search for: retic

...here an easy to follow "howto" for normal LVM administration tasks. I get tired of googling every-time I have to do something I don't remember how to do regarding LVM, so I usually just don't bother with it at all. I believe it has some benefit for my use cases, but I've been reticent to use it, since the last time I got LVM problems, I lost everything on the volume, and had to restore from backups anyway. I suspect I shot myself in the foot, but I still don't know for sure. thanks, -chuck --

V&R describes binomial GLMs with mortality out of 20 budworms. Is it appropriate to use the same approach with mortality out of numbers as low as 3? I feel reticent to do so with data that is not very continuous. There are one continuous and one categorical independent variables. Would it be more appropriate to treat the response as an ordered factor with four levels? If so, what family would one use? TIA -- Patrick Connolly HortResearch Mt Albert Auc...

...; tasks. I get tired of googling every-time I have to do something >> > I don't remember how to do regarding LVM, so I usually just >> > don't bother with it at all. >> > >> > I believe it has some benefit for my use cases, but I've been >> > reticent to use it, since the last time I got LVM problems, I >> > lost everything on the volume, and had to restore from backups >> > anyway. I suspect I shot myself in the foot, but I >> > still don't know for sure. >> >> At the risk of some ridicule I suggest...

...howto" for normal LVM administration > tasks. I get tired of googling every-time I have to do something > I don't remember how to do regarding LVM, so I usually just > don't bother with it at all. > > I believe it has some benefit for my use cases, but I've been > reticent to use it, since the last time I got LVM problems, I > lost everything on the volume, and had to restore from backups > anyway. I suspect I shot myself in the foot, but I > still don't know for sure. > At the risk of some ridicule I suggest that you look at installing Webmin. I...

...quot; for normal LVM administration > >tasks. I get tired of googling every-time I have to do something I > >don't remember how to do regarding LVM, so I usually just don't > >bother with it at all. I believe it has some benefit for my use > >cases, but I've been reticent to use it, since the last time I got > >LVM problems, I lost everything on the volume, and had to restore > >from backups anyway. I suspect I shot myself in the foot, but I > >still don't know for sure. thanks, -chuck > > > Gentoo Wiki has a pretty good "cheat...

...00 headers. As for the 340, for an highly replaceable library comprising 1% of our LOC to bloat the source file count in our tree by 20%—after using a script to extract a perfect transitive dependency closure—well, I was on the verge of tossing it overboard. I can't blame Chris for his reticence to add such nonsense to LLVM, as it only serves to slow builds and source control operations for all. That said, there are some parts of boost which are well-structured with few or minimal dependencies—like shared_pointer. I feel there's not a lot of need to rewrite these headers. Th...

On 05/29/17 04:13 AM, Damien Miller wrote: > On Fri, 26 May 2017, Tomas Kuthan wrote: > >> Hi team, >> >> Any chance my patch introducing new sftp-server option '-t idle_timout' [1,2] >> could be accepted into openssh/openssh-portable? > > I think the best place to implement a idle timeout is in sshd. Then it > could be made per-channel and be able to

...the current llvm-objcopy, and just > have them be mixed with the ELF options. I think this makes the tool more > difficult to use and more confusing, but it is admittedly the simplest > approach. > > This is the sort of thing that people expect from using gnu objcopy and so I'm reticent to have a tool with no way to get the "command line expected syntax". Mostly what I want is 1 with a shim that gets me 2. Thoughts? -eric > 3) Make a new tool called llvm-coffcopy / llvm-objcopy-coff, or something > to that effect. > > Anyone have any thoughts or stron...

Currently llvm-objcopy only supports ELF files, and most of it's command line flags are ELF / DWARF specific that don't make any sense on COFF files. So a useful set of options for COFF would be largely disjoint, with maybe 1-2 overlapping options. What would be the best way to add this in llvm-objcopy? I can think of 3 options: 1) Re-write the existing CLI of llvm-objcopy to use

...t once when a workstation crashed but we have not proven that this is always the case. I was rather hoping that it was a Windoze problem to do with not having SP2 installed but this has now been disproved. This is a serious problem. I have seen postings here before about disabling OPLOCKS but am reticent to do this becasue of the drop in performance which could put cracks in our arguments for using Samba in the first place. Also I thought 2.2.2 had fixes for OPLOCK bugs! Does anyone have any suggestions other than disabling OPLOCKS ? Even a way of killing the runaway process would be useful a...

