On Mar 1, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
-f applies to the whole chain of dependencies.
Thanks. I didn't know that.
Yes, you did. -f applies to everything. You most likely never want
to use -f without also using -n (non-recursive).
That's nice to know and the first time I recall
Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
Yes, you did. -f applies to everything. You most likely never want
to use -f without also using -n (non-recursive).
That's nice to know and the first time I recall it mentioned.
Then -f -n it is.
Maybe it should be -f -R if you want recursive.
There is already
On Mar 3, 2009, at 11:58 AM, Rainer Müller wrote:
Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
Yes, you did. -f applies to everything. You most likely never want
to use -f without also using -n (non-recursive).
That's nice to know and the first time I recall it mentioned.
Then -f -n it is.
Maybe it should be
Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
Maybe it should be -f -R if you want recursive.
There is already -R, which is recursing dependents.
So with -f and without -n or -R what happens?
Recursion just for the target port?
'port -R upgrade' will rebuild all dependents after the given port has
been
On Mar 1, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Mar 1, 2009, at 19:49, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
On Mar 1, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Scott Haneda wrote:
Also, where does MacPorts get the man pages from? Maybe they
should just all be removed, then only the new ones get installed
as you need
On Mar 2, 2009, at 14:51, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
On Mar 1, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Mar 1, 2009, at 19:49, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
On Mar 1, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Scott Haneda wrote:
Also, where does MacPorts get the man pages from? Maybe they
should just all be
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
MacPorts itself even installs outside of
${prefix} by default, into /Library/Tcl.
There doesn't seem to be a good reason for that, though. I'd like to
change it.
- Josh
___
macports-users mailing list
On Mar 1, 2009, at 03:18, Joshua Root wrote:
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
MacPorts itself even installs outside of
${prefix} by default, into /Library/Tcl.
There doesn't seem to be a good reason for that, though. I'd like to
change it.
IIRC, the good reason that was cited in the past was that if
On Feb 28, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Feb 26, 2009, at 07:25, Scott Haneda wrote:
One possible reason we might want separate directories for the
different apaches (${prefix}/apache2, ${prefix}/apache20, $
{prefix}/apache) is to allow simultaneous installation of multiple
On Mar 1, 2009, at 03:58, Scott Haneda wrote:
On Feb 28, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
$ port installed apache*
The following ports are currently installed:
apache @1.3.41_0
apache2 @2.2.11_0 (active)
$ port activate apache @1.3.41_0
--- Activating apache @1.3.41_0
Error: port
On Mar 1, 2009, at 07:07, Chris Janton wrote:
On 2009-03-01 , at 04:34 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
php5 has a variant +apache (will be renamed +apache_apple) which
installs a PHP module for Apple's Apache web server. Apache
...
Very cool, I had no idea that was being done, that creates a
super
On 2009-03-01 , at 04:34 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
php5 has a variant +apache (will be renamed +apache_apple) which
installs a PHP module for Apple's Apache web server. Apache
...
Very cool, I had no idea that was being done, that creates a super
awesome case where people can get a strong dev
On 2009-03-01 , at 06:09 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
It's not a problem to keep it around and make it fail more
gracefully on Leopard and above. However, I must ask why you feel
it's the only 'reasonable' way to have PHP on the older systems.
Why is using apache2 on those systems unreasonable?
Ryan Schmidt:
In fact I can't imagine there being another Tcl-based MacPorts
client. The port command handles most of what a user would need
in a command line client, and if someone were making a GUI for
MacPorts, I doubt they would do so in Tcl.
PortAuthority (formerly known as dpgui)
On Mar 1, 2009, at 3:34 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Mar 1, 2009, at 03:58, Scott Haneda wrote:
On Feb 28, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
$ port installed apache*
The following ports are currently installed:
apache @1.3.41_0
apache2 @2.2.11_0 (active)
$ port activate apache @1.3.41_0
On Mar 1, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
Is it very common to have apache and apache2 installed at the same
time?
