On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 08:09:23AM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
Jason Helfman wrote on 30.05.2012 03:57:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:29:01PM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov thus spake:
Hi Baptiste,
Am I right that `make rmconfig' isn't working with optionsng?
I got this lines:
Hi all,
On of the reasons of bsd.options.desc.mk is to be able to share common options
and descriptions, to have better consistency between ports and to have general
meaning descriptions that make more sense, has anyone can improve the
description of an option.
about consistency, I can already
## Edwin L. Culp W. (edwinlc...@gmail.com):
Seems like Chrome is having an issue with clang. It starts with the
following errors:
CC(target)
out/Release/obj.target/skia_libtess/third_party/skia/third_party/glu/libtess/tess.o
In file included from
could not create package.
-
tar: bin/add_netatalk_printer: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
tar: bin/showppd: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
tar: libexec/etc2ps.sh: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
tar: libexec/ifmpap: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
tar:
Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert
NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere? I fear that if we
do, way too many ports which otherwise have no options will start asking
if I want the docs -- which I don't really care either way (unless that
brings in new
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:33:56PM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert
NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere? I fear that if we
do, way too many ports which otherwise have no options will start asking
if I want the docs --
Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
Maybe it would be best if ports which otherwise don't have options, and
for which building docs don't require new dependencies would not put
DOCS and EXAMPLES into options? What do you think?
You can still switch to optionsng, if you don't define DOCS in
We have a mystery shopping assignment in your area and we would like you to
participate; Secret Shopper® is accepting applications from qualified
individuals to become mystery shoppers. Its fun and rewarding, and you choose
when and where you want to shop. You are never obligated to accept an
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 05:00:57PM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
Maybe it would be best if ports which otherwise don't have options, and
for which building docs don't require new dependencies would not put
DOCS and EXAMPLES into options? What do you think?
You
2012/5/30 Christoph Moench-Tegeder c...@burggraben.net
## Edwin L. Culp W. (edwinlc...@gmail.com):
Seems like Chrome is having an issue with clang. It starts with the
following errors:
CC(target)
out/Release/obj.target/skia_libtess/third_party/skia/third_party/glu/libtess/tess.o
Raphael Kubo da Costa rak...@freebsd.org wrote:
Heino Tiedemann rotkaps_spam_t...@gmx.de writes:
ahab:/home/rotkap systemsettings(22920): Couldn't start
kglobalaccel from kglobalaccel.desktop: Dienst
?kglobalaccel.desktop? nicht auffindbar.
systemsettings(22920)
Le 28.05.2012 18:37, Rainer Hurling a écrit :
On 28.05.2012 18:18 (UTC+1), Sunpoet Po-Chuan Hsieh wrote:
Hi,
Here's just a status update.
I'm working on GDAL 1.9.1 update.
That's nice to hear.
I agree.
I plan to move perl/php/python/ruby bindings to separate ports.
It also removes
On 29-5-2012 19:06, Doug Barton wrote:
On 5/29/2012 4:00 AM, Mel Flynn wrote:
On 29-5-2012 7:23, Doug Barton wrote:
Not too hard for leaf ports. But with ports that are depended on, there
is always a default, whether it's named that way or not. You're just
changing the problem slightly:
On 5/30/12 3:32 PM, Mel Flynn wrote:
Right. The issue I'm talking about is that fixing the problem of staying
with a version, introduces a problem for people that have their software
up-to-date and don't use deprecated features. Instead of simply
upgrading they now have to jump through hoops
On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 16:00 -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
Edwin L. Culp W. edwinlc...@gmail.com writes:
Seems like Chrome is having an issue with clang. It starts with the
following errors:
CC(target)
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hi all,
On of the reasons of bsd.options.desc.mk is to be able to share common options
and descriptions, to have better consistency between ports and to have general
meaning descriptions that make more sense, has
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org wrote:
On of the reasons of bsd.options.desc.mk is to be able to share common options
and descriptions, to have better consistency between ports and to have general
meaning descriptions that make more sense, has anyone can
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Alberto Villa wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org wrote:
On of the reasons of bsd.options.desc.mk is to be able to share common
options
and descriptions, to have better consistency between ports and to have
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Alberto Villa avi...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org wrote:
On of the reasons of bsd.options.desc.mk is to be able to share common
options
and descriptions, to have better consistency between ports and to
On 5/30/2012 3:33 AM, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert
NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere?
Absolutely not. By far the majority of users benefit from installing the
docs and examples. Users who don't want them can continue
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 5/30/2012 3:33 AM, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert
NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere?
Absolutely not. By far the majority of users benefit from
On 5/30/2012 2:33 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 5/30/2012 3:33 AM, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert
NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere?
