In article <5418100903...@mightyoak.org.uk>,
Bob Latham wrote:
> I've tried hiding !cache so I can control when it is filer_booted but it
> still gives the problem.
I downloaded #1967 a day or so ago, merged the provided !Boot and !System
directories with my existing and I have seen no proble
In article <9ed6811754.andrew-...@waitrose.com>,
Andrew Pinder wrote:
> In message <20140613221516.gc1...@platypus.pepperfish.net>
> on 13 Jun 2014 Rob Kendrick wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 09:42:54PM +0100, Andrew Pinder wrote:
> >>> Couple people try moving it elsewhere (ie, outside
Andrew Pinder, on 15 Jun, wrote:
> In message
> on 14 Jun 2014 Andrew Pinder wrote:
>
> > In message
> > on 14 Jun 2014 Steve Fryatt wrote:
>
> > > I don't run NetSurf during the boot sequence -- are all the people
> > > seeing issues doing that? What are people's Next slots configured to
In message
on 14 Jun 2014 Andrew Pinder wrote:
> In message
> on 14 Jun 2014 Steve Fryatt wrote:
>> I don't run NetSurf during the boot sequence -- are all the people seeing
>> issues doing that? What are people's Next slots configured to during the
>> boot process?
> On completion of boot
In message
on 14 Jun 2014 Steve Fryatt wrote:
> I don't run NetSurf during the boot sequence -- are all the people seeing
> issues doing that? What are people's Next slots configured to during the
> boot process?
On completion of booting, my Next slot is set to 640k. I don't know
how to tell
On 14 Jun 2014 Steve Fryatt wrote:
> On 14 Jun, Michael Drake wrote in message
> <539c509c.8090...@netsurf-browser.org>:
>>
>>
>> On 14/06/14 14:30, Andrew Pinder wrote:
>>
We recently decided to make use of "!Cache" as we assumed it would be
suitable and correct. (None of the
In article ,
Steve Fryatt wrote:
> I don't run NetSurf during the boot sequence
Neither do I.
--
Chris Johnson
On 14 Jun, Michael Drake wrote in message
<539c509c.8090...@netsurf-browser.org>:
>
>
> On 14/06/14 14:30, Andrew Pinder wrote:
>
> > > We recently decided to make use of "!Cache" as we assumed it would be
> > > suitable and correct. (None of the core developers are actually using
> > > RI
In article <539c509c.8090...@netsurf-browser.org>,
Michael Drake wrote:
> Our options are to get Cache from
> http://www.snowstone.org.uk/riscos/
> fixed, and continue using it, or create our own simpler solution.
Having had a very *quick* look, it seems !Cache is implementing a
method of bein
On 14/06/14 14:30, Andrew Pinder wrote:
>> We recently decided to make use of "!Cache" as we assumed it would be
>> suitable and correct. (None of the core developers are actually using
>> RISC OS at the moment, so we hadn't checked it actually worked.)
> If you give some clues as to how to te
In message <539c4cfe.6020...@netsurf-browser.org>
on 14 Jun 2014 Michael Drake wrote:
> We recently decided to make use of "!Cache" as we assumed it would be
> suitable and correct. (None of the core developers are actually using
> RISC OS at the moment, so we hadn't checked it actually worked.
On 14/06/14 13:48, David Pitt wrote:
> > All the NetSurf needs to run its cache is a value for Cache$Dir
> > pointing to the chosen location.
Indeed. The original proposal for Cache by Rob Kendrick[1] simply set
two variables in its !Run file. These were:
Caches$Write - Expands to where you
David Pitt, on 14 Jun, wrote:
[snip - !Cache memory issues]
Have spent an entertaining morning with this the penny finally dropped.
All the NetSurf needs to run its cache is a value for Cache$Dir pointing to
the chosen location.
--
David Pitt
d the
disadvantage the the SysLog module is not loaded in time for
!Cache.!RunImage to use it and is therefore somewhat useless.
A more useful evasion is to ensure the the SysLog module is loaded before
!Cache is booted.
That is what is happening here but so far I have not seen the "Not enough
application memory to start Basic" error.
Raspberry Pi, OS5.21 (03-Jun-14).
Hope this helps.
--
David Pitt
In message <20140613221516.gc1...@platypus.pepperfish.net>
on 13 Jun 2014 Rob Kendrick wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 09:42:54PM +0100, Andrew Pinder wrote:
>>> Couple people try moving it elsewhere (ie, outside !Boot.Resources), and
>>> configure !Boot to "look at" !Cache *BEFORE* it looks at
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 09:42:54PM +0100, Andrew Pinder wrote:
> > Couple people try moving it elsewhere (ie, outside !Boot.Resources), and
> > configure !Boot to "look at" !Cache *BEFORE* it looks at or runs
> > !NetSurf, and see if this solves the problem?
>
> Well, that put it slightly *later*
In message <20140613143931.gp3...@platypus.pepperfish.net>
on 13 Jun 2014 Rob Kendrick wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 03:32:26PM +0100, Bob Latham wrote:
>> In article ,
>>Andrew Pinder wrote:
>>> I've been getting this error when the desktop starts since installing
>>> NetSurf CI #1959.
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 03:32:26PM +0100, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article ,
>Andrew Pinder wrote:
> > I've been getting this error when the desktop starts since installing
> > NetSurf CI #1959. Clicking on Cancel allow the Boot to complete. I
> > mistakenly thought that installing CI #1965
In article ,
Andrew Pinder wrote:
> I've been getting this error when the desktop starts since installing
> NetSurf CI #1959. Clicking on Cancel allow the Boot to complete. I
> mistakenly thought that installing CI #1965 had solved the problem.
> Has anyone else had this problem?
> Is it a
I've been getting this error when the desktop starts since installing
NetSurf CI #1959. Clicking on Cancel allow the Boot to complete. I
mistakenly thought that installing CI #1965 had solved the problem.
Has anyone else had this problem?
Is it associated with the installation of the !Cache re
20 matches
Mail list logo
