similar to: relationship counselling for debian and rsync

I'm confused a bit about the following and was hoping to get some answers on this group - What is exactly implied when we say asterisk can connect to a PSTN. Does it mean connecting to the PSTN via PRI/T1/E1? If yes, then I assume asterisk does not need to do any SS7 signaling and all it does (playing the role of a PBX) is to connect to a Class 5 Switch at the CO. Is this a correct statement?

On Wednesday 10 July 2013 22:18:23 Jevin Sweval wrote: > http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~baker/devices/lxr/http/source/linux/arch/x86/include/ > asm/bitops.h#L68 > > Here is one example that I found. Are the inline assembly arguments > ambiguous in size? It would help us for sure to build the kernel and others. -- JS

1c54d77 (x86: partial unification of asm-x86/bitops.h, 2008-01-30) changed a bunch of btrl/btsl instructions to btr/bts, with the following justification: The inline assembly for the bit operations has been changed to remove explicit sizing hints on the instructions, so the assembler will pick the appropriate instruction forms depending on the architecture and the context. Unfortunately,

A new version of rsync has been released: rsync 2.5.4 (13 March 2002) "Imitation lizard skin" BUG FIXES: * Additional fix for zlib double-free bug. (Martin Pool, Andrew Tridgell) (CVE CAN-2002-0059) ENHANCEMENTS: * Merge in changes from zlib 1.1.3 to zlib 1.1.4. (Jos Backus) (Note that rsync still uses a custom version of zlib; you can not just

A new version of rsync has been released: rsync 2.5.4 (13 March 2002) "Imitation lizard skin" BUG FIXES: * Additional fix for zlib double-free bug. (Martin Pool, Andrew Tridgell) (CVE CAN-2002-0059) ENHANCEMENTS: * Merge in changes from zlib 1.1.3 to zlib 1.1.4. (Jos Backus) (Note that rsync still uses a custom version of zlib; you can not just

(resent without HTML) On 07/14/2013 05:56 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > 1c54d77 (x86: partial unification of asm-x86/bitops.h, 2008-01-30) > changed a bunch of btrl/btsl instructions to btr/bts, with the following > justification: > > The inline assembly for the bit operations has been changed to remove > explicit sizing hints on the instructions, so the assembler will

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2013, at 6:54 PM, Stephen Checkoway <s at pahtak.org> wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2013, at 17:44, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > > The length specifier is, as I understand it, required when the instruction > references memory but is optional (and inferred from

Jim Grosbach wrote: > To say that another way, is the assembler correctly diagnosing a previously > unnoticed problem in the project source code, or is the assembler not > behaving correctly according the the documented Intel assembly mnemonics? Where are the authoritative instruction set pages? If such a thing were readily available, why are there gaps in the current implementation? A

Anyone on this list have extensive experience with BTS? http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-bts.html Please email me, particularly if you have experience in deploying over multiple cells covering large geographical areas (200k's sq). Regards, Dean Collins Cognation Inc dean at cognation.net <mailto:dean at cognation.net> +1-212-203-4357 New York

Hi. I've been looking at the BTS and PTS and security tracker, and it looks like maybe you could do with some help ? Issues I noticed include: * 4.7, the latest Xen upstream release, is not in sid * Even leaving that aside, sid doesn't seem to have all the security fixes which ought to be expected. * The BTS could do with a bit of gardening, perhaps. Please let me know what, if

On Jul 10, 2013, at 6:54 PM, Stephen Checkoway <s at pahtak.org> wrote: > On Jul 10, 2013, at 17:44, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: >> The length specifier is, as I understand it, required when the instruction references memory but is optional (and inferred from the registers) for the register variants. >> >> The best reference I know of for the

On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra > <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: >> Jim Grosbach wrote: >>> To say that another way, is the assembler correctly diagnosing a previously >>> unnoticed problem in the project source code, or is the assembler not >>>

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since > Intel 386. GNU as supports them fine. Unfortunately, LLVM does not > support them, and barfs with: > > error: ambiguous instructions require an explicit suffix > > Fix this problem by disambiguating it

user pkg-xen-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org usertag 271051 + close-after-first-upload usertag 326817 + probably-unreproducible usertag 331297 + probably-fixed usertag 321154 + probably-fixed usertag 327493 + pending-in-svn usertag 342249 + pending-in-svn usertag 321157 + pending-in-svn usertag 323698 + pending-in-svn thanks Hi! I'm user-tagging some of the bugs in the bts so we can keep a

Jim Grosbach wrote: > Also, please elaborate on why this is a good change. Because gas accepts it > isn’t sufficient reason in and of itself. That they're valid instructions isn't sufficient reason? Should I additionally say that linux.git uses them? I wrote: > The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since > Intel 386.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > Jim Grosbach wrote: >> To say that another way, is the assembler correctly diagnosing a previously >> unnoticed problem in the project source code, or is the assembler not >> behaving correctly according the the documented Intel assembly mnemonics? > > Where are the authoritative

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > 1c54d77 (x86: partial unification of asm-x86/bitops.h, 2008-01-30) > changed a bunch of btrl/btsl instructions to btr/bts, with the following > justification: > > The inline assembly for the bit operations has been changed to remove > explicit sizing hints on the instructions, so the

Hans van Kranenburg writes ("Re: Plans for buster"): > On 08/23/2018 07:12 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > > IDK if this > > should have its own deb. Putting it in the libxenstore one is > > probably tolerable. > > Yes, shipping a 4.x specific file in libxenstore3.0 (which happens now) > is not right. But, if the library ABI is independent from the 4.x >

There are three reasons why I haven't really bothered setting up a bug tracking system for Dovecot: 1) They're all kind of annoying to use. 2) They all require a lot of stuff like PHP, SQL server, etc. which I don't really want to put into dovecot.org. 3) Probably most importantly: If people start reporing bugs in there, I'm pretty much the only person who will ever read them

I have Civ4 BTS 3.17 installed and running on Ubuntu 8.10 using Wine 1.1.13. The game seems to be OK but I have been playing the Fall from Heaven 2 mod recently and the data for the Great Library used within the game is corrupted (sages being given ridiculously large espionage bonuses). The xml files on disk are fine and there is no problem when running the same mod on Windows. I am using the