search for: whatevr

...o $R_HOME/library/stats/libs/stats.so $R_HOME/library/survival/libs/survival.so $R_HOME/library/tools/libs/tools.so In linux builds the linker usually looks for libs with the 'lib' prefix. In this installation all the libraries ---in $R_HOME/modules ---in $R_HOME/library/patha/to/whatevr do not have the 'lib' prefix. QUESTION: A) does any on list know SHLIB_LD SHLIB_LDFLAGS SHLIB_CXXLDFLAGS SHLIB_FCD SHLIB_FCLDFLAGS settings for compiling R and do these result in so libs with the 'lib' prefix? B) If all of A) is negative what is there to be do...

...position if you said you were in dire need of volunteers to impliment some improvements you have in mind, but that's not what you're saying. Here are some constructive suggestions: 1) Fix the directory server, or TAKE IT DOWN. My guess is there has been no decision to take it down, and for whatevr reason, no one wants to FIX it. If the directory server protocol has changed in Icecast2, then consider running an Ices2 directory server. If the Icecast2 directory code is not yet ready.. then it's probably premature to declare Icecast1 dead isn't it? 2) Are there NO Icecast2 issues worth...

L.S. In this bug report https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14493#c1 it is mentioned that after moving an R installation one should regenerate the Rscript executable. Is there an easy way to do so (after an R installation has been moved)? I have not found any information in the R installation and administration manual. Many thanks in advance for any pointer. Best wishes,

...on if you said you were in dire = need of volunteers to impliment some improvements you have in mind, but that's = not what you're saying. Here are some constructive suggestions: 1) Fix the directory server, or TAKE IT DOWN. My guess is there has been = no decision to take it down, and for whatevr reason, no one wants to FIX = it. If the directory server protocol has changed in Icecast2, then consider = running an Ices2 directory server. If the Icecast2 directory code is not yet = ready.. then it's probably premature to declare Icecast1 dead isn't it? 2) Are there NO Icecast2 issues...

Greetings all- I need to purchase a PCIe SATA or SAS controller(non-raid) for a Supermicro 2U system. It should be directly bootable. Any recommendations? The system will be running CentOS 5.4 as an LTSP system. Thanks! --Tim

Hello, this is the mailing list anti-spam filter at Xiph.Org. We need you to confirm your e-mail message with the subject of "RE: [icecast] directory servers". Please send a message to the following address, or simply use your mailer's "Reply" feature. icecast+confirm+1037921402.17606.bab310@xiph.org Rather than allow only list subscribers to post to Xiph.Org

...in dire need > of volunteers to impliment some improvements you have in mind, but that's > not what you're saying. > > Here are some constructive suggestions: > 1) Fix the directory server, or TAKE IT DOWN. My guess is there has been no > decision to take it down, and for whatevr reason, no one wants to FIX it. > If the directory server protocol has changed in Icecast2, then consider > running an Ices2 directory server. If the Icecast2 directory code is not > yet ready.. then it's probably premature to declare Icecast1 dead isn't it? > > 2) Are there...

...in dire need of > volunteers to impliment some improvements you have in mind, but that's not > what you're saying. > > Here are some constructive suggestions: > 1) Fix the directory server, or TAKE IT DOWN. My guess is there has been no > decision to take it down, and for whatevr reason, no one wants to FIX it. If > the directory server protocol has changed in Icecast2, then consider running > an Ices2 directory server. If the Icecast2 directory code is not yet ready.. > then it's probably premature to declare Icecast1 dead isn't it? > > 2) Are there...

...mpliment some improvements you have in > mind, but that's > > not what you're saying. > > > > Here are some constructive suggestions: > > 1) Fix the directory server, or TAKE IT DOWN. My guess is > there has been no > > decision to take it down, and for whatevr reason, no one > wants to FIX it. > > If the directory server protocol has changed in Icecast2, > then consider > > running an Ices2 directory server. If the Icecast2 > directory code is not > > yet ready.. then it's probably premature to declare > Icecast1 dea...

...mind, > but that's not > >what you're saying. > > Bullshit. See above. > > > > >Here are some constructive suggestions: > >1) Fix the directory server, or TAKE IT DOWN. My guess is > there has been no > >decision to take it down, and for whatevr reason, no one > wants to FIX it. If > >the directory server protocol has changed in Icecast2, then > consider running > >an Ices2 directory server. If the Icecast2 directory code is > not yet ready.. > >then it's probably premature to declare Icecast1 dead isn'...

...in dire need > of volunteers to impliment some improvements you have in mind, but that's > not what you're saying. > > Here are some constructive suggestions: > 1) Fix the directory server, or TAKE IT DOWN. My guess is there has been no > decision to take it down, and for whatevr reason, no one wants to FIX it. > If the directory server protocol has changed in Icecast2, then consider > running an Ices2 directory server. If the Icecast2 directory code is not > yet ready.. then it's probably premature to declare Icecast1 dead isn't it? > > 2) Are there...