On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 02:12:18PM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> 2010/10/5 David O'Brien :
> > On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:22:46AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> >> 2010/10/2 David O'Brien :
> >> > 2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't a way for me
> >> > to query if I built with th
David DEMELIER writes:
> I will try to do it, I think a replacement of ports.conf with a
> make syntax would be better. I will try to do something in the
> end of week.
For informational purposes only: if you are not aware of it,
portupgrade has "pkgtools.conf".
2010/10/5 David O'Brien :
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:22:46AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
>> 2010/10/2 David O'Brien :
>> > 2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't a way for me
>> > to query if I built with the defaults or not.
>> > Thus leading to every port I manually install look
On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:22:46AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> 2010/10/2 David O'Brien :
> > 2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't a way for me
> > to query if I built with the defaults or not.
> > Thus leading to every port I manually install looking like it was
> > customized j
On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 04:38:34AM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 23:02, David O'Brien wrote:
> > For gtk1, I have 13 packages that require it. ?For gtk2, I have 49
> > packages that require it. ?So I agree their are significantly more ports
> > that depend on gtk2 -- and thus l
On 10/02/2010 02:49, Ade Lovett wrote:
> editors/vim -- fully functional console-only (no X11)
> editors/vim-lite -- stripped down version (again, no X11, perhaps even
> linked static for use within embedded systems)
> editors/vim-gui -- take your pick. X11 is implied. athena/motif widg
2010/10/2 David O'Brien :
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:24:59AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
>> What is "sufficiently clean" ? I wonder what is not clean in the
>> options framework, so please tell me then we still can clean it?
>
> When the Ports Collection was invented, ports maintainers were to
>
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, David O'Brien wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
However, I still think it would benefit everyone if the maintainer
could provide an explanation for some of the current behavior and
would at least be open to discussion about changing it. The
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 23:02, David O'Brien wrote:
> For gtk1, I have 13 packages that require it. For gtk2, I have 49
> packages that require it. So I agree their are significantly more ports
> that depend on gtk2 -- and thus little way to avoid having it installed
> on one's system.
>
> Though
On Oct 02, 2010, at 01:02 , David O'Brien wrote:
> I guess its time to take another survey. Is Vim one of the few last
> gtk1 consumers?
Without touching on any of the other issues, yes, indeed, (a) gtk v1 is
abandonware and (b) vim-with-defaults is one of the last major consumers of
gtk1.
If
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 11:02:01PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
> > However, I still think it would benefit everyone if the maintainer
> > could provide an explanation for some of the current behavior and
> > would at least be open to dis
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
> However, I still think it would benefit everyone if the maintainer
> could provide an explanation for some of the current behavior and
> would at least be open to discussion about changing it. The biggest
> problem here, IMHO, is not th
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:24:59AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> What is "sufficiently clean" ? I wonder what is not clean in the
> options framework, so please tell me then we still can clean it?
When the Ports Collection was invented, ports maintainers were to
choose a reasonable set of configu
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:34, Lars Engels wrote:
> editors/vim-lite is console only.
>
That seems to disable a lot of other stuff too.
.if !defined(LITE)
MAKE_ARGS+= CONF_OPT_FEAT="--with-features=big"
However, I will definitely take a look at it. Thank you for suggesting it.
--
Rob Farm
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 16:24, Wesley Shields wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 03:51:42PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 13:54, Wesley Shields wrote:
> >> > While I agree that editors/vim could use the changes
2010/9/19 David O'Brien :
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 09:21:46PM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
>> I'm writing the rewrite of the port to update vim to 7.3 and with a
>> real OPTIONS framework and remove the stupid WITH_VIM_OPTIONS KNOB
>> that doesn't work. The problem is that David doesn't like clea
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 09:21:46PM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> I'm writing the rewrite of the port to update vim to 7.3 and with a
> real OPTIONS framework and remove the stupid WITH_VIM_OPTIONS KNOB
> that doesn't work. The problem is that David doesn't like clean things
> and I think he won't
Anonymous writes:
> jhell writes:
>
>> After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
>> registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
>> installing to / ~! ugh.
>
> Does the following diff fixes it?
>
> %%
> Index: editors/vim/Makefile
> =
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 03:52:17AM +0400, Anonymous wrote:
> jhell writes:
>
> > After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
> > registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
> > installing to / ~! ugh.
>
> Does the following diff fixes it?
It does all
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 16:24, Wesley Shields wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 03:51:42PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 13:54, Wesley Shields wrote:
>> > While I agree that editors/vim could use the changes you're discussing,
>> > do you really think such a comment is needed
jhell writes:
> After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
> registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
> installing to / ~! ugh.
Does the following diff fixes it?
%%
Index: editors/vim/Makefile
=
On 09/17/2010 19:52, Anonymous wrote:
> jhell writes:
>
>> After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
>> registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
>> installing to / ~! ugh.
>
> Does the following diff fixes it?
>
> %%
> Index: editors/vim/Makefil
On 09/17/2010 19:22, Wesley Shields wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 07:18:09PM -0400, jhell wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 09/17/2010 17:19, Wesley Shields wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 01:49:37PM -0400, jhell wrote:
After a force upgrade of vim
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 03:51:42PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 13:54, Wesley Shields wrote:
> > While I agree that editors/vim could use the changes you're discussing,
> > do you really think such a comment is needed? Attacks like that are not
> > necessary. Let your code sp
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 07:18:09PM -0400, jhell wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/17/2010 17:19, Wesley Shields wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 01:49:37PM -0400, jhell wrote:
> >>
> >> After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
> >> registeri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/17/2010 17:19, Wesley Shields wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 01:49:37PM -0400, jhell wrote:
>>
>> After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
>> registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
>> installing
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 13:54, Wesley Shields wrote:
> While I agree that editors/vim could use the changes you're discussing,
> do you really think such a comment is needed? Attacks like that are not
> necessary. Let your code speak for itself.
>
> -- WXS
This port has major issues and numerous
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 01:49:37PM -0400, jhell wrote:
>
> After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
> registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
> installing to / ~! ugh.
>
> Why is ${PREFIX} being used and not ${LOCALBASE} ???
I reverted to the p
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 09:21:46PM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> 2010/9/17 jhell :
> >
> > After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
> > registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
> > installing to / ~! ugh.
> >
> > Why is ${PREFIX} being used and no
On 9/17/2010 10:49 AM, jhell wrote:
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
installing to / ~! ugh.
Why is ${PREFIX} being used and not ${LOCALBASE} ???
LOCALBASE is where the ports can find things th
2010/9/17 jhell :
>
> After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
> registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
> installing to / ~! ugh.
>
> Why is ${PREFIX} being used and not ${LOCALBASE} ???
>
> --
>
> jhell,v
> _
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
installing to / ~! ugh.
Why is ${PREFIX} being used and not ${LOCALBASE} ???
--
jhell,v
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.or
32 matches
Mail list logo
