On Feb 17, 2008, at 11:52 AM, David Wolfskill wrote:
I've been asked to come up with at least an interim approach --
that can be implemented within a few days -- to allow the SAs at
my new job to install conflicting ports on the same machine.
[...]
The catalyst for the exercise is that we
I've been asked to come up with at least an interim approach --
that can be implemented within a few days -- to allow the SAs at
my new job to install conflicting ports on the same machine.
I can think of some approaches, but I'd prefer to use one that doesn't
suck too much, and that doesn't
On Sun, 2008-02-17 at 11:52 -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
I've been asked to come up with at least an interim approach --
that can be implemented within a few days -- to allow the SAs at
my new job to install conflicting ports on the same machine.
I can think of some approaches, but I'd
David Wolfskill wrote:
I've been asked to come up with at least an interim approach --
that can be implemented within a few days -- to allow the SAs at
my new job to install conflicting ports on the same machine.
I can think of some approaches, but I'd prefer to use one that doesn't
suck too
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:52:59AM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
The catalyst for the exercise is that we have some pools of machines
for developers to use; some of the developers wish to use
editors/xemacs; some wish to use editors/emacs -- on the same machine.
(Given the requirement, it's OK
Interesting question...
On Sunday 17 February 2008 20:52:59 David Wolfskill wrote:
I've been asked to come up with at least an interim approach --
that can be implemented within a few days -- to allow the SAs at
my new job to install conflicting ports on the same machine.
I can think of some
