On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 15:38:18 +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 07:30:30AM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 10:40:43 +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> >
> > > After a full bulk, no parts of xenocara are affected and just five ports.
> >
> > Those are all ports that
On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 07:30:30AM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 10:40:43 +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
>
> > After a full bulk, no parts of xenocara are affected and just five ports.
>
> Those are all ports that include bsd.*.mk in their Makefiles, right?
> If so, it doesn't
On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 10:40:43 +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> After a full bulk, no parts of xenocara are affected and just five ports.
Those are all ports that include bsd.*.mk in their Makefiles, right?
If so, it doesn't seem like a big deal.
-todd
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 09:23:30PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> This is a collaboration of sort with FreeBSD.
>
> To me very specific, working on fixing depends made me look at fixing yacc
> support, and at the same time, I looked at FreeBSD, and they did this
> already (with different code, our
This is a collaboration of sort with FreeBSD.
To me very specific, working on fixing depends made me look at fixing yacc
support, and at the same time, I looked at FreeBSD, and they did this
already (with different code, our share/mk are wildly divergent), so this
comforted me this was doable and