Looks like they conflict to me. They write the same files.
Shouldn't they just be conflicted so you have to uninstall apache to
get apache2.
As for perl5, why do
On Mar 1, 2009, at 11:39, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
On Mar 1, 2009, at 3:34 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Mar 1, 2009, at 03:58, Scott Haneda wrote:
On Feb 28, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
$ port installed apache*
The following ports are currently installed:
apache @1.3.41_0
apache2
On Mar 1, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Scott Haneda wrote:
On Mar 1, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
Is it very common to have apache and apache2 installed at the same
time?
Looks like they conflict to me. They write the same files.
Shouldn't they just be conflicted so you have to
On Mar 1, 2009, at 19:49, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
On Mar 1, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Scott Haneda wrote:
Also, where does MacPorts get the man pages from? Maybe they
should just all be removed, then only the new ones get installed
as you need them when you add in a p5?
Can I simply rm all
On Mar 1, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Mar 1, 2009, at 11:39, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
On Mar 1, 2009, at 3:34 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Mar 1, 2009, at 03:58, Scott Haneda wrote:
On Feb 28, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
$ port installed apache*
The following ports
On Mar 1, 2009, at 20:20, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
How about moving collisions instead of over writing?
/opt/local/var/macports/collisions/[datetime]/opt/local/share/man/
[existing-file]
In fact, they do get moved. The old files get an extension .mp_$
{timestamp}
I've noticed that.
On Feb 26, 2009, at 12:57, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
This comes back to my above comment then, why does
destroot.violate_mtree even exist? MacPorts expressly forbids
outside of /opt, strongly discourages installs right into prefix,
just make it a steadfast rule.
Some ports install
On Feb 26, 2009, at 07:25, Scott Haneda wrote:
One possible reason we might want separate directories for the
different apaches (${prefix}/apache2, ${prefix}/apache20, $
{prefix}/apache) is to allow simultaneous installation of multiple
versions. However this is not even possible today; the
This is a mega-reply to many previous messages in this thread.
On Feb 24, 2009, at 16:35, Scott Haneda wrote:
A few questions... how come the apacche2 does not warn me of the
violation, I see the violate in the port file, but as far as I
can tell, there is nothing when installing it to
On Feb 26, 2009, at 1:16 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
This is a mega-reply to many previous messages in this thread.
Mega indeed, thanks for this.
On Feb 24, 2009, at 16:35, Scott Haneda wrote:
If I modify the port to put apache in www, I believe that to be the
correct place based on the above
On Feb 26, 2009, at 3:16 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
port contents foo always tells you what files are installed by
port foo so that is a good way to learn.
I wish I would have noticed that command when I started. Live and
learn. I did learn a lot by traversing /opt/local
Thanks to
On Feb 26, 2009, at 5:25 AM, Scott Haneda wrote:
On Feb 26, 2009, at 1:16 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 22:41, Scott Haneda wrote:
Ports should not install things that Apple Software Update may
overwrite. The whole point of having a separate MacPorts prefix is
to isolate
On Feb 24, 2009, at 10:13 PM, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
So we would add /usr/local/apache/bin:/usr/local/mysql/bin:/usr/
local/pgsql/bin:/usr/local/php/bin:etc
to our environment path?
I never actually even took the thought process that far, this is a
great
On 2009-02-24 , at 15:35 , Scott Haneda wrote:
If I modify the port to put apache in www, I believe that to be the
correct place based on the above url, is this a huge undertaking
that is going to require a lot of discussion to not break thing?
Every path is going to need to change.
To
On Feb 25, 2009, at 6:11 AM, Chris Janton wrote:
Please see MySQL5 - they provide the symlinks. Want an oddball path
or 2?
ls -al /opt/local/bin/mysqladmin
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root admin 28B 2 Sep 2007 /opt/local/bin/
mysqladmin@ - ../lib/mysql5/bin/mysqladmin
Hey, I am taking these one at
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 05:25, Scott Haneda talkli...@newgeo.com wrote:
I have a feeling I am going to stand alone on this one, which is fine, I
have no intention of pushing it, this was just to find out why this was
chosen, and why it was not caught as in violation of suggested layouts.
