At Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:43:48 -0800,
Doug Barton wrote:
If this is your plan, it leads me to the next question, which is how
are you going to handle the fact that GnuPG 2.x does not install a
binary named gpg? Will you install a symlink if gnupg1 is not
installed? And if so, will it CONFLICT
On 12/12/06, Scot Hetzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/12/06, Rong-En Fan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently, I installed a FreeBSD/amd64 laptop. I found this port
uses apm (i386 only) interface to get battery information. The
patch below changes it to use sysctl(3). Thus, it is usable on
On Mon, 2006-Dec-11 23:43:48 -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
If this is your plan, it leads me to the next question, which is how
are you going to handle the fact that GnuPG 2.x does not install a
binary named gpg?
As an end user, I see this as a real issue. If I upgrade a port,
I expect the upgraded
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 02:57:12AM -0600, Scot Hetzel wrote:
On 12/12/06, Scot Hetzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/12/06, Rong-En Fan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently, I installed a FreeBSD/amd64 laptop. I found this port
uses apm (i386 only) interface to get battery information. The
On Tuesday 12 December 2006 13:10, Rong-En Fan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 02:57:12AM -0600, Scot Hetzel wrote:
On 12/12/06, Scot Hetzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/12/06, Rong-En Fan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently, I installed a FreeBSD/amd64 laptop. I found this port
uses apm
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:46:50PM +0900, Jun Kuriyama wrote:
At Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:43:48 -0800,
Doug Barton wrote:
If this is your plan, it leads me to the next question, which is how
are you going to handle the fact that GnuPG 2.x does not install a
binary named gpg? Will you install a
On Dec 11, 2006, at 6:41 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:
Well, this looks to have been a combination of two human errors (on
that
particular PR), which the code really doesn't know how to deal
with. But
after looking at it, I'm not too sure what we could have done
differently.
Human error I
Would one of the comitters please grab ports/106623 and commit it? The pr
contains two important security patches for ftp/proftpd. I'd like to see
these get into the tree asap. Thanks in advance for your time.
Beech
--
Hi, Beech,
Beech Rintoul wrote:
Would one of the comitters please grab ports/106623 and commit it? The pr
contains two important security patches for ftp/proftpd. I'd like to see
these get into the tree asap. Thanks in advance for your time.
I have just committed the patches found in
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 03:04:05PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
On Tuesday 12 December 2006 13:10, Rong-En Fan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 02:57:12AM -0600, Scot Hetzel wrote:
On 12/12/06, Scot Hetzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/12/06, Rong-En Fan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently, I
On Tuesday 12 December 2006 07:47, LI Xin wrote:
Hi, Beech,
Beech Rintoul wrote:
Would one of the comitters please grab ports/106623 and commit it? The pr
contains two important security patches for ftp/proftpd. I'd like to see
these get into the tree asap. Thanks in advance for your
Xavier Otazu wrote:
I am having problems applying the xfce4.4_ports_10.diff file to the
ports collection.
I get the latest port collection using cvsup. I apply the
xfce4.4_ports_10.shar file. After that, I make
patch -u xfce4.4_ports_10.shar
but some ports are not updated. For
I just updated ports and tried to build a package for xemacs-21.4.20
but apparently there are missing files, an incorrect packing list or
some option that is not turned on. I'm not building it with any
options other than the defaults.
This is a 6.2-PRERELEASE box and ports were cvsupped just a
Peter Pentchev wrote:
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:46:50PM +0900, Jun Kuriyama wrote:
At Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:43:48 -0800,
Doug Barton wrote:
If this is your plan, it leads me to the next question, which is how
are you going to handle the fact that GnuPG 2.x does not install a
binary named gpg?
On Tuesday 12 December 2006 07:47, LI Xin wrote:
Hi, Beech,
Beech Rintoul wrote:
Would one of the comitters please grab ports/106623 and commit it? The pr
contains two important security patches for ftp/proftpd. I'd like to see
these get into the tree asap. Thanks in advance for your
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 03:16:01 -0600, Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeremy Messenger wrote:
snip of everything
Guys, more of 'me too' are so useless. Please make your bug report
useful. marcus is still waiting for someone to fill out his request[1].
I can't fill out his request, because
Jeremy Messenger wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 03:16:01 -0600, Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeremy Messenger wrote:
snip of everything
Guys, more of 'me too' are so useless. Please make your bug report
useful. marcus is still waiting for someone to fill out his request[1].
I can't
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:48:43 -0600, Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeremy Messenger wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 03:16:01 -0600, Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jeremy Messenger wrote:
snip of everything
Guys, more of 'me too' are so useless. Please make your bug report
useful.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 10:19:31AM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Dec 11, 2006, at 6:41 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:
Well, this looks to have been a combination of two human errors (on
that
particular PR), which the code really doesn't know how to deal
with. But
after looking at it, I'm
People should avoid using the 1.2.0 and 1.2.1 releases unless they
really know what they're doing and can fix the problems that may
arise.
If you want we can...
- Backout the changes to 1.1.5
- Put a FORBIDDEN in the makefile so people will know about the
issues.
Nah. It works for new
At Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:28:21 -0800,
Doug Barton wrote:
I have no clue about last problem for now (only pkg-message or
UPDATING). This maybe critical for casual portupgrade users.
Err... I wonder... How about repo-copying (or rather, repo-moving)
the current security/gnupg to
This is a strange problem, and I'm wondering why it keeps occurring.
I'm using Gnome 2.16.2 and whenever I start a gnome-session, X-Chat 2
starts up after my desktop is loaded. Even if I close it, it starts a
second instance. Although, after closing the second instance, it
doesn't open anymore.
Hello!
The java/berkeley-db port fails self-tests on pointyhat. I can not reproduce
the problem on any machine, that I have access to.
It, likely, has something to do with pointyhat's running each build in
jail/tinderbox.
Would someone, please, try to build the port in a tinderbox (be sure to
23 matches
Mail list logo
