search for: not_

...platform. Sadly, this is not true; the "no" prefix means nothing to Lit. I've already fixed one test, within Lit's own test suite, and I've done a bunch of grepping to see what else is lurking. The various config scripts define feature keywords with "no" or "not_" or "non-" prefixes in only a handful of cases. And really these extra keywords are unnecessary, because we can disable a test using the positive form with UNSUPPORTED:. And, I claim (with the obvious evidence of two tests that fell into this trap) that having negative keywords f...

I own an Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5200+. I enabled SVM extensions on BIOS. I did a power cycle. xm dmesg shows me: (XEN) AMD SVM: ASIDs enabled (XEN) HVM: SVM enabled I run a 64 bit Xen kernel (OpenSuse 11). Xen version is 3.2.1_16881_04-8.6 I _can not_ run any x86_64 O.S on a HVM domU, because it appears something like this: "your cpu does not support long mode. use a 32bit distribution." Using 32 bit distros, it works but I would like to use 64 bit O.Ses. Thanks _______________________________________________ Xen-users mail...

...files will have 664 permissions and new dirs 775 permissions. If I access to the smb shares over my file explorer and create files an dirs, they get the permissions on the server I set in the smb.conf. So it works! Now the problem: If I mount the share and create there files and dirs, they _DO NOT_ get the permissions on the server they should have (The perimssions I set in the smb.conf) My mount command: mount -t cifs -o username=user,password=pass,iocharset=utf8 //home-server/share /share (mount -t smbfs doesn't work) I hope you're able to understand my (probably) english ;-) W...

...ble 2/ the libogg check is only done when cross-compiling 3/ libogg is assume to exist when cross-compiling Obviously it is the third thing here that gets me. I confess to being completely useless with atuo*, so my 'fix' was simply to change #3, so that configure assumed that libogg _did not_ exist when cross-compiling. This is obviously a crappy solution. I think it would be nice if there was a flag to pass to configure which disabled compiling of the binaries explicitly. Unfortunately I don't grok auto* enough to work out how to do this. Finally, my questions: 1/ Am I doing som...

...> > plot(1:10, y=) > > ... > Browse[2]> missing(y) Although I said what I meant by 'missing' vs 'not present', it wasn't exactly what missing() means. My bad. missing() returns TRUE if an argument is not specified in the call _whether or not_ it has a default, hence the behaviour of missing(y) in debug(plot). But we can easily find out whether a default has been assigned: plot(1:10, y=, type=) Browse[2]> y NULL Browse[2]> type "p" ... which is consistent with silent omission of '...

I am totally stumped here. I have setup a dovecot user and I can telnet to port 110 and login no problem with that user. When I try to send mail I get an error from sendmail: Mar 4 13:39:56 flashyhome sendmail[5014]: m24JdtGp005014: <paul at fleeky.com>... User unknown Now apparenly I need to setup the sendmail.mc file...which I have: MAILER(smtp)dnl MAILER(procmail)dnl MAILER(dovecot)

Got past my libgfortran issue ln -s /usr/lib64/libgfortran.so.3 /usr/lib/libgfortran.so Now if I could get RCurl and rstan installed. Thanks, Larry -----Original Message----- From: Tom Callaway [mailto:tcallawa at redhat.com] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 2:46 PM To: Patrick, Larry B [CSSM] <longplay at iastate.edu>; 'r-sig-fedora at r-project.org' <r-sig-fedora at

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 1:10 PM S Ellison <S.Ellison at lgcgroup.com> wrote: > > > > > plot(x=1:10, y=) > > > plot(x=1:10, y=, 10:1) > > > > > > In both cases, 'y=' is ignored. In the first, the plot is for y=NULL (so not > > 'missing' y) > > > In the second case, 10:1 is positionally matched to y despite the

...used in this very same way at lguest64. It's the first part of our plan to have lguest and lguest64 unified too. When two dogs hang out, you don't have new puppies right in the other day. Some time has to be elapsed. They have to grow first. In this same spirit, having these patches _do not_ mean smp guests can be launched (yet) Much more work is to come, but this is the basic infrastructure. Enjoy

...used in this very same way at lguest64. It's the first part of our plan to have lguest and lguest64 unified too. When two dogs hang out, you don't have new puppies right in the other day. Some time has to be elapsed. They have to grow first. In this same spirit, having these patches _do not_ mean smp guests can be launched (yet) Much more work is to come, but this is the basic infrastructure. Enjoy

Hi. I have a old server running our PDC(NT4 Style) with Centos 5+samba 3x+LDAP as backend. I want to move this setup to Centos 6. Some one running this layout under Centos6 without issue? I don't want to right now to work with AD style yet, no time for testing. Thanks guys. -- LIving the dream...

