2011/7/14 Pav Lucistnik p...@freebsd.org:
Stephen Montgomery-Smith píše v čt 14. 07. 2011 v 11:57 -0500:
entry. I assume that the filename of the desktop entry is unimportant,
The filename of desktop entry should be 100% inconsequential, and our
only care should be not have two ports
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Scot Hetzel wrote:
2011/7/14 Pav Lucistnik p...@freebsd.org:
Stephen Montgomery-Smith píše v čt 14. 07. 2011 v 11:57 -0500:
entry. I assume that the filename of the desktop entry is unimportant,
The filename of desktop entry should be 100% inconsequential, and our
2011/7/15 Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com:
How about something like this:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=158936
Wouldn't the point of using a separate filename argument be to let the user
specify exactly what the name is? Here you end up with the same
system-processed filename.
But then we would still need to add a check to check-desktop-entries
for DESKTOP_ENTRIESv2 that would detect illegal characters in the
filename.
Since this is not user settable IMHO the check should really be done
in portlint, not in b.p.m.
--
Eitan Adler
On 15 Jul 2011 03:16, Stephen Montgomery-Smith step...@missouri.edu
wrote:
On 07/14/2011 02:29 PM, Chris Rees wrote:
On 14 Jul 2011 17:58, Stephen Montgomery-Smith step...@missouri.edu
mailto:step...@missouri.edu wrote:
Joe Average user who doesn't actually install the ports shouldn't be
Warren Block píše v pá 15. 07. 2011 v 07:15 -0600:
It could also be made polymorphic, basing what it does on the
number of fields rather than a new DESKTOP_ENTRIESv2 define.
I believe that's impossible because you can create several desktop
entries by repeating the quadruple of values in this
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Warren Block píše v pá 15. 07. 2011 v 07:15 -0600:
It could also be made polymorphic, basing what it does on the
number of fields rather than a new DESKTOP_ENTRIESv2 define.
I believe that's impossible because you can create several desktop
entries
On 07/15/2011 04:57 PM, Warren Block wrote:
FWIW, I think the original code with a better regex like Jung-uk Kim has
in http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-July/068737.html
is still the way to go. If the port requires a special desktop entry
filename, that seems beyond the
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/15/2011 04:57 PM, Warren Block wrote:
FWIW, I think the original code with a better regex like Jung-uk Kim has
in http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-July/068737.html
is still the way to go. If the port requires a
On 2011/07/14 00:57, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
links.diff, metalink-editor.diff, tome.diff:
- Add static desktop files to work around DESKTOP_ENTRIES limitations.
This is a step backwards and I'll oppose it.
--
Pav Lucistnik p...@oook.cz
p...@freebsd.org
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
On 2011/07/14 00:57, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
links.diff, metalink-editor.diff, tome.diff:
- Add static desktop files to work around DESKTOP_ENTRIES limitations.
This is a step backwards and I'll oppose it.
I am beginning to get a clearer picture of what is going on. This
On Thursday 14 July 2011 12:57 pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
On 2011/07/14 00:57, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
links.diff, metalink-editor.diff, tome.diff:
- Add static desktop files to work around DESKTOP_ENTRIES
limitations.
This is a step backwards and I'll oppose
Stephen Montgomery-Smith píše v čt 14. 07. 2011 v 11:57 -0500:
entry. I assume that the filename of the desktop entry is unimportant,
The filename of desktop entry should be 100% inconsequential, and our
only care should be not have two ports installing same file.
and is used only
On 07/14/2011 12:47 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
Anyhow, I guess we can do it much simpler:
--- Mk/bsd.port.mk 3 Jul 2011 15:51:18 - 1.687
+++ Mk/bsd.port.mk 14 Jul 2011 17:26:43 -
@@ -6432,7 +6432,7 @@
${ECHO_CMD} @cwd ${DESKTOPDIR} ${TMPPLIST}; \
On 07/14/2011 12:54 PM, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Stephen Montgomery-Smith píše v čt 14. 07. 2011 v 11:57 -0500:
entry. I assume that the filename of the desktop entry is unimportant,
The filename of desktop entry should be 100% inconsequential, and our
only care should be not have two ports
On Thursday 14 July 2011 01:54 pm, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Stephen Montgomery-Smith p紫e v �t 14. 07. 2011 v 11:57 -0500:
entry. I assume that the filename of the desktop entry is
unimportant,
The filename of desktop entry should be 100% inconsequential, and
our only care should be not have
On Thursday 14 July 2011 01:55 pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/14/2011 12:47 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
Anyhow, I guess we can do it much simpler:
--- Mk/bsd.port.mk 3 Jul 2011 15:51:18 - 1.687
+++ Mk/bsd.port.mk 14 Jul 2011 17:26:43 -
@@ -6432,7 +6432,7 @@
Jung-uk Kim píše v čt 14. 07. 2011 v 15:07 -0400:
entry. I assume that the filename of the desktop entry is
unimportant,
The filename of desktop entry should be 100% inconsequential, and
our only care should be not have two ports installing same file.
I believe the original
Jung-uk Kim píše v čt 14. 07. 2011 v 15:15 -0400:
On Thursday 14 July 2011 01:55 pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/14/2011 12:47 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
Anyhow, I guess we can do it much simpler:
--- Mk/bsd.port.mk 3 Jul 2011 15:51:18 - 1.687
+++ Mk/bsd.port.mk
On 14 Jul 2011 17:58, Stephen Montgomery-Smith step...@missouri.edu
wrote:
Joe Average user who doesn't actually install the ports shouldn't be
expected to read UPDATING.
