On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:43:06PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
> This is incorrect, or at least, was incorrect last time I looked
> (circa...uhh..2009?)
>
> They work 'ok' together. Heimdal clients could talk to MIT servers at
> least.
and vice-versa.
> Of course, there were quirks, and incompatib
Eray Aslan posted on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:02:49 +0200 as excerpted:
>> > I don't think samba will support MIT, since it's kinda windows
>> > focused.
>
> Ugh, no. MIT is not windows focused
... But samba is...
As far as the thread in general goes, the question arises, if you're
running both s
On 25/02/2013 13:03, Duncan wrote:
> Eray Aslan posted on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:02:49 +0200 as excerpted:
>
I don't think samba will support MIT, since it's kinda windows
focused.
>>
>> Ugh, no. MIT is not windows focused
>
> ... But samba is...
>
>
> As far as the thread in general go
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Linux client invariably whinge at length about how the performance of
> samba sucks.
I suspect there is more at issue than just performance.
I run both samba and nfs (though without kerberos), and have the
windows issues you mentioned, and
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Matthew Thode
wrote:
> On 02/24/13 20:25, Michael Mol wrote:
>> (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right
>> now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed
>> here, so...)
>>
>> So I'm playing with net-fs/samba-4.0.3,
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:03:01PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> I'm going to be unmasking 4.7.2 later this week. There are still 47 open bugs
> blocking the 4.7 tracker, so if any are yours now would be a good time
> to take a look at them.
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/390247
There's an ugly bug [1]
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:58:08 +0100
Piotr Szymaniak wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:03:01PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > I'm going to be unmasking 4.7.2 later this week. There are still
> > 47 open bugs blocking the 4.7 tracker, so if any are yours now
> > would be a good time to take a look a
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Though people that use -ffast-math / -fLTO / -fuse-linker-plugin should
> be on their own, thus I drop -ffast-math because it breaks my browser;
> but that doesn't mean that those ricer flags should stop stabilization.
If we're talking about f
On 02/25/2013 06:03 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Eray Aslan posted on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:02:49 +0200 as excerpted:
>
I don't think samba will support MIT, since it's kinda windows
focused.
>>
>> Ugh, no. MIT is not windows focused
>
> ... But samba is...
Actually, no. That's why I've been so
On 25/02/2013 22:32, Rich Freeman wrote:
> That isn't the same as saying that we can just break it in cases where
> it actually is appropriate. Calculating scroll bar movement is
> exactly the sort of thing that this flag was actually designed for -
> you don't care if it is off by 1/100th of a pi
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 25/02/2013 22:32, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> That isn't the same as saying that we can just break it in cases where
>> it actually is appropriate. Calculating scroll bar movement is
>> exactly the sort of thing that this flag was actuall
On 25/02/2013 22:57, Rich Freeman wrote:
> A sword that cuts two ways - judging understanding by an email is a
> dubious proposition, otherwise we wouldn't need job interviews. :)
> It is just as likely that we're simply miscommunicating.
Did you not just say there:
"Calculating scroll bar movem
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> Of course dealing with flags _per functions_ is not possible, as flags
> apply at the very least to a translation unit...
A translation unit can contain a single function, or a bunch of
functions that you want to apply the flag to.
>
>
On 25/02/13 22:32, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> Though people that use -ffast-math / -fLTO / -fuse-linker-plugin should
>> be on their own, thus I drop -ffast-math because it breaks my browser;
>> but that doesn't mean that those ricer flags should s
On 25/02/13 23:21, Rich Freeman wrote:
> My point was just that:
> 1. No, the fact that entire packages fail to build/operate using
> -ffast-math is not a valid bug.
>From your email the message was the opposite, maybe a not got lost?
> 2. If individual packages DO carefully use -ffast-math and
On 25/02/2013 23:21, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
> wrote:
>> Of course dealing with flags _per functions_ is not possible, as flags
>> apply at the very least to a translation unit...
>
> A translation unit can contain a single function, or a bunch of
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 25/02/13 23:21, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> My point was just that:
>> 1. No, the fact that entire packages fail to build/operate using
>> -ffast-math is not a valid bug.
>
> From your email the message was the opposite, maybe a not got lost?
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> No, an example of _how building a whole package with -ffast-math_ was
> brought up, and you turned it into "something that it should apply to"
> (which is false, and stupid to say).
Perhaps this is part of the issue then. I didn't not
On 02/25/2013 12:48 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Matthew Thode
> wrote:
>> On 02/24/13 20:25, Michael Mol wrote:
>>> (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right
>>> now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed
>>> here, s
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:58:08 +0100
Piotr Szymaniak wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:03:01PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > I'm going to be unmasking 4.7.2 later this week. There are still 47 open
> > bugs blocking the 4.7 tracker, so if any are yours now would be a good time
> > to take a look a
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 23:03:01 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> I'm going to be unmasking 4.7.2 later this week. There are still 47 open bugs
> blocking the 4.7 tracker, so if any are yours now would be a good time
> to take a look at them.
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/390247
Forgot to say, now would als
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 23:03:01 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>
>> I'm going to be unmasking 4.7.2 later this week. There are still 47 open
>> bugs
>> blocking the 4.7 tracker, so if any are yours now would be a good time
>> to take a look at them.
>>
Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:54:01 -0500 as excerpted:
> I didn't not read that email
SIGFPE. Talk about -ffastma^h^hfinger errors...
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."
23 matches
Mail list logo