...just >> have them be mixed with the ELF options. I think this makes the tool more >> difficult to use and more confusing, but it is admittedly the simplest >> approach. >> >> > This is the sort of thing that people expect from using gnu objcopy and so > I'm reticent to have a tool with no way to get the "command line expected > syntax". > > Mostly what I want is 1 with a shim that gets me 2. > > Thoughts? > I think we are thinking more or less the same thing. > -eric > > >> 3) Make a new tool called llvm-coffcop...

Hi Folks, I''m still a bit confused about the issue of storing "complex" objects in session state rather than storing simple objects. It''s my understanding that everything is an object in Ruby. If my understanding is correct, then storing a string or an integer in session means storing an object. It would seem then that the problem of storing objects in session is a

...be mixed with the ELF options. I think this makes the tool more >>> difficult to use and more confusing, but it is admittedly the simplest >>> approach. >>> >>> >> This is the sort of thing that people expect from using gnu objcopy and >> so I'm reticent to have a tool with no way to get the "command line >> expected syntax". >> >> Mostly what I want is 1 with a shim that gets me 2. >> >> Thoughts? >> > > I think we are thinking more or less the same thing. > > >> -eric >> &gt...

..."howto" for normal LVM administration > tasks. I get tired of googling every-time I have to do something I > don't remember how to do regarding LVM, so I usually just don't bother > with it at all. I believe it has some benefit for my use cases, but > I've been reticent to use it, since the last time I got LVM problems, > I lost everything on the volume, and had to restore from backups > anyway. I suspect I shot myself in the foot, but I still don't know > for sure. thanks, -chuck > Gentoo Wiki has a pretty good "cheat sheet" on it:...

...LVM administration >> >tasks. I get tired of googling every-time I have to do something I >> >don't remember how to do regarding LVM, so I usually just don't >> >bother with it at all. I believe it has some benefit for my use >> >cases, but I've been reticent to use it, since the last time I got >> >LVM problems, I lost everything on the volume, and had to restore >> >from backups anyway. I suspect I shot myself in the foot, but I >> >still don't know for sure. thanks, -chuck >> > >> Gentoo Wiki has a pre...

...working OK in previous Syslinux versions, and the same image doesn't boot as expected from a new Syslinux version (or a c32 module from the same new Syslinux official archive fails), then we, users, are going to be less willing to use newer versions of Syslinux (and/or, distros will be more reticent to adopt new Syslinux versions if they fail in some not-so-uncommon hardware). Expecting from every kernel / image / c32 module to be adapted according to new Syslinux versions would be unrealistic. As already known, in Syslinux 4.xx there is a linux.c32 module, intended to test / introduce...

...As for the 340, for an highly replaceable library comprising 1% of our > LOC to bloat the source file count in our tree by 20%—after using a > script to extract a perfect transitive dependency closure—well, I was > on the verge of tossing it overboard. I can't blame Chris for his > reticence to add such nonsense to LLVM, as it only serves to slow > builds and source control operations for all. Totally agree that we should not be pulling boost into the source tree. But I will reassert my point that using Boost as a library can be a good thing. Yes, it's an additional depen...

...geted by C compilers/code. The ones that do > have C frontends often use weird dialects or lots of builtins, but > they are still useful to support. > > I find this thread to be a bit confusing: it seems that people are > aware that such chips exists (even today) but some folks are reticent > to add generic support for them. While I can see the concern about > inventing new backends just for testing, I don’t see an argument > against generalizing the core and leaving it untested (in > master). If any bugs creep in, then people with downstream targets > can fix them...

Hi Chris, Thanks a lot for a detailed opinion and explanation! It really answers the original question, without going to far into political discussions about boost and generic allocators pros/cons aspects. ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ---- > Von: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> > An: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Gesendet: Sonntag, den 18. Mai

An update of the ext3 journalling filesystem for 2.4 kernels is available at http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/ext3/ Patches are against 2.4.6-ac1 and 2.4.6. Changes since 0.0.8 include: - Multiplied the version numbering by ten to cater for bugfix releases against the 0.9.0 stream. - The main thrust has been the removal of a number of changes in the core kernel which were required