similar to: Re: Winbind dies silently

reassign 705124 xen # even though i'm not 100% sure it's a xen issue, it smells like one, # also because I use pretty similar setups (just without xen) without issues # # there are more logs from the bug submitter in the BTS # # and downgrading might also be approriate... thanks On Mittwoch, 10. April 2013, Anthony Sheetz wrote: > Package: base > Severity: critical > Tags: lfs

Hi, I'm using Samba as a PDC with roaming profiles on a Debian Etch machine, the clients are Windows XP/2000 machines. I just installed security upgrades with aptitude, and this upgraded all samba 3.0.24-6etch4 packages to 3.0.24-6etch6 (except for samba-doc which was upgraded to 3.0.24-6etch7). Immediately after the upgrade, my users could not load their profiles at login anymore. Errors

(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

Am 30.08.2018 um 10:54 schrieb isdtor <isdtor at gmail.com>: > > Leon Fauster via CentOS writes: >> Since the update from kernel-2.6.32-754.2.1.el6.x86_64 >> to kernel-2.6.32-754.3.5.el6.x86_64 I can not boot my >> KVM guests anymore!? The workstation panics immediately! >> >> I would not have expected this behavior now (last phase of OS). >>

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,

Using samba 4.0.9 as an AD DC (no other domain servers). Since my UIDs and GIDs have changed, I was doing cleanup: find /srv/svn/ -xdev '(' -nouser -o -nogroup ')' -ls I noticed this was very slow -- iostat reported only about 2tps and 50kB/s to my disks. So I timed it with nsswitch.conf users & groups set to "files" vs. "files winbind": # with

After several months of testing in the "experimental" branch of Debian, samba 3.2.0 was uploaded to Debian "unstable" as of July 20th 2008 and entered the "testing" branch of the distribution as of August 1st. As the "testing" branch is the future stable release of the Debian distribution, this means that Samba 3.2.0 will be in the upcoming release of

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

I have a fresh install of Suse 10.1 and wine 9.21 and tried to install roller coaster tycoon for some fun. However the installer quickly dies silently. I've tried using different versions of wine with no succes. The frustrating thing is that on different versions of Suse this installed beautifully. I've tried using winetools to set up my ~.wine, but still $wine setup.exe gives me

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

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

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

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 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 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

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

Hi, i visited wiki.samba.org and read the "Release Planning for Samba 3.2" information and the "Release Planning for Samba 3.3" information. So my question is: Is samba 3.2 development stopped and all concentration given to Samba 3.3 ? Because there isnt any further release note available for 3.2, but instead there are some notes for 3.3 ? Bye and thanks for your

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 >

On 07/14/2013 12:23 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > (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

(please note that this mail is crossposted to 3 lists. No need to CC me to answers, I read the 3 of them...) Some users (including me with my professionnal hat) want to use 3.5 versions of samba on production servers running Debian. Of course, most of the time, these production servers are running Debian lenny (the stable version of the distribution). Debian lenny ships with samba 3.2.5, so