search for: onus

> -----Original Message----- > > I've tried to use the pam_krb5 module, but as pam modules > validate the user as given, pam_krb5 is trying to match the > password to adsdomain.adsuser@ADSDOMAIN.REALM.... so it fails. > Pam_krb5 can be configured to convert winbind usernames back into principal names, by means of some regexp matching and template filling magic. It it

...t want to check them out and > update them, with svn, you can use 'svn switch' on those directories. Okay. Still think a separate repository would be a good idea. A bit of work to implement but would be a good idea as every *nix user has to implement a 'svn switch' putting the onus on them rather than on the Windows user. >> I would like a VS2005 release of LLVM as well as the VS2003 for >> completeness, as VS2003 is really old hat now. > > VS2005 will upgrade the project file. I realize that but VS2003 is really old now and it would be good to support VS...

...out and >> update them, with svn, you can use 'svn switch' on those directories. > > Okay. Still think a separate repository would be a good idea. A bit of work > to implement but would be a good idea as every *nix user has to implement a > 'svn switch' putting the onus on them rather than on the Windows user. I think you are mistakenly assuming that we aim to serve UNIX users at the expense of win32 users. Why make life harder for people on win32? Perhaps we should move all the unix makefiles to a separate repo? -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://ll...

Good morning Does R (or R users) have a formal training workshop/facility? Or do open-source softwares generally put the onus on the user to learn programming techniques? Are the workshops generally offered for the masses or is there one-on-one training available? Does one "go to" R for programming training ... or do R workshops travel around the country? Thanks for your time. Darin Brooks Geomatic...

...Obsolete?" or "I assume it's fixed" could be applied to nearly every open bug we have. While this does reduce the open bug count--something I have been watching with morbid fascination for years--I do fear that the reduction is potentially artificial, and incorrectly puts the onus on the original bug author to reopen the case. I suggest that closing a bug can be done IF AND ONLY IF you also state one of the following: - that revision NNNNNN actually fixed the bug - that the bug cannot be reproduced with revision NNNNNN - that the circumstances for the bug don't apply an...

Chris wrote: > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: > > Okay. Still think a separate repository would be a good idea. A bit > > of work to implement but would be a good idea as every *nix user has > > to implement a 'svn switch' putting the onus on them rather than on > > the Windows user. > > I think you are mistakenly assuming that we aim to serve UNIX users at > the expense of win32 users. Why make life harder for people on win32? > Perhaps we should move all the unix makefiles to a separate repo? Besides, even a &q...

...ely that the issues have been fixed, or at the very least, require a re-test. As bug reporters tend to disappear after this much time (different email, hardware died, etc), we decided that just closing them outright would be the right move. They can always be reopened if the issues persist, but the onus is on the bug reporter to do so. As an unfortunate side-effect, the list is about to get ~200 emails, one for each bug I close. Sorry for the spam, but I don't know of a way around it. (If you do know a way around it, I won't be doing this for ~an hour, let me know asap.) -ilia

Ok, maybe its a short walk, not a drive... I have it working just fine using smtp in development env from my OSX machine. When I deploy it to the server (which happens to be the same box where the smtp server lives), no email, no errors, nothing in the Postfix logs. I''ve double checked that my production and development action mailer settings are identical. Here''s whats in the

...; > it's fixed" could be applied to nearly every open bug we have. While > > this does reduce the open bug count--something I have been watching > > with morbid fascination for years--I do fear that the reduction is > > potentially artificial, and incorrectly puts the onus on the original > > bug author to reopen the case. > > > > I suggest that closing a bug can be done IF AND ONLY IF you also state > > one of the following: > > - that revision NNNNNN actually fixed the bug > > There is a field in bugzilla called "Fixed By Co...

