Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Announce\]\s+XFS\s+1\.1\s+Prerelease\s+2\s+available\s+for\s+testing\s*$/: 106 ]

Total 106 documents matching your query.

1. [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: 21 Mar 2002 13:15:14 -0600
At long last, a prerelease of the upcoming XFS 1.1 release is available ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/download/testing/xfs-1.1 These packages are a pre-release of the upcoming 1.1 release of XFS for
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00489.html (8,813 bytes)

2. Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:48:38 +0200 (EET)
Hi Eric Cool! First of all what is the recommended compiler for the sources ? 2.95.3 as per Documentation/Changes ? :) -- Mihai RUSU Disclaimer: Any views or opinions presented within this e-mail are
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00490.html (10,277 bytes)

3. Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: 21 Mar 2002 13:45:50 -0600
The RPMs are still compiled with "kgcc" for x86... Steve has been using gcc-2.96-101 with good success. I think that 2.95.x is not so good. If anyone has had problems with one compiler, that were sol
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00491.html (9,565 bytes)

4. Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:50:20 -0500
2.95.x not so good? That's a little scary to me... could you explain why you feel that way? I'll second that... z.
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00492.html (9,185 bytes)

5. Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: 21 Mar 2002 14:04:35 -0600
xfs exposed some bugs in the 2.95 series, there were reports of 2.95.2 miscompiling, 2.95.3 may be better... -Eric -- Eric Sandeen XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs sandeen@xxxxxxx SGI, I
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00495.html (10,031 bytes)

6. Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:24:48 +0200 (EET)
Uff ! This just mixes the things more :( Now, acording to RedHat (http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56603) the recommended compiler for the latest of their kernels is 2.95.3 at leas
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00496.html (9,765 bytes)

7. Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: 21 Mar 2002 14:37:44 -0600
Personally I use gcc 3.0.3 or 3.0.4, I've yet to have things happen which cannot be explained. -- Austin Gonyou Systems Architect, CCNA Coremetrics, Inc. Phone: 512-698-7250 email: austin@xxxxxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00498.html (10,525 bytes)

8. Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:57:36 -0700
What compiler would you recommend for ia64? Warren.
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00500.html (11,279 bytes)

9. Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:32:01 -0600
We are still building ia64 kernels with 2.96 (-85 or -101) and we haven't found any compiler related issues yet. David Mosberger is compiling ia64 kernels with gcc 3.0, but I doubt he's compiling XFS
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00501.html (11,293 bytes)

10. Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: 21 Mar 2002 18:48:43 -0600
Hi Mihai. I'm using 2.95.4 to compile the kernel and the XFS utilities from CVS. It's working fine for me here. -- ** Derek J Witt ** * Email: mailto:djw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * * Home Page: http://www.flin
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00506.html (12,905 bytes)

11. Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: 22 Mar 2002 13:46:00 +1200
Whats with the support of a non-standard gcc release "RH's 2.96", wouldnt it be more appropriate to support *atleast* 2.95.x and 3.0x since these are official releases? http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.ht
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00507.html (11,445 bytes)

12. Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 20:08:03 -0600 (CST)
Who said anything about supporting non-standard compilers? compiler of choice for xfs. This is not RH-centric. http://gcc.gnu.org/egcs-1.1/ I said Steve used 2.96-101 from Red Hat and had good luck.
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00508.html (11,372 bytes)

13. RE: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:13:20 -0500
Any information on specific changes since the 1.0x releases? I know about the ACL/EA interface changes, and obviously there has been lots of bug fixes, but what about other changes, like performance
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00509.html (12,525 bytes)

14. RE: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 20:33:50 -0600 (CST)
Just got this together - probably _too_ detailed at this point. I'll try to do one that's a bit more of an overview. I also plan to do some benchmarking between the 1.0.2 release and this one. -Eric
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00510.html (19,095 bytes)

15. RE: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:42:15 -0500
*Exactly* what I was looking for; thanks a lot! Can't wait to see them benchmarks! ;-) -- Sean P. Elble Independent Systems/Network Engineer Caldera Accredited Partner UNIX/Linux/Windows NT/2000 SES
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00511.html (22,500 bytes)

16. Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:51:07 -0700
I don't know about other package managers, but RPM definiately isn't restricted by this, you can have Version and Release and version respects going from 1.0 to 1.1 So even if this package was 1.1.5
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00512.html (10,780 bytes)

17. Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:04:37 -0600 (CST)
Well, this was a big, not backwards-compatible change for the acl package, and it's a lot easier to say "you need version 2.0 or greater" than to say "you need version number 1.1.5-2 or greater." But
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00514.html (10,734 bytes)

18. Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:04:53 +1100
This is really a note for the ext2/ext3 acl users - Andreas' previous tools were at 0.8.x, we were at 1.1.4, I think. And no package manager is ever going to consider 0.9.0 an upgrade from 1.1.4, for
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00515.html (11,595 bytes)

19. Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 08:54:30 +0100
At 13:45 21-3-2002 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: The RPMs are still compiled with "kgcc" for x86... Steve has been using gcc-2.96-101 with good success. I think that 2.95.x is not so good. If anyone has
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00517.html (11,602 bytes)

20. Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:06:41 +0100
At 20:08 21-3-2002 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: I said Steve used 2.96-101 from Red Hat and had good luck. I said 2.95.2 had miscompiled xfs code. Just passing along what has worked, and what has cause
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00518.html (11,044 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu