006 17:51, Larrie Carr wrote:
But the latest is not always the best. For instance, octave could only
be
compiled with gcc 3.3.3 - but the latest in setup is 3.4.4.
On 09 March 2006 18:22, Dave Korn wrote:
... one paragraph that needs a little clarification:
> On 09 March 2006 17:51, Larrie Carr wrote:
>> But the latest is not always the best. For instance, octave could only be
>> compiled with gcc 3.3.3 - but the latest in setup is 3.4.4. I'm fine with
On 09 March 2006 17:51, Larrie Carr wrote:
> From: "Dave Korn" wrote
>> On 09 March 2006 05:45, Larrie Carr wrote:
>>> I had this problem a couple of months ago. My problem was caused by the
>>> setup.exe being very helpful and (at least for me) defaulting to always
>>> installing the latest ver
From: "Dave Korn" wrote
On 09 March 2006 05:45, Larrie Carr wrote:
I had this problem a couple of months ago. My problem was caused by the
setup.exe being very helpful and (at least for me) defaulting to always
installing the latest version of anything you already had installed. And
if
you
On 09 March 2006 05:45, Larrie Carr wrote:
> I had this problem a couple of months ago. My problem was caused by the
> setup.exe being very helpful and (at least for me) defaulting to always
> installing the latest version of anything you already had installed. And if
> you don't look at the r
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 09:06:28AM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>P.S. A note for the archives: now that setup has a proper mechanism to
>detect failed postinstall scripts, along with scheduling replace-on-reboot
>for the files in-use, we could (should) also create a batch file in
>RunOnce after reb
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Timothy King wrote:
> On 3/8/06, Larrie Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: "Timothy King"
> > > Last night, I grabbed an additional package using setup.exe. It also
> > > downloaded and installed the latest cygwin1.dll (1.5.19-4) and core
> > > utilities. I had not upd
> Last night, I grabbed an additional package using setup.exe. It also
> downloaded
> and installed the latest cygwin1.dll (1.5.19-4) and core utilities. I had
> not
> updated since early January. While it was running the post-install script, I
> received serveral errors along the lines of
On 3/8/06, Larrie Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Timothy King"
> > Last night, I grabbed an additional package using setup.exe. It also
> > downloaded and installed the latest cygwin1.dll (1.5.19-4) and core
> > utilities. I had not updated since early January. While it was running
> >
From: "Timothy King"
Last night, I grabbed an additional package using setup.exe. It also
downloaded and installed the latest cygwin1.dll (1.5.19-4) and core
utilities. I had not updated since early January. While it was running
the post-install script, I received serveral errors along the l
Last night, I grabbed an additional package using setup.exe. It also
downloaded and installed the latest cygwin1.dll (1.5.19-4) and core utilities.
I had not updated since early January. While it was running the post-install
script, I received serveral errors along the lines of "... could not
17 matches
Mail list logo