I built R form source succesfully on my Fedora 22 box. No errors. I can read there is an issue with some manuals at build time when running makeinfo, especially these two: doc/manual/R-exts.texi cp doc/manual/R-intro.texi Some distro have hacks about makeinfo 5 in their build script. I wonder if some manuals are broken but couldn't see it when running make. May someone tells me more about

...:41 2003 *************** *** 50,56 **** #define SAME_TIME (1<<7) /* update this if you make incompatible changes */ ! #define PROTOCOL_VERSION 26 /* We refuse to interoperate with versions that are not in this range. * Note that we assume we'll work with later versions: the onus is on --- 50,56 ---- #define SAME_TIME (1<<7) /* update this if you make incompatible changes */ ! #define PROTOCOL_VERSION 27 /* We refuse to interoperate with versions that are not in this range. * Note that we assume we'll work with later versions: the onus is on

...ings out in full might be useful in that case. The only concern I have on the wordsmithing is if it became too much like the FreeBSD CoC - the example thrown around has been "Don't make it personal, don't take it personally" which for me is way too terse and doesn't put enough onus on the aggresser to be more polite in a cross-culture community. And that, in a nutshell, is what separates our culture from that of some other projects. I'm incredibly proud of the community to which I belong. PaulR mentioned the number of women at our devmtgs as a (very rough) yardstick - th...

..., as the patch set required to make llvm fully byte size agnostic becomes small enough, the effort to provide a mock in-tree target with some other byte size should be surmountable. As cons, one could see a burden for the in-tree community to maintain whatever gains that have been had. However the onus should be on interested parties to mend any bit-rot. The impact of not having as much magic numbers and such should if anything make the code more easy to understand. The permission to go ahead would be under the condition that significant added complexities are avoided. Another con would be added...

...ot; could be applied to nearly every open bug we have. While >>> > this does reduce the open bug count--something I have been watching >>> > with morbid fascination for years--I do fear that the reduction is >>> > potentially artificial, and incorrectly puts the onus on the original >>> > bug author to reopen the case. >>> > >>> > I suggest that closing a bug can be done IF AND ONLY IF you also state >>> > one of the following: >>> > - that revision NNNNNN actually fixed the bug >>> >>&g...

Hi, this does sound like a useful idea - although for the principle of least surprise and for variation in deployments, I'd rather have it as a (non-default state of a) configuration toggle that can be set via `upsmon.conf`: whether this particular client exits after processing FSD or not. The onus for the rest would be on general systems integration - e.g. ensure that init scripts `K*`ill the long-running services before they go after upsmon and upsd, or add a drop-in systemd config snippet for nut-monitor to not-conflict with "shutdown.target" (and half a dozen of its equivalents...

...may be external projects that need a bug-fix, but if a developer > doesn't think backporting a fix is important than they shouldn't be > forced to do it. > I think some developers (myself included) were a bit apprehensive of your initial proposal because it made it sound like the onus was on us, the LLVM developers, to try to identify all the patches that should be funnelled into stable dot-releases for downstream. This is a lot more reasonable. So my understanding of the discussion so far is that really all we need is a way for downstream projects to request that certain bugfi...

...To the argument that this may create unnecessary register pressure I say >> that is a register allocator issue not an IR issue, the register allocator can >> and should figure this out and do the right thing. > > Sure, that's a consistent proposal. However, practically, the onus is > on you to prove this is reasonable from a performance standpoint. > > -- Sanjoy

...est that test at an earlier stage in the discussions. But some > packages have so few examples they may well pass and have repercussions. > ok, I see. > I do think we need to address the problem: lattice_0.6-5 is another > example of an API change. > > Now, we could throw the onus on the maintainers to add a > > BackwardsCompatible:FALSE > > flag to the DESCRIPTION file, if people really think that would be easier. > yes, that would be better than just assuming API changes in every major release. Torsten > Brian > > On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Torste...

> On Jun 16, 2017, at 8:23 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Peter Lawrence via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Here’s what seems to really be going on >> >> “undef” === models an uninitialized register, but > > No, it specifically does

I''ve been reading through the Rspec book to see if I missed any tricks, and the discussion of before block use for context setup in sec 12.6 struck me as interesting and something I had a knee-jerk reaction to. I think that when you are using nested examples to describe a context change it is bad practice to allow any example within that group to run outside of that context. This could