search for: inteactive

My original post might have been overlooked by most, but I''ve made a plugin (link below) which allows rendering of objects directly via the render method: <%= render @some_object %> which would actuall render the @some_object object (the object is even able to handle the options hash. Rendering would actually be handeled by the object itself, by leaving it up to the object to

Thanks Louis; /etc/krb5.conf [libdefaults] default_realm = EXAMPLE.COM dns_lookup_realm = false dns_lookup_kdc = true /etc/resolv.conf search example.com nameserver 192.168.50.40 /etc/hosts 127.0.0.1 localhost samba4.example.com 192.168.50.40 samba4.example.com samba4 ldap.example.com Output off: samba-tool dbcheck --cross-ncs NOTE: old (due to rename

...o make sure your all ok.   Greetz,   Louis   Van: Sergio Belkin [mailto:sebelk at gmail.com] Verzonden: woensdag 12 december 2018 14:16 Aan: L.P.H. van Belle CC: samba at lists.samba.org Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] Problem after upgrading to 4.9 Well, really weird for me. I've interruped the inteactive samba, run again with systemd, and now it works.... hehehe, don't now why.... happy, but I don't know why now it works again.... El mié., 12 dic. 2018 a las 10:07, Sergio Belkin (<sebelk at gmail.com>) escribió: Thanks Louis; /etc/krb5.conf [libdefaults]         default_realm...

...ive R session. The >> hash-values of the functions differ. As digest internally relies on >> serialize, I also checked there and found that digest is not the >> reason for the discrepancy. Instead, the serialized value of the >> function already differs between the BATCH and inteactive sessions. >> >> I was wondering if someone knows if >> 1. Is this a feature or a bug? It feels like a bug to me as all the >> inputs are identical, I would expect that the output is identical as >> well. Is there something I am overlooking? >> 2. Is there a way t...

...ce copying the code into an interactive R session. The hash-values of the functions differ. As digest internally relies on serialize, I also checked there and found that digest is not the reason for the discrepancy. Instead, the serialized value of the function already differs between the BATCH and inteactive sessions. I was wondering if someone knows if 1. Is this a feature or a bug? It feels like a bug to me as all the inputs are identical, I would expect that the output is identical as well. Is there something I am overlooking? 2. Is there a way to get consistent hash-values for functions between BA...

...hash-values of the functions differ. As digest internally relies on >> >> serialize, I also checked there and found that digest is not the >> >> reason for the discrepancy. Instead, the serialized value of the >> >> function already differs between the BATCH and inteactive sessions. >> >> >> >> I was wondering if someone knows if >> >> 1. Is this a feature or a bug? It feels like a bug to me as all the >> >> inputs are identical, I would expect that the output is identical as >> >> well. Is there something I...

...into an interactive R session. The > hash-values of the functions differ. As digest internally relies on > serialize, I also checked there and found that digest is not the > reason for the discrepancy. Instead, the serialized value of the > function already differs between the BATCH and inteactive sessions. > > I was wondering if someone knows if > 1. Is this a feature or a bug? It feels like a bug to me as all the > inputs are identical, I would expect that the output is identical as > well. Is there something I am overlooking? > 2. Is there a way to get consistent hash-va...

...he >>> hash-values of the functions differ. As digest internally relies on >>> serialize, I also checked there and found that digest is not the >>> reason for the discrepancy. Instead, the serialized value of the >>> function already differs between the BATCH and inteactive sessions. >>> >>> I was wondering if someone knows if >>> 1. Is this a feature or a bug? It feels like a bug to me as all the >>> inputs are identical, I would expect that the output is identical as >>> well. Is there something I am overlooking? >>...

...gt; >> hash-values of the functions differ. As digest internally relies on > >> serialize, I also checked there and found that digest is not the > >> reason for the discrepancy. Instead, the serialized value of the > >> function already differs between the BATCH and inteactive sessions. > >> > >> I was wondering if someone knows if > >> 1. Is this a feature or a bug? It feels like a bug to me as all the > >> inputs are identical, I would expect that the output is identical as > >> well. Is there something I am overlooking? &gt...