search for: inapplicable

Hi all, I''m a new puppet user and I''m running into some weirdness around creating users on solaris. (puppet version 0.23.2) The virt_all_users way of managing users seems pretty reasonable, but I don''t see how to deal with user specific groups with that. I have: class virt_all_users { @user { "seph": ensure => "present",

...with revision NNNNNN - that the circumstances for the bug don't apply anymore; e.g., "This is about the makefiles and we don't use makefiles anymore." - sound reasons for not fixing something (WONTFIX) - some specific and plausible reason to think that a given bug is otherwise inapplicable or obsolete In particular, "Obsolete?" and "I assume it's fixed" are NOT enough justification to close a bug. If people are okay with this, I'd expect adding a new section to the Developer Policy is probably the right place to put it. Comments/brickbats welcome... --p...

...void and/or voidable" (Ex. 2 at 20 (Sixth Affirmative Defense)); "violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws" (Ex. 25 (Amend. Ans. to Amend. Countercls.) at 16 (Eighth Affirmative Defense); Ex. 23 at 213:15-20); is unenforceable or inapplicable in this litigation (Ex. 2 ?? 24, 28, 155, 157); and is preempted by federal copyright law and unenforceable under state law. (Ex. 22 (SCO's Resp. to IBM's Third Set of Interrogatories) at 38-39.) SCO also claims all rights to enforce the GPL (and thus also the LGPL) are waived and all a...

...t LLVM version number (making the previous data unusable for no technical reason), that's okay. As long as I'm bothering to say something, is there some way that the tools will figure out that you're trying to apply old data to new files that have changed in ways that make the old data inapplicable? Sorry if this has been brought up elsewhere and I just missed it. --paulr > > Format 2 > -------- > > This format should be efficient to read and preferably reasonably > compact. We'll convert from format 1 to format 2 using llvm-profdata, > and clang will use format 2...

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> wrote: [...] > > Could you resort to preprocessor conditioning to only compile the code > relevant for a particular platform while hiding away the inapplicable parts? Yes, I do exactly that. The problem is that the R code still has .Call(c_non_existent_function_on_this_platform, ...) and R CMD check picks up on that. But I just found that using string literals in .Call() works just fine. Hopefully this will still be allowed in the long run: .Call(&qu...

...with RH's documentation despite it's old it has > some steps (like the shared volume) that might be needed I appreciate the reply. For the first item: Option Value ------ ----- cluster.enable-shared-storage??????????? disable (DEFAULT) I tried turning this on, but apparently it's inapplicable for my test configuration of 1-brick volumes. gluster volume set j cluster.enable-shared-storage on volume set: failed: Not a valid option for single volume I looked through that documentation. It comes down to the same geo-rep create command, with the same result. In any event, I re-ran glust...

Dear All, I am trying to convert a package to native routine registration, and not sure how to best solve the problem of C functions that are only used for a single platform, i.e. Windows, Linux (& Unix) or macOS. If I simply provide a different method table for each platform, then the .Call() statements for the other platforms will generate R CMD check warnings, both for the

...mple.org>" > > Source: /doc/SubmittingPatches > > > > > > -- > > MartinS > > > > -- > Raphael S. Carvalho > Generally speaking, adequate patches are helpful and desired, and there have been cases in which patches have been rejected or inapplicable because of inadequate formatting or lack of some information. But, in this particular case, AFAIK the patch in question was already applied so I would tend to think that there is no need to resend it. Additional patches are very welcome :), and if they are "fully compliant", even bet...

...ances for the bug don't apply anymore; e.g., > > "This is about the makefiles and we don't use makefiles anymore." > > - sound reasons for not fixing something (WONTFIX) > > - some specific and plausible reason to think that a given bug is > > otherwise inapplicable or obsolete > > > > In particular, "Obsolete?" and "I assume it's fixed" are NOT enough > > justification to close a bug. > > > > If people are okay with this, I'd expect adding a new section to the > > Developer Policy is probably the...

...is very much a WIP. I expect to have make an effort to port compiler-rt, but first I need to be able to generate elf32_x86_64 objects with Clang. I confess, my method of porting code to x32 so far has consisted of trying to build existing code and modifying what breaks, or disabling features where inapplicable. I haven't studied the code well enough to understand and predict where I'm going to have make modification in advance. It's worked so far with most things I've attempted but LLVM/Clang/compiler-rt is an order of magnitude more complex than anything else I've poked at. The bi...

