2010/10/5 David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org:
On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:22:46AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
2010/10/2 David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org:
2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't a way for me
to query if I built with the defaults or not.
Thus leading to every
David DEMELIER writes:
I will try to do it, I think a replacement of ports.conf with a
make syntax would be better. I will try to do something in the
end of week.
For informational purposes only: if you are not aware of it,
portupgrade has pkgtools.conf.
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 02:12:18PM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
2010/10/5 David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org:
On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:22:46AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
2010/10/2 David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org:
2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't a way for me
to
On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 04:38:34AM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 23:02, David O'Brien obr...@nuxi.org wrote:
For gtk1, I have 13 packages that require it. ?For gtk2, I have 49
packages that require it. ?So I agree their are significantly more ports
that depend on gtk2 --
On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:22:46AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
2010/10/2 David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org:
2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't a way for me
to query if I built with the defaults or not.
Thus leading to every port I manually install looking like it was
2010/10/2 David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:24:59AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
What is sufficiently clean ? I wonder what is not clean in the
options framework, so please tell me then we still can clean it?
When the Ports Collection was invented, ports maintainers
On 10/02/2010 02:49, Ade Lovett wrote:
editors/vim -- fully functional console-only (no X11)
editors/vim-lite -- stripped down version (again, no X11, perhaps even
linked static for use within embedded systems)
editors/vim-gui -- take your pick. X11 is implied. athena/motif widgets
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
However, I still think it would benefit everyone if the maintainer
could provide an explanation for some of the current behavior and
would at least be open to discussion about changing it. The biggest
problem here, IMHO, is not the
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 11:02:01PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
However, I still think it would benefit everyone if the maintainer
could provide an explanation for some of the current behavior and
would at least be open to
On Oct 02, 2010, at 01:02 , David O'Brien wrote:
I guess its time to take another survey. Is Vim one of the few last
gtk1 consumers?
Without touching on any of the other issues, yes, indeed, (a) gtk v1 is
abandonware and (b) vim-with-defaults is one of the last major consumers of
gtk1.
If
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 23:02, David O'Brien obr...@nuxi.org wrote:
For gtk1, I have 13 packages that require it. For gtk2, I have 49
packages that require it. So I agree their are significantly more ports
that depend on gtk2 -- and thus little way to avoid having it installed
on one's
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, David O'Brien wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
However, I still think it would benefit everyone if the maintainer
could provide an explanation for some of the current behavior and
would at least be open to discussion about changing it.
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:24:59AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
What is sufficiently clean ? I wonder what is not clean in the
options framework, so please tell me then we still can clean it?
When the Ports Collection was invented, ports maintainers were to
choose a reasonable set of
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 16:24, Wesley Shields w...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 03:51:42PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 13:54, Wesley Shields w...@freebsd.org wrote:
While I agree that editors/vim
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:34, Lars Engels lars.eng...@0x20.net wrote:
editors/vim-lite is console only.
That seems to disable a lot of other stuff too.
.if !defined(LITE)
MAKE_ARGS+= CONF_OPT_FEAT=--with-features=big
However, I will definitely take a look at it. Thank you for suggesting
2010/9/19 David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 09:21:46PM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
I'm writing the rewrite of the port to update vim to 7.3 and with a
real OPTIONS framework and remove the stupid WITH_VIM_OPTIONS KNOB
that doesn't work. The problem is that David
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 09:21:46PM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
I'm writing the rewrite of the port to update vim to 7.3 and with a
real OPTIONS framework and remove the stupid WITH_VIM_OPTIONS KNOB
that doesn't work. The problem is that David doesn't like clean things
and I think he won't
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
installing to / ~! ugh.
Why is ${PREFIX} being used and not ${LOCALBASE} ???
--
jhell,v
___
2010/9/17 jhell jh...@dataix.net:
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
installing to / ~! ugh.
Why is ${PREFIX} being used and not ${LOCALBASE} ???
--
jhell,v
On 9/17/2010 10:49 AM, jhell wrote:
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
installing to / ~! ugh.
Why is ${PREFIX} being used and not ${LOCALBASE} ???
LOCALBASE is where the ports can find things
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 09:21:46PM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
2010/9/17 jhell jh...@dataix.net:
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
installing to / ~! ugh.
Why is ${PREFIX} being used
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 01:49:37PM -0400, jhell wrote:
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
installing to / ~! ugh.
Why is ${PREFIX} being used and not ${LOCALBASE} ???
I reverted to the
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 13:54, Wesley Shields w...@freebsd.org wrote:
While I agree that editors/vim could use the changes you're discussing,
do you really think such a comment is needed? Attacks like that are not
necessary. Let your code speak for itself.
-- WXS
This port has major issues
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/17/2010 17:19, Wesley Shields wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 01:49:37PM -0400, jhell wrote:
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
installing to /
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 07:18:09PM -0400, jhell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/17/2010 17:19, Wesley Shields wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 01:49:37PM -0400, jhell wrote:
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
registering the files
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 03:51:42PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 13:54, Wesley Shields w...@freebsd.org wrote:
While I agree that editors/vim could use the changes you're discussing,
do you really think such a comment is needed? Attacks like that are not
necessary. Let
On 09/17/2010 19:22, Wesley Shields wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 07:18:09PM -0400, jhell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/17/2010 17:19, Wesley Shields wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 01:49:37PM -0400, jhell wrote:
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed
On 09/17/2010 19:52, Anonymous wrote:
jhell jh...@dataix.net writes:
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
installing to / ~! ugh.
Does the following diff fixes it?
%%
Index:
jhell jh...@dataix.net writes:
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
installing to / ~! ugh.
Does the following diff fixes it?
%%
Index: editors/vim/Makefile
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 16:24, Wesley Shields w...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 03:51:42PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 13:54, Wesley Shields w...@freebsd.org wrote:
While I agree that editors/vim could use the changes you're discussing,
do you really think
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 03:52:17AM +0400, Anonymous wrote:
jhell jh...@dataix.net writes:
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
installing to / ~! ugh.
Does the following diff fixes it?
It
Anonymous swel...@gmail.com writes:
jhell jh...@dataix.net writes:
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
installing to / ~! ugh.
Does the following diff fixes it?
%%
Index:
32 matches
Mail list logo
