Mark Millard wrote:
>
>
> On 2018-Dec-24, at 13:49, Yuri Pankov wrote:
>
>> Mark Millard wrote:
>>> From my from=source head -r3418363 context, top with -opid does not
>>> seem to sort in a coherent order, not time of process creation order
>>> (either direction) and not in just-PID numeric
On 2018-Dec-24, at 13:49, Yuri Pankov wrote:
> Mark Millard wrote:
>> From my from=source head -r3418363 context, top with -opid does not
>> seem to sort in a coherent order, not time of process creation order
>> (either direction) and not in just-PID numeric order (either
>> direction). For
On 12/23/18 1:27 AM, Stefan Esser wrote:
> Am 23.12.18 um 02:39 schrieb Montgomery-Smith, Stephen:
>> On 12/21/18 10:03 PM, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
The port Makefile that I have prepared is attached below for reference.
Regards, STefan
>>>
>>> Thanks Stefan,
>>> I took current
[A native poudreire-devel based build of
multimedia/gstreamer1-qt@qt5 did not hang-up
and worked fine. Official package build history
also provides some evidence.]
On 2018-Dec-22, at 12:55, Mark Millard wrote:
> [I found my E-mail records reporting successful builds using
> qemu-user-static
> No wonder, it doesn't seem to have worked ever (?) as the compare_pid is
> simply not defined in compares list. Try attached patch.
It works on 11-stable without that line being added.
cheers
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
Mark Millard wrote:
> From my from=source head -r3418363 context, top with -opid does not
> seem to sort in a coherent order, not time of process creation order
> (either direction) and not in just-PID numeric order (either
> direction). For example:
>
> PID USERNAMETHR PRI NICE SIZE
>From my from=source head -r3418363 context, top with -opid does not
seem to sort in a coherent order, not time of process creation order
(either direction) and not in just-PID numeric order (either
direction). For example:
PID USERNAMETHR PRI NICE SIZERES STATEC TIMEWCPU
On 12/24/18 3:32 AM, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> I see a discrepancy using ctm to extract, between ctm
> built on 9.2-RELEASE & ctm built {from both src or ports} on current.
> Just the 9.2-RELEASE ctm does not create 3 zero size files:
> base/db/rep-cache.db-journal
>
On Monday, 24 December 2018 11:24:59 CET Jan Beich wrote:
> g...@unixarea.de writes:
> > I know that KDE4 will be removed from ports by the end of the year,
> > that's why I wanted to update my CURRENT and ports right now before
> > this. I now find that one of the fundamental ports
g...@unixarea.de writes:
> Hello,
>
> I know that KDE4 will be removed from ports by the end of the year,
> that's why I wanted to update my CURRENT and ports right now before
> this. I now find that one of the fundamental ports (x11/kdelibs-kde4) is
> marked as broken...
>
> Is there a fix for
Hello,
I know that KDE4 will be removed from ports by the end of the year,
that's why I wanted to update my CURRENT and ports right now before
this. I now find that one of the fundamental ports (x11/kdelibs-kde4) is
marked as broken...
Is there a fix for this (for example using SSL from ports
I wrote:
> I took current /usr/ports/misc/ctm/
> & converted Stephen's & my diffs to be automatic ports patches:
> http://berklix.com/~jhs/src/bsd/fixes/freebsd/ports/gen/misc/ctm/files/
> http://berklix.com/~jhs/src/bsd/fixes/freebsd/ports/gen/misc/ctm/README.JHS
> I haven't checked all
12 matches
Mail list logo
