Andre Poenitz wrote:
> What kernel?
2.4.10-4 (SuSE 7.3)
> I've seen this with any 2.4.x I tried and am now back to 2.2.19 which
> behaves nicely. No KDE, though.
I see. Thanks for the hint, I will probably downgrade too (or install 2.2.x
additionally again) if this keeps annoying me.
Juergen.
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 11:14:40AM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> But sometimes strange things are happening here: without doing anything, the
> whole box crawls down and the devices are busy for quite some time.
What kernel?
I've seen this with any 2.4.x I tried and am now back to 2.2.19
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juergen Spitzmueller) writes:
> | For what it's worth, it compiles again :-)
>
> You were not running that much programs this time?
I don't think I did. I tried it several times and failed (I think I even
closed all apps one time).
But sometimes s
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> | A good first step would be to sort out why the configure
Lars> script does | not work with 2.52 on linux currently. I'd like to
Lars> have a common | version of autoconf/automake that works with
Lars> 1.2.x and 1.3.0cvs (it |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juergen Spitzmueller) writes:
| For what it's worth, it compiles again :-)
You were not running that much programs this time?
--
Lgb
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
| Lars> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: | Andre Poenitz
| Lars> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
| Lars> | | (but with automake 1.5 and not 1.6)
>>>
| Lars> | Have yo
For what it's worth, it compiles again :-)
Thanks,
Juergen.
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> rty -lc -lm -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lX11
> /usr/i486-suse-linux/bin/ld: final link failed: Memory exhausted
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> make[3]: *** [lyx] Error 1
> make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/j
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: | Andre Poenitz
Lars> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Lars> | | (but with automake 1.5 and not 1.6)
>>
Lars> | Have you also forgotten that we just came out of a code
Lars> freeze?
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> | Why not ... on the subject of controversial upgrades, I think
Lars> we should | drop all support for xforms pre-1.0 in 1.3
Lars> Agree. And when 1.3.0 is eventually released we will only
Lars> support the latest stable xform
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 07:39:39PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> Why not ... on the subject of controversial upgrades, I think we should
> drop all support for xforms pre-1.0 in 1.3
Is 1.0 out?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they des
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 07:20:12PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | (but with automake 1.5 and not 1.6)
>
> Have you also forgotten that we just came out of a code freeze?
Oh... so the freeze is over?
Haven't seen an announcement lately ;-}
A
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 07:42:20PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> | Have you also forgotten that we just came out of a code freeze?
>>
>> btw. Should be change to automake 1.6 and autoconf 2.53 now?
>
| Why not ... on the subject of controversial
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 07:42:20PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Have you also forgotten that we just came out of a code freeze?
>
> btw. Should be change to automake 1.6 and autoconf 2.53 now?
Why not ... on the subject of controversial upgrades, I think we should
drop all support for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
| | (but with automake 1.5 and not 1.6)
>
| Have you also forgotten that we just came out of a code freeze?
btw. Should be change to automake 1.6 and autoconf 2.53 now?
--
Lgb
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (but with automake 1.5 and not 1.6)
Have you also forgotten that we just came out of a code freeze?
--
Lgb
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 11:55:38AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> | Trying to fix the discovered problem is certainly a valid option, but you
>> | are not too eager to do so if that means "not so nice/modern/whatever"
>> | code.
>>
>> I have limi
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 11:55:38AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Trying to fix the discovered problem is certainly a valid option, but you
> | are not too eager to do so if that means "not so nice/modern/whatever"
> | code.
>
> I have limited time
Yes, but I thought there was some ki
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 11:15:36AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> No, but I want be over cautious and never try new things out of fear
>> of using too much memory, breaking compiles, etc.
>
| I think there is a fairly safe middle ground between "c
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 11:36:43AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | No, but I want be over cautious and never try new things out of fear
>^
>do not
I understood that.
[Well, I thought it was meant a bit ironically and you meant the opposite
of what you were writing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
| | On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 04:50:28PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>>> | What's this?
>>> | Has it to do with the "binary unbloat"? (I have 17 GB free disk
>>> | space).
>>>
>>> No, rather with to
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 11:15:36AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> No, but I want be over cautious and never try new things out of fear
> of using too much memory, breaking compiles, etc.
I think there is a fairly safe middle ground between "conservatism" (a la
Tcl/Tk-core changes) and the wa
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 04:50:28PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> | What's this?
>> | Has it to do with the "binary unbloat"? (I have 17 GB free disk
>> | space).
>>
>> No, rather with too little swap memory.
>> (too little total memory)
>
| Comp
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 04:50:28PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | What's this?
> | Has it to do with the "binary unbloat"? (I have 17 GB free disk
> | space).
>
> No, rather with too little swap memory.
> (too little total memory)
Compiling "on disk" is not an option at all.
I think we (
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juergen Spitzmueller) writes:
| What's this?
| Has it to do with the "binary unbloat"? (I have 17 GB free disk
| space).
No, rather with too little swap memory.
(too little total memory)
--
Lgb
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> You can try to look at 'top' output during linking phase and see
>> what happens. Note that John reported a libfrontends.a of size
>> 120Mb, so everything is possible.
Juergen> It is defin
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> You can try to look at 'top' output during linking phase and see what
> happens. Note that John reported a libfrontends.a of size 120Mb, so
> everything is possible.
It is definitely bloated. I have this problem since yesterday and the computer
slows down incredibel
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: What's this? Has it to do with
Juergen> the "binary unbloat"? (I have 17 GB free disk space). gcc
Juergen> 2.95.3 automake 1.4-p5
>> How much physical and virtual memory? Disk space is irrele
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Juergen> What's this? Has it to do with the "binary unbloat"? (I have
> Juergen> 17 GB free disk space). gcc 2.95.3 automake 1.4-p5
>
> How much physical and virtual memory? Disk space is irrelevant here.
128 MB physical Memory
136 MB Swap
It's a 1 GB Athlon btw.
Sh
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> What's this? Has it to do with the "binary unbloat"? (I have
Juergen> 17 GB free disk space). gcc 2.95.3 automake 1.4-p5
How much physical and virtual memory? Disk space is irrelevant here.
JMarc
29 matches
Mail list logo
