Alan Shutko wrote:
>
> Kevin Vajk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > 8^) Do you have a link to any info on it somewhere?
> >
> > Not really, other than the man pages on UNIX systems. It is
> > (or at least will be) part of POSIX, which is why I think we
> > should have it.
>
> Ick! It's cpi
Alan Shutko wrote:
>
> Kevin Vajk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > There appears to be BSD-licensed code in FreeBSD we
> > could use, and some people claim (although I disagree)
> > that it's the new archiving standard.
>
> How can it be the new archiving standard if I've never heard of it.
>
JF Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO what we should do is crush other Unixes and become the standard
> instead of caring about Posix.
>
> In many ways trying to blindly follow the Unix ways is hindering
> Linux.
This isn't one of those times. This is a matter of adding a single
comm
Kevin Vajk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 8^) Do you have a link to any info on it somewhere?
>
> Not really, other than the man pages on UNIX systems. It is
> (or at least will be) part of POSIX, which is why I think we
> should have it.
Ick! It's cpio on steriods, with the same junky inte
has anyone been able to make an iso of rawhide 121099 and actually
gotten it to install? or any method for that matter?
--
Steve Dixon
Dpn, Incorporated
System Administrator
Phone - 702.873.3282
Email - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To unsubscribe:
mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
>
> On 13 Dec 1999, Alan Shutko wrote:
>
> > How can it be the new archiving standard if I've never heard of it.
>
> My sentiments exactly. :)
>
> > 8^) Do you have a link to any info on it somewhere?
>
> Not really, other than the man pages on UNIX systems. It is
> (or at least will be) p
No,
First I tried with my old rpm-3.0.3-6 and when it failed I compiled
and installed rpm-3.0.4-0.9 from rawhide 19991210. Same result.
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer writes:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Svante Signell wrote:
>
> > What is causing this?
> >
> > rpm -Uvh glibc-*2.1.2-17.i386.rpm
> >
On 13 Dec 1999, Alan Shutko wrote:
> How can it be the new archiving standard if I've never heard of it.
My sentiments exactly. :)
> 8^) Do you have a link to any info on it somewhere?
Not really, other than the man pages on UNIX systems. It is
(or at least will be) part of POSIX, which is
Kevin Vajk, writes:
> Does anybody know if there's a compelling reason for not
> including the pax command in the redhat distribution?
> There appears to be BSD-licensed code in FreeBSD we
> could use, and some people claim (although I disagree)
> that it's the new archiving standard.
New in whic
>
> On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, JF Martinez wrote:
>
> > I have benchmarked code generated by gcc-2.95 (compiled with
> > enable-haifa option that is of dubious and perhaps negative utility on
> > the Intel architecture) as being about 25% faster than code generated
> > by egcs.
>
> You should use 2.9
Kevin Vajk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There appears to be BSD-licensed code in FreeBSD we
> could use, and some people claim (although I disagree)
> that it's the new archiving standard.
How can it be the new archiving standard if I've never heard of it.
8^) Do you have a link to any info on
Does anybody know if there's a compelling reason for not
including the pax command in the redhat distribution?
There appears to be BSD-licensed code in FreeBSD we
could use, and some people claim (although I disagree)
that it's the new archiving standard.
- Kevin Vajk
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, JF Martinez wrote:
> I have benchmarked code generated by gcc-2.95 (compiled with
> enable-haifa option that is of dubious and perhaps negative utility on
> the Intel architecture) as being about 25% faster than code generated
> by egcs.
You should use 2.95.2 - 2.95 has some
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Svante Signell wrote:
> What is causing this?
>
> rpm -Uvh glibc-*2.1.2-17.i386.rpm
> glibc ##
> unpacking of archive failed on file /usr/lib/gconv/libCNS.so: cpio: read failed -
>Success
By any chance,
What is causing this?
rpm -Uvh glibc-*2.1.2-17.i386.rpm
glibc ##
unpacking of archive failed on file /usr/lib/gconv/libCNS.so: cpio: read failed -
Success
glibc-devel ##
I have benchmarked code generated by gcc-2.95 (compiled with
enable-haifa option that is of dubious and perhaps negative utility on
the Intel architecture) as being about 25% faster than code generated
by egcs.
When I use -m486 option like standard in redhat it is only about 5%
faster on integer
Gene Harris wrote:
> Can anyone shed a little light on using /etc versus using
> /usr/local/etc?
I recommend using /usr/local for machine specific stuff, and put it on
a separate partition. This makes upgrading the distribution easier.
When it comes to to upgrade, you can also save any custom co
> and /tmp is rarely the right place to put it; if a user
> accepts Red Hat's recommendation of 600 Mbytes for /,
> there simply is not enough space in /tmp to build
> anything more than toy rpms.
John,
Thanks for the insight. One thing I did as a newbie to Redhat was to
move my tmp directory t
John Summerfield wrote:
> and /tmp is rarely the right place to put it; if a user accepts Red Hat's
> recommendation of 600 Mbytes for /, there simply is not enough space in
> /tmp to build anything more han toy rpms.
This is one of my pet peeves with the current crop of spec files.
They should
m
Yup. that sums it up.
This is the rpm in question: egcs-1.1.2-24.src.rpm
First, 'rpm --rebuild' tried to update /usr just because tetex-xdvi was
noy installed. That's pretty bad (and a really excellent reason to not
build RPMs as root).
It was trying to do something with kpsestat during th
Hello redhat's,
the glxMesa rpm from the latest rawhide seems to be broken:
[root@linux240 RPMS]# rpm -Uvh glxMesa-19991206-1.i386.rpm
glxMesa
##
unpacking of archive failed: cpio: Bad magic
Btw, any plan to update the totally
21 matches
Mail list logo
