On Saturday 04 September 2010 23:26:27 Greg Lewis wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:37:37AM +0200, David Naylor wrote:
On Saturday 28 August 2010 23:30:22 Greg Lewis wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:44:39AM +0400, Anonymous wrote:
Greg Lewis gle...@eyesbeyond.com writes:
Your
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:37:37AM +0200, David Naylor wrote:
On Saturday 28 August 2010 23:30:22 Greg Lewis wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:44:39AM +0400, Anonymous wrote:
Greg Lewis gle...@eyesbeyond.com writes:
I would argue that overriding a private variable is a hack (other ports
On Saturday 28 August 2010 23:30:22 Greg Lewis wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:44:39AM +0400, Anonymous wrote:
Greg Lewis gle...@eyesbeyond.com writes:
I would argue that overriding a private variable is a hack (other ports
doing it doesn't make it not a hack).
You could've spoke
On Friday 20 August 2010 17:12:42 Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous swel...@gmail.com writes:
David Naylor naylor.b.da...@gmail.com writes:
%%
Index: java/openjdk6/Makefile
@@ -266,3 +267,6 @@ post-install:
@${CAT} ${PKGMESSAGE}
.include bsd.port.post.mk
+
+# XXX: use `?='
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 02:28:02PM +0200, David Naylor wrote:
On Friday 20 August 2010 17:12:42 Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous swel...@gmail.com writes:
David Naylor naylor.b.da...@gmail.com writes:
%%
Index: java/openjdk6/Makefile
@@ -266,3 +267,6 @@ post-install:
Greg Lewis gle...@eyesbeyond.com writes:
I would argue that overriding a private variable is a hack (other ports
doing it doesn't make it not a hack).
You could've spoke up in ports/148754 about your concern in order for
portmgr@ to notice. The PR strived to be less intrusive than divorcing
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:44:39AM +0400, Anonymous wrote:
Greg Lewis gle...@eyesbeyond.com writes:
I would argue that overriding a private variable is a hack (other ports
doing it doesn't make it not a hack).
You could've spoke up in ports/148754 about your concern in order for
portmgr@
Anonymous swel...@gmail.com writes:
David Naylor naylor.b.da...@gmail.com writes:
%%
Index: java/openjdk6/Makefile
@@ -266,3 +267,6 @@ post-install:
@${CAT} ${PKGMESSAGE}
.include bsd.port.post.mk
+
+# XXX: use `?=' in bsd.port.mk
+_MAKE_JOBS=
%%
Yes, I prefer this approach.
On Saturday 26 June 2010 00:15:16 Anonymous wrote:
David Naylor naylor.b.da...@gmail.com writes:
On Friday 25 June 2010 18:08:22 David Naylor wrote:
Hi,
java/openjdk6 breaks with FORCE_MAKE_JOBS (it implements its own think).
The attached patch fixes openjdk6, marks it as
David Naylor naylor.b.da...@gmail.com writes:
%%
Index: java/openjdk6/Makefile
@@ -266,3 +267,6 @@ post-install:
@${CAT} ${PKGMESSAGE}
.include bsd.port.post.mk
+
+# XXX: use `?=' in bsd.port.mk
+_MAKE_JOBS=
%%
Yes, I prefer this approach. See attached for the patch that does
Hi,
java/openjdk6 breaks with FORCE_MAKE_JOBS (it implements its own think). The
attached patch fixes openjdk6, marks it as MAKE_JOBS_SAFE and makes it respect
MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER.
Regards,
David
P.S. I'm off list
--- /usr/ports/java/openjdk6/Makefile 2010-05-22 03:05:20.0 +0200
+++
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 18:08:22 +0200
David Naylor naylor.b.da...@gmail.com wrote:
+MAKE_JOBS_UNSAGE=yes
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
On Friday 25 June 2010 18:08:22 David Naylor wrote:
Hi,
java/openjdk6 breaks with FORCE_MAKE_JOBS (it implements its own think).
The attached patch fixes openjdk6, marks it as MAKE_JOBS_SAFE and makes it
respect MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER.
Regards,
David
P.S. I'm off list
Oops. My hack
David Naylor naylor.b.da...@gmail.com writes:
On Friday 25 June 2010 18:08:22 David Naylor wrote:
Hi,
java/openjdk6 breaks with FORCE_MAKE_JOBS (it implements its own think).
The attached patch fixes openjdk6, marks it as MAKE_JOBS_SAFE and makes it
respect MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER.
Regards,
14 matches
Mail list logo