Hi Jean-Marc

...ompiling >>>> >>>> Obviously it is the third thing here that gets me. I confess to being >>>> completely useless >>>> with atuo*, so my 'fix' was simply to change #3, so that configure >>>> assumed that libogg >>>> _did not_ exist when cross-compiling. This is obviously a crappy solution. >>>> >>>> I think it would be nice if there was a flag to pass to configure >>>> which disabled compiling >>>> of the binaries explicitly. Unfortunately I don't grok auto* enough to...

...and take same > mutex within notifier probably means it's broken for ksm and rmap at > least since these call invalidate with lock taken. > > And generally, Andrea told me offline one can not take mutex under > the notifier callback. I CC'd Andrea for why. Correct, you _can not_ take mutex or any sleeping lock from within the invalidate_range callback as those callback happens under the page table spinlock. You can however do so under the invalidate_range_start call- back only if it is a blocking allow callback (there is a flag passdown with the invalidate_range_start call...

...and take same > mutex within notifier probably means it's broken for ksm and rmap at > least since these call invalidate with lock taken. > > And generally, Andrea told me offline one can not take mutex under > the notifier callback. I CC'd Andrea for why. Correct, you _can not_ take mutex or any sleeping lock from within the invalidate_range callback as those callback happens under the page table spinlock. You can however do so under the invalidate_range_start call- back only if it is a blocking allow callback (there is a flag passdown with the invalidate_range_start call...

...means it's broken for ksm and rmap at > > > least since these call invalidate with lock taken. > > > > > > And generally, Andrea told me offline one can not take mutex under > > > the notifier callback. I CC'd Andrea for why. > > Correct, you _can not_ take mutex or any sleeping lock from within the > > invalidate_range callback as those callback happens under the page table > > spinlock. You can however do so under the invalidate_range_start call- > > back only if it is a blocking allow callback (there is a flag passdown > &...

...> ... >> > Browse[2]> missing(y) >> >> Although I said what I meant by 'missing' vs 'not present', it wasn't exactly what missing() means. My bad. >> missing() returns TRUE if an argument is not specified in the call _whether or not_ it has a default, hence the behaviour of missing(y) in debug(plot). >> >> But we can easily find out whether a default has been assigned: >> plot(1:10, y=, type=) >> Browse[2]> y >> NULL >> Browse[2]> type >> "p"...

Dear list members, Masquerading does''not work for me. This is a Mandrake Linux 10 system, but I use another kernel, that included in the original distribution (original: 2.6.3, now used 2.6.8 because of a lot of suck with OpenSwan with kernels prior 2.6.4). The problem seems to be similar or identical mentioned here:

...nly security update and urgent priority bug fixes). At the latest in 3 years, you have to upgrade to RHEL7 or later, because RHEL6 will then reach its EOL. In case you consider switching to RHEL 6 is because it contains Samba 3 packages, I just wanted to make sure that you know: Samba 4.x _does not_ mean you must migrate to AD. See https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Updating_Samba#Misconceptions_About_Samba_4 Regarding your migration scenario (the short version): - Read the release notes of Samba versions you skipped. Parameters, etc. may have changed their defaults or have been removed in t...

...t;> 3/ libogg is assume to exist when cross-compiling >> >> Obviously it is the third thing here that gets me. I confess to being >> completely useless >> with atuo*, so my 'fix' was simply to change #3, so that configure >> assumed that libogg >> _did not_ exist when cross-compiling. This is obviously a crappy solutio= n. >> >> I think it would be nice if there was a flag to pass to configure >> which disabled compiling >> of the binaries explicitly. Unfortunately I don't grok auto* enough to >> work out how to >&...