On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:32:14AM +0100, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote:
I am well aware that very probably I might be starting a rant thread,
however, I am genuinely interested in opinions from the community.
Since version 24, Emacs, the very good operating system missing only a
decent editor,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:26:32AM +0100, Jean-Sébastien Pédron wrote:
Hi!
Before updating xf86-video-ati to 7.5.0, we would like some people to
try it out. The reason is that 7.4.0 was crashing for several users, so
we want to be sure it's fixed in 7.5.0.
Here's patch:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 11:54:06PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
You found a nice bug.
The options file is read the thing is that the UNIQUENAME is changed is
py-py-stl when the optionsfile is read and it is py27-py-stl when it is
written.
I don't know why yet, I'll fix it
[Please cc me, since I'm not subscribed to this list. I originally asked this
on questions@.]
Hi,
With the release of the new options framework for ports, I've run into a
problem trying to convert one of my ports.
The nature of the problem is that the port seems to ignore the setting stored
in
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 01:05:34PM +0200, Olivier Smedts wrote:
Just got a notebook, build with the old gcc 4.2 of the system FreeBSD
9.0/amd64 -r224579: portsnap works as expected.
I will build a most recent system on that box (with systems's outdated gcc
4.2) and I'll report if the
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:43:52AM +0200, Hartmann, O. wrote:
On 08/12/11 22:54, Roland Smith wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 08:44:07PM +0200, Hartmann, O. wrote:
files/dd7c394c9c9ddf4b97f1b14c676f370adc259b2c7a4b8346eba0788a431db398.gz
Does this file actually exist if you extract
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:46:37PM +0200, Hartmann, O. wrote:
Since today, I can not update my ports tree due to this error as follows.
This happens on all boxes running FreeBSD, the version of the OS (FBSD
8.2/9.0) doesn't
matter. What's up with the ports collection?
Probably nothing.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:38:06PM +0200, Olivier Smedts wrote:
2011/8/12 Roland Smith rsm...@xs4all.nl:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:46:37PM +0200, Hartmann, O. wrote:
Since today, I can not update my ports tree due to this error as follows.
This happens on all boxes running FreeBSD
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 08:44:07PM +0200, Hartmann, O. wrote:
files/dd7c394c9c9ddf4b97f1b14c676f370adc259b2c7a4b8346eba0788a431db398.gz
This file is relatively recent; When I used portsnap yesterday, it wasn't
there, and now it is.
I do a postrmaster on a nearly daily basis. This occured
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 03:11:48AM +0800, Martin Wilke wrote:
just for the record, i manage to get xorg-server 1.9.3 and 1.10.0 to work,
also drm, and dri works very well,
screens and logs gives here:
http://people.freebsd.org/~miwi/xorg76/
Seems like you got transparancy to work. :-) A bit
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 11:42:37PM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
Something I'm missing here? A fix would be nice, I should be used to it
though- ImageMagick _always_ has issues for me. I just thought it'd be
nice to get it updated for once- it looked so close :)
I'm getting
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 05:36:38PM -0500, Robert Noland wrote:
I just rolled up a new patchset. This has not been through tinderbox
yet, so you have been warned... This update should pretty much have us
current with all released xorg bits.
The following reply was made to PR amd64/121951; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Roland Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Bill Squire [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: amd64/121951: Javascript bug in _amd64_ version of
Mozilla-Firefox
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:55:32 +0100
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 06:21:40PM -0400, Indigo 23 wrote:
Does anyone think that its worth the hassle? If you do manage to get
it up and running, will you see any noticeable advantages or is it
better to just stick with i386? The only caveat that I can see is a
recompilation of all the
14 matches
Mail list logo