Absolutely not.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 02:23:12PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
On 5/30/2012 3:33 AM, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert
NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere?
Absolutely not. By far the majority of users benefit from
On 5/30/12 5:33 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
would only cause confusion.
I'll go one further and suggest that the vast majority who don't want
these features are building specialized systems and they know very
well what they are doing. A global setting for these would be
desirable, though, as
On 5/30/12 5:36 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
If someone really did need this per port then portconf or similar
make.conf gymnastics are available.
I agree with dougb.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
*| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation
d: +1.561.948.2259
w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell
On 5/30/12 5:37 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
That is why DOS,
Hey, I want to get away from DOS. is that DOS as in Disk OS? or DOS as
in 'WITH_DOS' will crash your system when you pkg_create ?
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
*| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation
d: +1.561.948.2259
w:
On Wed, 30 May 2012, Alberto Villa wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org wrote:
On of the reasons of bsd.options.desc.mk is to be able to share common options
and descriptions, to have better consistency between ports and to have general
meaning
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote:
Look at the second tip. That's brand new, added because users were
complaining in the forums recently. (And before, but recently got my
attention.)
Nice!
--
Alberto Villa, FreeBSD committer avi...@freebsd.org
Hi,
On 5/30/2012 6:38 PM, Michael wrote:
Hi, I found problem on FreeBSd 9.0 RELEASE p2
dev# cd /usr/ports/security/openssh-portable
dev# make deinstall
=== Deinstalling for security/openssh-portable
=== openssh-portable not installed, skipping
dev# make clean
=== Cleaning for
On 5/30/12 9:25 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
cd /usr/ports/security/openssh-portable
fetchhttp://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports%2F168306getpatch=1
patch patch-openssh-hpn-mirror.txt
actually, the in the command line mucks things up.
this should work:
cd
On 5/30/12 10:06 PM, Michael lawyer yotsuya wrote:
Hello!
I read your message on internet!
Are you still looking for friend?
Mada tomodachi sagashiteimasuka?
alright.. who has been hanging out in chat rooms...
fess up. please don't use ports@ for your interludes :-)
--
Michael Scheidell,
On 05/30/2012 14:37, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 02:23:12PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
On 5/30/2012 3:33 AM, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert
NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere?
Absolutely not. By
On 05/29/2012 12:08, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:48:00AM -0700 I heard the voice of
Doug Barton, and lo! it spake thus:
The whole concept of category/portname where there are multiple
versions of portname is flawed. The DEFAULT_PORTNAME_VER mechanism
works just fine,
Hi,
On 5/30/2012 9:29 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
I'm confused by your answer. First, NLS is out of scope for the point
I'm making. Second, are you saying that you made DOCS and EXAMPLES into
OPTIONS? If so, are you saying that these options will now be presented
by default to every user, for
On 05/30/2012 19:38, Bryan Drewery wrote:
Hi,
On 5/30/2012 9:29 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
I'm confused by your answer. First, NLS is out of scope for the point
I'm making. Second, are you saying that you made DOCS and EXAMPLES into
OPTIONS? If so, are you saying that these options will now be
On 05/30/2012 12:32, Mel Flynn wrote:
On 29-5-2012 19:06, Doug Barton wrote:
On 5/29/2012 4:00 AM, Mel Flynn wrote:
On 29-5-2012 7:23, Doug Barton wrote:
Not too hard for leaf ports. But with ports that are depended on, there
is always a default, whether it's named that way or not. You're
On 05/30/2012 12:48, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Ditto on perl. UPDATING is wrong on steps. you can't upgrade perl, you
need to delete it and everything it depends on and start from scratch.
For portmaster, you can do this which catches the majority of problems.
portmaster -o lang/perlNEWVER
You guys may want to try these out...
This updates to openssh-portable-5.9p1_2,1
See the attached config file for the options I tested with. If you want
something else and it does not work feel free to email me directly and
I will see what I can do.
I don't have time to put this up
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 09:38:55PM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote:
Hi,
On 5/30/2012 9:29 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
I'm confused by your answer. First, NLS is out of scope for the point
I'm making. Second, are you saying that you made DOCS and EXAMPLES into
OPTIONS? If so, are you saying that
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 05:40:08PM -0600, Warren Block wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012, Alberto Villa wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org
wrote:
On of the reasons of bsd.options.desc.mk is to be able to share common
options
and descriptions, to
There is a pr already for 6.0 that needs submitter fixes. Search gnats for prs
owned by scheidell.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
|SECNAP Network Security
-Original message-
From: Jason Hellenthal jhellent...@dataix.net
To: Michael Scheidell scheid...@freebsd.org
Cc:
41 matches
Mail list logo
