search for: incorporation

Hi: After compiling rsync2.5.6 using on SVR4 on Intel HW, Please help # ./rsync --version rsync: --version: unknown option rsync error: syntax or usage error (code 1) at main.c(994) # ./rsync --help Segmentation Fault - core dumped Here is log of compilation. Script started on Sat Jun 21 05:56:15 2003 # make cc -I. -I. -g -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I./popt -c rsync.c -o rsync.o NCR High

Hi, We are deciding on to either entirely use HPH code to our OpenSSH or not for systems globally and I come down to a question. If HPH-SSH code is such an improvement to network performance for OpenSSH, then why has it not been incorporated to the OpenSSH code? Is there a reason? Is it because there are problems with the HPH-SSH code? Since the code has been out for a time and still has not

As you might know, LFTP is a popular FTP/SFTP command-line client for most systems. One feature that is lacking from this tool is the ability to do a globbed ls via sftp. I have a patch ready for LFTP that incorporates some of the knowledge [like oddball systems glob() handling] and some of the code from sftp-glob.c for this tool to add this capability. I do, however, have some questions about

Hi, I have to use some API''s from some outside vendor to incorporate some of their video functionality, in particular, I have to somehow incorporate VideoEgg''s video publishing api''s. They don''t currently support Ruby, but I''ve heard that there are ways to hack up ruby code with their Perl API''s to get it working. Would anybody have any idea

Hi again, Any interest in this patch to incorporate lld testing into "make check-all" when lld built as part of llvm? Is this the best place to post patches for lld? I've attached it again here to include a missing dependency. Cheers Andy On Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:45 PM, Andy Gibbs wrote: > Hi, > > Attached is a patch which incorporates the lld test-suite into

FWIW, there are indeed a few low hanging bug fixes in 'parallelly' that should be easy to incorporate into 'parallel' without adding extra maintenance. For example, in parallel::makePSOCKcluster(), it is not possible to disable SSH option '-l USER' so that it can be set in ~/.ssh/config. The remote user name will be the user name of your local machine and if you try to

If these are easy changes, maybe someone will incorporate them. You'll make the argument stronger for doing that if you can explain why it's better to do that than to keep them in parallely. Duncan Murdoch On 07/11/2020 1:39 p.m., Henrik Bengtsson wrote: > FWIW, there are indeed a few low hanging bug fixes in 'parallelly' > that should be easy to incorporate into

Hi, I'd like to know if the patches described at: http://www.mail-archive.com/nut-upsuser at lists.alioth.debian.org/msg07881.html were ever incorporated into upstream. If so, whom would I have to talk to regarding importing them into latest Ubuntu and possibly making a backport to precise? Thanks, Jernej Jakob

Hi all, Henrik Bengtsson has done some fantastic work with {future} and, more importantly, greatly improved constructing and deconstructing a parallelized environment within R. It was with great joy that I saw Henrik slowly split off some functionality of {future} into {parallelly} package. Reading over the package?s README, he states: > The functions and features added to this package are

Will Simon Wilkinson's GSSAPI Key Exchange patch ever be incorporated into the OpenSSH source? http://www.sxw.org.uk/computing/patches/openssh.html I'm sure I'm not the only one that uses it and would like to see it become part of the OpenSSH source. Is there something missing or is there some technical/philosophical reason for not including it?

Using hccm() I got a heteroscedasticity correction factor on the diagonal of the return matrix, but I don't know how to incorporate this into my linear model: METHOD 1: > OLS1 <- lm(formula=uer92~uer+low2+mlo+spec+degree+hit) Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) -0.0623377 0.0323461 -1.927 0.057217 . uer 0.2274742 0.0758720

Hi, I'm interested in incorporating some interaction terms between my explanatory variables (distance matrices in this case) when I'm using the function MRM of the package ecodist. The function is doing a multiple regression on distance matrices. I can get the function to work perfectly on my explanatory matrices by adding a (+) sign as known. However, when I try to use the (*) sign or

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Andy Gibbs <andyg1001 at hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > Hi again, > > Any interest in this patch to incorporate lld testing into "make check-all" > when lld built as part of llvm? Is this the best place to post patches for > lld? > > I've attached it again here to include a missing dependency. > > Cheers > Andy > >

On Oct 18, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Jernej Jakob wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to know if the patches described at: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/nut-upsuser at lists.alioth.debian.org/msg07881.html > > were ever incorporated into upstream. > If so, whom would I have to talk to regarding importing them into latest Ubuntu and possibly making a backport to precise? Arnaud

On 10/18/2013 02:54 PM, Charles Lepple wrote: > On Oct 18, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Jernej Jakob wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to know if the patches described at: >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/nut-upsuser at lists.alioth.debian.org/msg07881.html >> >> were ever incorporated into upstream. >> If so, whom would I have to talk to regarding

On 06/11/2020 4:47 p.m., Balamuta, James Joseph wrote: > Hi all, > > Henrik Bengtsson has done some fantastic work with {future} and, more importantly, greatly improved constructing and deconstructing a parallelized environment within R. It was with great joy that I saw Henrik slowly split off some functionality of {future} into {parallelly} package. Reading over the package?s README, he

I've read "LLVM Code-Review Policies and Practices," but I remain unsure of a couple of things. Do I always wait for an actual "LGTM", or can people approve the patch for submission in other ways? What happens when a patch is approved but then there are additional review comments? Should the patch be submitted as is, then a follow-up patch submitted, or should the

At 8/16/2020 10:39 AM, Stefan Stipanovic wrote: >Hi Paul, > >I've read "LLVM Code-Review Policies and Practices," but I remain unsure of a couple of things. Do I always wait for an actual "LGTM", or can people approve the patch for submission in other ways? > >The patch is accepted through Phabricator with or without a message (the message is usually LGTM or

Hi, Attached is a patch which incorporates the lld test-suite into llvm's "make check-all" if lld is built within llvm. Please could someone review this for me. I've hand-amended the patch so that it should be easier to review. The majority of the patch is simply changing the indent once inside and else()/endif() block. Beyond that, I've standardised the test target name

On Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:45 PM, Andy Gibbs wrote: > Attached is a patch which incorporates the lld test-suite > into llvm's "make check-all" if lld is built within llvm. > Please could someone review this for me. Sorry, I missed a dependency. Here is an additional patch for the additional dependency: Index: tools/lld/test/CMakeLists.txt