On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 06:25:27AM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
Hi,
I apologize in advance if what I'm trying to do seems stupid or it has
already existed since the Dawn of Time (i.e. when McKusick was in
diapers) but I'd like your comments on this idea:
In response to Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Bill Moran wrote:
It's a combination of a number of issues:
1) The ports infrastructure shouldn't let you set options that don't make
sense.
I think that one could argue that it should be _hard_ to set options
that don't make sense,
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:42:33 -0500, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:09:11 -0500, Marcin Wisnicki
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If .warning breaks portupgrade I can change it to IGNORE.
I prefer remove .warning and IGNORE. If user wants to enable keyring
then the WITH_KEYRING
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 06:25:27AM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
Hi,
I apologize in advance if what I'm trying to do seems stupid or it has
already existed since the Dawn of Time (i.e. when McKusick was in
diapers) but I'd like your comments on this idea:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:16:28 -0400
Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In response to Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
For the same reason that portmaster dies on errors, neither program
is omniscient. :) If ports tools hit a point where it's not clear
how to proceed they _should_ stop
Doug Barton wrote:
You have some very interesting ideas there. Not that I want to dissuade
you in any way from doing this, but I would like to point out that
portmaster already does some of what you're suggesting and it could
fairly easily be modified to do just about all the rest of it. The
Ivan Voras wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
You have some very interesting ideas there. Not that I want to
dissuade you in any way from doing this, but I would like to point out
that portmaster already does some of what you're suggesting and it
could fairly easily be modified to do just about all
Ivan Voras wrote:
I apologize in advance if what I'm trying to do seems stupid or it
has=20
already existed since the Dawn of Time (i.e. when McKusick was in=20
diapers) but I'd like your comments on this idea:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/IvanVoras/PkgTransProposal
I can write the
Bill Moran wrote:
Understood. But keep in mind that this was not an error, it was a
warning. Perhaps the ports infrastructure doesn't differentiate between
those two as much as I think.
The use of the make .warning trick is deprecated in the ports tree
precisely because it leads to
Ivan Voras wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
You have some very interesting ideas there. Not that I want to
dissuade you in any way from doing this, but I would like to point out
that portmaster already does some of what you're suggesting and it
could fairly easily be modified to do just about all
Doug Barton wrote:
BTW, I thought of another problem scenario. The user installs port M,
and it brings dependencies D1, D2, and D3. Then the user installs port
N which also has port D2 as a dependency.
Then D2 becomes available for deletion only after M and N have been
deleted or no more
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:25:27 +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
Hi,
I apologize in advance if what I'm trying to do seems stupid or it has
already existed since the Dawn of Time (i.e. when McKusick was in
diapers) but I'd like your comments on this idea:
Hello everybody,
I've been trying to install subversion for a few days but it just won't
work. I can do make config, make all but when I do make install, it
eventually freeze at:
chmod 755 /usr/local/libexec/apache22/mod_dav_svn.so
I let it like that for an entire day and it never
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:38:21 +0200
Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, I thought of another problem scenario. The user installs port M, and it
brings dependencies D1, D2, and D3. Then the user installs port N which also
has port D2 as a dependency.
Port N then won't install D2 as
14 matches
Mail list logo