...mory), and (unfortunately) Windows XP. Questions: 1) Any general tips on how to increase the amount of memory available to process the file? 2) Can you see a more efficient way of doing what I’m doing? 3) What’s the best way of coding for multiple forms of NA? – the BHPS code ‘-8’ (meaning ‘inapplicable’, not routed for this respondent) should really be distinguished from other forms of nonresponse... Thanks, Jon p.s. Apologies if this is slightly too vague/long winded... Jon Minton [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

...y anymore; e.g., >>> > "This is about the makefiles and we don't use makefiles anymore." >>> > - sound reasons for not fixing something (WONTFIX) >>> > - some specific and plausible reason to think that a given bug is >>> > otherwise inapplicable or obsolete >>> > >>> > In particular, "Obsolete?" and "I assume it's fixed" are NOT enough >>> > justification to close a bug. >>> > >>> > If people are okay with this, I'd expect adding a new section to the &g...

...are in the usual target-dependent places.) Mehdi's solution was: - In lit.cfg, change the existing "native" feature definition from "host-triple == target-triple" to also check "and the corresponding backend is included."(**) - Make piles of tests that seemed inapplicable to GPUs depend on the "native" feature (through REQUIRES: or in the lit.local.cfg). - Build LLVM with just the GPU backend, and not set a target triple (i.e., it's set to the host triple, typically an X86-something).(*) Thus lit.cfg sees matching host and target triples, but the...

...e > > an effort to port compiler-rt, but first I need to be able to generate > > elf32_x86_64 objects with Clang. I confess, my method of porting code > > to x32 so far has consisted of trying to build existing code and > > modifying what breaks, or disabling features where inapplicable. I > > haven't studied the code well enough to understand and predict where I'm > > going to have make modification in advance. It's worked so far with > > most things I've attempted but LLVM/Clang/compiler-rt is an order of > > magnitude more complex than...

...I expect to have make > an effort to port compiler-rt, but first I need to be able to generate > elf32_x86_64 objects with Clang. I confess, my method of porting code > to x32 so far has consisted of trying to build existing code and > modifying what breaks, or disabling features where inapplicable. I > haven't studied the code well enough to understand and predict where I'm > going to have make modification in advance. It's worked so far with > most things I've attempted but LLVM/Clang/compiler-rt is an order of > magnitude more complex than anything else I'...

...compiler-rt, but first I need to be able to generate > > > > elf32_x86_64 objects with Clang. I confess, my method of porting code > > > > to x32 so far has consisted of trying to build existing code and > > > > modifying what breaks, or disabling features where inapplicable. I > > > > haven't studied the code well enough to understand and predict where > > I'm > > > > going to have make modification in advance. It's worked so far with > > > > most things I've attempted but LLVM/Clang/compiler-rt is an order o...

...;and the corresponding > > backend is included."(**) > > I agree that we could remove the condition on the host backend included > and deemed it a unsupported, but the build system needs to reject this > configuration. > > > > - Make piles of tests that seemed inapplicable to GPUs depend on the > > "native" feature (through REQUIRES: or in the lit.local.cfg). > > Nitpick: the GPU is just an example, any other backends can be affected. > It seems that these test are “lying” about the target they will be able to > run on (like if they woul...

...effort to port compiler-rt, but first I need to be able to generate > > > elf32_x86_64 objects with Clang. I confess, my method of porting code > > > to x32 so far has consisted of trying to build existing code and > > > modifying what breaks, or disabling features where inapplicable. I > > > haven't studied the code well enough to understand and predict where > I'm > > > going to have make modification in advance. It's worked so far with > > > most things I've attempted but LLVM/Clang/compiler-rt is an order of > > > mag...

.... http://www.storage-switzerland.com/Articles/Entries/2010/9/29_Offloading_I_O_from_the_Hypervisor_with_SR-IOV.html , http://www.plda.com/white-paper-why-using-single-root-io-virtualization-sr-iov-can-help-improve-io-performance-and Almost everything I've found about this is in the abstract or inapplicable to multiple VMs in the same physical host. Examples: hypothetical use with HBAs or multiple graphics cards, http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/12/02/what-is-sr-iov , http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-users/2013-04/msg00126.html ; academic papers & theses, e.g. http://cs.uccs.edu/~gsc/pub/ma...

...e, I would like to avoid defining dummy functions for all functions | that are not available on a certain platform, simply because I have a lot of | them. Is it possible? Could you resort to preprocessor conditioning to only compile the code relevant for a particular platform while hiding away the inapplicable parts? Dirk -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org