It just means that folks didn't plan ahead and didn't think up
proper contingency plans.
First off, apologies to Garrett, I'm not picking on you directly, but I
kinda knew this would come up.
The undeniable fact is that configure scripts in general have chosen to
do things a certain way.
Kevin Oberman kob6...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett a...@freebsd.org wrote:
With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
The issue stems from configure scripts (to
On 27/09/2011, at 13:33, Ade Lovett wrote:
That is to say, until 9.0-R happens, and for some considerable period
afterwards, ya'll can pretty much expect ports/ to be non-functional on
HEAD. PRs mentioning this will be gleefully closed referencing this
message.
I imagine you can work around
Ade Lovett a...@freebsd.org wrote:
The undeniable fact is that configure scripts in general have
chosen to do things a certain way. Unfortunately for us (us
being FreeBSD), we have now broken these conceptions by moving
to a dual-digit major release.
I don't suppose
REVISION=A.1
i.e.
Is the cups-base problem on the assigned list, being incompatible with the
optional avahi (DNSSD)?
The BROKEN message references http://www.avahi.org/ticket/303 -- look
there for more information on why it's marked as such.
Tom
___
On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
Kevin Obermankob6...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovetta...@freebsd.org wrote:
With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
The issue stems
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, h h wrote:
Kevin Oberman kob6...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett a...@freebsd.org wrote:
With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
The issue
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:28:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
Kevin Obermankob6...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovetta...@freebsd.org wrote:
With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
expected, ports/
At 11:18 27/09/2011, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for
their tenth version of their operating system ...
At least there will be a long rest after
the move to 10 is complete.. until FreeBSD 100.
Or move to hexadecimal
$ export
On 09/27/11 16:46, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Ade Lovetta...@freebsd.org wrote:
The undeniable fact is that configure scripts in general have
chosen to do things a certain way. Unfortunately for us (us
being FreeBSD), we have now broken these conceptions by moving
to a dual-digit major
On 27 September 2011 10:18, Anton Shterenlikht me...@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:28:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
Kevin Obermankob6...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovetta...@freebsd.org wrote:
With the
Eduardo Morras nec...@retena.com writes:
At 11:18 27/09/2011, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for
their tenth version of their operating system ...
At least there will be a long rest after
the move to 10 is complete.. until
krad writes:
we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?
Robert Huff
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 08:22:54AM -0400, Robert Huff wrote:
krad writes:
we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?
Not quite. There they mostly said No way that this program will still
be in use when
2011/9/27 O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de:
Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for their
tenth version of their operating system ...
FreeBSD XP anyone?
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
On 27 September 2011 20:22, Robert Huff roberth...@rcn.com wrote:
krad writes:
we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?
Our children will be dealing with Y2038. :-)
Adrian
On 27 September 2011 13:57, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 27 September 2011 20:22, Robert Huff roberth...@rcn.com wrote:
krad writes:
we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?
Our children
Adrian Chadd writes:
we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?
Our children will be dealing with Y2038. :-)
Statistically, some of us will.
Robert
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 09:36:17AM -0400 I heard the voice of
Robert Huff, and lo! it spake thus:
Adrian Chadd writes:
Our children will be dealing with Y2038. :-)
Statistically, some of us will.
Actually, I had to deal with it just last week...
--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) |
On 09/27/11 16:27, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 09:36:17AM -0400 I heard the voice of
Robert Huff, and lo! it spake thus:
Adrian Chadd writes:
Our children will be dealing with Y2038. :-)
Statistically, some of us will.
Actually, I had to deal with it just last week...
On 27 September 2011 10:18, Anton Shterenlikht me...@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:28:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
Kevin Obermankob6...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovetta...@freebsd.org wrote:
With the advent
On Sep 27, 2011 10:04 AM, Chris Rees cr...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 27 September 2011 10:18, Anton Shterenlikht me...@bristol.ac.uk
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:28:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
Kevin Obermankob6...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Sep 26,
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Or, maybe automate this, as now port system warns user about possible
network servers -- check all installed binaries and libraries for
linkage with non-system-gcc libraries and add run dependency. But
I'm not sure it is easy to do, as it should be
On (26/09/2011 23:03), Ade Lovett wrote:
With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completely
at random) assuming that FreeBSD would
On Sep 27, 2011, at 8:50 PM, Gleb Kurtsou wrote:
On (26/09/2011 23:03), Ade Lovett wrote:
With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something
Hi--
On Sep 27, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Gleb Kurtsou wrote:
It's more exciting than that. FreeBSD = 10 is already seized by Apple :)
http://www.google.com/codesearch#search/q=__FreeBSD__%5CW%2B10type=cs
MacOS X doesn't define __FreeBSD__ either in CPP macros or the system headers:
% touch foo.h;
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Rainer Hurling rhur...@gwdg.de wrote:
This morning I tried to upgrade my ports after installing the new 10-CURRENT
(amd64).
There was a message about this on the list already.
Does anyone else observes this behaviour? I would really appreciate some
help.
I am sending this to you because you maintain a port that depends upon
math/qhull. I plan to move this to math/qhull5, because the new version
of qhull is not necessarily compatible with the port(s) you maintain.
This is the complete list.
games/kdegames4, math/labplot, math/octave-devel,
28 matches
Mail list logo
