Hello i am trying to update my ports.
i did read the UPDATING
step 1 did succeed
step 2 errors out with the following error
configure: error: Autoconf 2.52 or better is required
=== Script configure failed unexpectedly.
Please report the problem to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL
=== autoconf-2.61_1 is already installed
You may wish to ``make deinstall'' and install this port again
by ``make reinstall'' to upgrade it properly.
If you really wish to overwrite the old port of devel/autoconf261
without deleting it first, set the variable
Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote:
=== autoconf-2.61_1 is already installed
You may wish to ``make deinstall'' and install this port again
by ``make reinstall'' to upgrade it properly.
If you really wish to overwrite the old port of devel/autoconf261
without deleting it
Alex Dupre wrote:
I think it's missing a '-' in the --program-suffix of autoconf261.
And the same for automake 1.10.
--
Alex Dupre
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send
Dear porters,
This is just a reminder to please periodically check the list of
unbuildable ports at http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/ .
A list by MAINTAINER is
http://people.freebsd.org/~fenner/errorlogs/
so you can easily check the status of ports that you maintain. In
addition, the
Alex Dupre wrote:
Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote:
=== autoconf-2.61_1 is already installed
You may wish to ``make deinstall'' and install this port again
by ``make reinstall'' to upgrade it properly.
If you really wish to overwrite the old port of devel/autoconf261
On Jul 28, 2007, at 03:03 , Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote:
I think, there should be a '-' in front of every ${BUILD_VERSION}.
Additionally to the one at --program-suffix, there are three more
missing.
The appropriate fix has already been committed. Given the very small
window of things
Ade wrote:
On Jul 28, 2007, at 03:03 , Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote:
I think, there should be a '-' in front of every ${BUILD_VERSION}.
Additionally to the one at --program-suffix, there are three more
missing.
The appropriate fix has already been committed. Given the very small
window
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 09:48:47PM -0400 I heard the voice of
Yoshihiro Ota, and lo! it spake thus:
Q. Is it safe to assume all dependencies are STATIC?
A. Yes, it is.
No, it's not. Lots of ports change dependancies based on what's
installed, so if you install one thing you have to assume
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Hello bug-followup,
Did you have `/usr/local' as symlink? Or something other non-standard in
your tree?
I can not reproduce this one, and I don't like `magic fix' without
understanding of problem...
No, I don't have any such thing. The
Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Hello bug-followup,
Did you have `/usr/local' as symlink? Or something other non-standard in
your tree?
I can not reproduce this one, and I don't like `magic fix' without
understanding of problem...
No, I don't have any such thing. The problem is that the
On Jul 28, 2007, at 05:36 , Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote:
Was I wrong that in contrast to 259, in 261 there should not be a
'-' in front of the 3 ${BUILD_VERSION} in post-patch?
Nope, you weren't wrong. It just happened to be a cosmetic fix, only
addressing issues within the manpages
Hello ports,
Latest versions of `mingw32-binutils' and `mingw32-bin-msvcrt' were committed.
`mingw32-gcc' is on pipeline.
But it is BIG update: new version is 4.2.0
I ask you to test this `almost new' port before commit.
This is a kludge, but it makes pkg_version 4 times faster on my set up.
The idea is that make -V PKGNAME should ordinarily be a very fast
operation. So it runs a very cut down version of bsd.port.mk. If that
bombs with an error, then it does the full bsd.port.mk.
Maybe portsmanager and
Stephen Montgomery-Smith píše v so 28. 07. 2007 v 19:44 -0500:
This is a kludge, but it makes pkg_version 4 times faster on my set up.
The idea is that make -V PKGNAME should ordinarily be a very fast
operation. So it runs a very cut down version of bsd.port.mk. If that
bombs with an
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:49:39 -0700
Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hiro,
I'm happy to respond to you, but first I'd like to make clear that I'm
not trying to talk you out of anything. If there is a better way to
manage ports, or even just a different approach, I'm all for it. I
don't
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Stephen Montgomery-Smith píše v so 28. 07. 2007 v 19:44 -0500:
This is a kludge, but it makes pkg_version 4 times faster on my set up.
The idea is that make -V PKGNAME should ordinarily be a very fast
operation. So it runs a very cut down version of bsd.port.mk. If
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
This is a kludge, but it makes pkg_version 4 times faster on my set up. The
idea is that make -V PKGNAME should ordinarily be a very fast operation.
So it runs a very cut down version of bsd.port.mk. If that bombs with an
error, then it
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:59:36 -0500
Matthew D. Fuller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 09:48:47PM -0400 I heard the voice of
Yoshihiro Ota, and lo! it spake thus:
Q. Is it safe to assume all dependencies are STATIC?
A. Yes, it is.
No, it's not. Lots of ports change
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Yoshihiro Ota wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:49:39 -0700
Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hiro,
I'm happy to respond to you, but first I'd like to make clear that I'm
not trying to talk you out of anything. If there is a better way to
manage ports, or even just a
20 matches
Mail list logo