On Feb 25, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Adam Byrtek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 05:25, Scott Haneda talkli...@newgeo.com
wrote:
I have a feeling I am going to stand alone on this one, which is
fine, I
have no intention of pushing it, this was just to find out why this
was
chosen, and why it was not
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 23:51, Scott Haneda talkli...@newgeo.com wrote:
Fully agree on that front. It was why I wondered if this was too engrained
in how it was done, it just may not be worth it. But, then again, the move
should be pretty simple, ports is sort of designed by nature to fiddle
Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Bill Hernandez wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Scott Haneda wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Chris Janton wrote:
On 2009-02-24 , at 15:35 , Scott Haneda wrote:
My feeling is, the sooner the better, there are already a handful
On Feb 25, 2009, at 12:13 AM, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
So we would add /usr/local/apache/bin:/usr/local/mysql/bin:/usr/
local/pgsql/bin:/usr/local/php/bin:etc
to our environment path?
And when apache, mysql or pgsql data out grow your disks you would
move all
On Feb 24, 2009, at 6:43 AM, Scott Haneda wrote:
Can someone pass me links or personal data on the history of apache2
and how the current directory path was decided on. All the other
ports I have installed, usually end up in bin or var or etc, but
apache2 stands alone.
It probably
On Feb 24, 2009, at 6:12 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 6:43 AM, Scott Haneda wrote:
Can someone pass me links or personal data on the history of
apache2 and how the current directory path was decided on. All the
other ports I have installed, usually end up in bin or var or
On 2009-02-24 , at 15:35 , Scott Haneda wrote:
My feeling is, the sooner the better, there are already a handful of
blogs out there, which instructions and hard paths in their
instructions pointing to the current location. The sooner we put it
where MacPorts recommends, the better the
On Feb 24, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Chris Janton wrote:
On 2009-02-24 , at 15:35 , Scott Haneda wrote:
My feeling is, the sooner the better, there are already a handful
of blogs out there, which instructions and hard paths in their
instructions pointing to the current location. The sooner we put
Hi Scott
I think you are confusing destroot.violate_mtree
For which the docs say:
This means that the port installed files outside of their normal
locations in ${prefix}. These could be files totally outside of $
{prefix}, which could cause problems on your computer, or files inside
of
On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Scott Haneda wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Chris Janton wrote:
On 2009-02-24 , at 15:35 , Scott Haneda wrote:
My feeling is, the sooner the better, there are already a handful
of blogs out there, which instructions and hard paths in their
instructions
On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Bill Hernandez wrote:
Scott,
Please don't change it.
I do not have any intentions of creating a new port :) I was just
asking for clarification on the history of this issue.
I wish mysql, pgsql, php were setup in individual directories like
apache2.
And
On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Mike Savory wrote:
- from the layout file
# Classical Apache path layout.
Layout Apache
prefix:/usr/local/apache2
So I think I get it, since apache2 likes to be in /usr/local/apache2
people are equating that to /opt/local/apache2.
Myself,
Scott Haneda wrote:
If destroot.violate_mtree is set to yes, the following warning is issued
during the installation.
The Guide is a little misleading here. Specifying
'destroot.violate_mtree yes' actually results in a *less* dire warning
than you would otherwise get for installing files
On Feb 24, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
Scott Haneda wrote:
If destroot.violate_mtree is set to yes, the following warning is
issued
during the installation.
The Guide is a little misleading here. Specifying
'destroot.violate_mtree yes' actually results in a *less* dire warning
On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Bill Hernandez wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Scott Haneda wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Chris Janton wrote:
On 2009-02-24 , at 15:35 , Scott Haneda wrote:
My feeling is, the sooner the better, there are already a handful
of blogs out there, which
46 matches
Mail list logo