Er... he really should and is expected to.
Chris
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
On Thursday 14 July 2011 03:15 pm, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Jung-uk Kim p紫e v �t 14. 07. 2011 v 15:07 -0400:
entry. I assume that the filename of the desktop entry is
unimportant,
The filename of desktop entry should be 100% inconsequential,
and our only care should be not have two
On 07/14/2011 02:29 PM, Chris Rees wrote:
On 14 Jul 2011 17:58, Stephen Montgomery-Smith step...@missouri.edu
mailto:step...@missouri.edu wrote:
Joe Average user who doesn't actually install the ports shouldn't be
expected to read UPDATING.
Er... he really should and is expected to.
The
Am 13.07.2011 00:25, schrieb Jung-uk Kim:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the window
manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was not found.
Then, I realized compiz-manager.desktop was automagically replaced by
compizmanager.desktop. Now I tracked
On 2011/07/13 00:25, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the window
manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was not found.
Then, I realized compiz-manager.desktop was automagically replaced by
compizmanager.desktop. Now I tracked it down
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 07:39 am, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
On 2011/07/13 00:25, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the
window manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was
not found. Then, I realized compiz-manager.desktop was
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 12:08 am, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/12/2011 05:25 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the
window manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was
not found. Then, I realized compiz-manager.desktop
On 07/13/2011 10:41 AM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 07:39 am, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
On 2011/07/13 00:25, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the
window manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was
not found. Then, I
On 07/13/2011 11:42 AM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 12:08 am, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/12/2011 05:25 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the
window manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was
not found.
On 07/13/2011 11:59 AM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/13/2011 11:42 AM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 12:08 am, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/12/2011 05:25 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the
window manager.
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 12:42 pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/13/2011 10:41 AM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 07:39 am, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
On 2011/07/13 00:25, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the
window manager.
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 01:04 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 12:42 pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/13/2011 10:41 AM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 07:39 am, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
On 2011/07/13 00:25, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 12:59 pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/13/2011 11:42 AM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 12:08 am, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
wrote:
On 07/12/2011 05:25 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the
On 07/13/2011 12:04 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 12:42 pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
I'm sure it took Jung-uk Kim many hours to figure out why it wasn't
working. Other users are going to be in a similar spot. Many
users will never figure it out.
Sh... Please
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 01:04 pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/13/2011 11:59 AM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
But code like this seems simpler than my original suggestion:
if (echo $$4 | grep -E [^[:alnum:]_-] /dev/null); then echo \
${ECHO_MSG} blah blah.; \
exit
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 01:23 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 01:04 pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/13/2011 11:59 AM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
But code like this seems simpler than my original suggestion:
if (echo $$4 | grep -E [^[:alnum:]_-]
On 07/13/2011 12:26 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 01:23 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 01:04 pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/13/2011 11:59 AM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
But code like this seems simpler than my original suggestion:
if (echo
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 06:42 am, Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 13.07.2011 00:25, schrieb Jung-uk Kim:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the
window manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was
not found. Then, I realized compiz-manager.desktop was
Jung-uk Kim píše v st 13. 07. 2011 v 11:41 -0400:
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 07:39 am, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
On 2011/07/13 00:25, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the
window manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was
not found.
On 07/13/2011 02:35 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 06:42 am, Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 13.07.2011 00:25, schrieb Jung-uk Kim:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the
window manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was
not found. Then, I
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 05:10 pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/13/2011 02:35 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 06:42 am, Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 13.07.2011 00:25, schrieb Jung-uk Kim:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the
window
On 07/13/2011 05:06 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 05:10 pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/13/2011 02:35 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 06:42 am, Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 13.07.2011 00:25, schrieb Jung-uk Kim:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME
On Tuesday 12 July 2011 06:25 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the
window manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was
not found. Then, I realized compiz-manager.desktop was
automagically replaced by compizmanager.desktop. Now I
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the window
manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was not found.
Then, I realized compiz-manager.desktop was automagically replaced by
compizmanager.desktop. Now I tracked it down to this commit:
Sat Nov 27 17:42:46
On 07/12/2011 05:25 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the window
manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was not found.
Then, I realized compiz-manager.desktop was automagically replaced by
compizmanager.desktop. Now I tracked it
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the window
manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was not found.
Then, I realized compiz-manager.desktop was automagically replaced by
compizmanager.desktop. Now I tracked it down
On 07/12/2011 05:25 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the window
manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was not found.
Then, I realized compiz-manager.desktop was automagically replaced by
compizmanager.desktop. Now I tracked it
On 07/12/2011 21:08, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Thinking more about it, it seems to me that instead of silently deleting
the disallowed characters in the filename, that the port should declare
itself broken if there are disallowed characters. That way, this
particular error would have
On 07/12/2011 11:17 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/12/2011 21:08, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Thinking more about it, it seems to me that instead of silently deleting
the disallowed characters in the filename, that the port should declare
itself broken if there are disallowed characters.
On 07/12/2011 21:29, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/12/2011 11:17 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/12/2011 21:08, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Thinking more about it, it seems to me that instead of silently deleting
the disallowed characters in the filename, that the port should declare
49 matches
Mail list logo
