On Monday 12 March 2007, Patrick Mau wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:43:09PM -0400, Douglas McNaught wrote:
>> Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Monday 12 March 2007, Douglas McNaught wrote:
>> >>Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>> I'd considered it, but with 32 dle en
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:43:09PM -0400, Douglas McNaught wrote:
> Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Monday 12 March 2007, Douglas McNaught wrote:
> >>Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> I'd considered it, but with 32 dle entries, the whole strace output
> >>> would be
Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 12 March 2007, Douglas McNaught wrote:
>>Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I'd considered it, but with 32 dle entries, the whole strace output
>>> would be terrabytes & I don't have THAT much disk. Not to mention it
>>> traces only t
On 3/12/07, Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 12 March 2007, Douglas McNaught wrote:
>Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'd considered it, but with 32 dle entries, the whole strace output
>> would be terrabytes & I don't have THAT much disk. Not to mention it
>> traces
On Monday 12 March 2007, Douglas McNaught wrote:
>Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'd considered it, but with 32 dle entries, the whole strace output
>> would be terrabytes & I don't have THAT much disk. Not to mention it
>> traces only the parent process, so tar would be merrily march
Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd considered it, but with 32 dle entries, the whole strace output would
> be terrabytes & I don't have THAT much disk. Not to mention it traces
> only the parent process, so tar would be merrily marching along to its
> own drummer and not traced I'm
On Monday 12 March 2007, Douglas McNaught wrote:
>Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If, and I have previously, I revert to a 2.6.20-ck1 patching, this
>> does not occur. So my contention is that someplace in this recent
>> progression from 2.6.20 to 2.6.21-rc3, there is a patch which act
Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If, and I have previously, I revert to a 2.6.20-ck1 patching, this does
> not occur. So my contention is that someplace in this recent progression
> from 2.6.20 to 2.6.21-rc3, there is a patch which acts to change how
> c-time is being reported to tar
On Monday 12 March 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
>On Monday 12 March 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
>>Hi Gene.
>>
>>On Monday 12 March 2007 16:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>> I hate to say it Con, but this one seems to have broken the
>>> amanda-tar symbiosis.
>>>
>>> I haven't tried a plain 21-rc3, so the probl
On Monday 12 March 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
>Hi Gene.
>
>On Monday 12 March 2007 16:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> I hate to say it Con, but this one seems to have broken the amanda-tar
>> symbiosis.
>>
>> I haven't tried a plain 21-rc3, so the problem may exist there, and in
>> fact it did for 21-rc1,
Hi Gene.
On Monday 12 March 2007 16:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I hate to say it Con, but this one seems to have broken the amanda-tar
> symbiosis.
>
> I haven't tried a plain 21-rc3, so the problem may exist there, and in
> fact it did for 21-rc1, but I don't recall if it was true for -rc2. But
>
On Sunday 11 March 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
>On Sunday 11 March 2007 15:03, Matt Mackall wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 10:01:32PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
>> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 01:28:22PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
>> > > Ok I don't think there's any actual accounting problem here per s
12 matches
Mail list logo
