-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mel wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 February 2009 09:51:10 n j wrote:
>> (sorry for the previous mail)
>>
>>> The Makefile says:
>>> ...
>>> So I'll bet some money that it's docbook.
>> Correct.
>>
>>> Does it improve if you add these to /etc/make.conf:
>>> ...
Hey Greg,
perhaps you might want to know about this. Sorry for using the list
for unicast mail, but (as seen below) I obviously can't contact you
directly.
Regards,
--
Nino
-- Forwarded message --
...
The mail system
: host mail1.sourcehosting.net[74.205.51.4
Hi Greg,
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Greg Larkin wrote:
> I'm the maintainer of security/logcheck, and I apologize for not
> catching up with my inbox sooner. I just saw your message, and the same
> issue was reported by someone else a couple of weeks ago.
sorry if the subject (the "hell"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Cowart wrote:
> n j wrote:
>> could anyone help me what command should I use to find out which
>> logcheck-required port _exactly_ is trying to install half of the X
>> libraries?
>
> The Makefile says:
>
> | BUILD_DEPENDS= docbook-to-man:${PO
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 09:51:10 n j wrote:
> (sorry for the previous mail)
>
> > The Makefile says:
> > ...
> > So I'll bet some money that it's docbook.
>
> Correct.
>
> > Does it improve if you add these to /etc/make.conf:
> > ...
>
> No, the result is exactly the same.
>
> > # finddep.php s
(sorry for the previous mail)
> The Makefile says:
> ...
> So I'll bet some money that it's docbook.
Correct.
> Does it improve if you add these to /etc/make.conf:
> ...
No, the result is exactly the same.
> # finddep.php security/logcheck x11/xorg-libraries
> /usr/ports/textproc/docbook-to-ma
> The Makefile says:
> ...
> So I'll bet some money that it's docbook.
Correct.
> Does it improve if you add these to /etc/make.conf:
> ...
No, the result is exactly the same.
> # finddep.php security/logcheck x11/xorg-libraries
> /usr/ports/textproc/docbook-to-man: /usr/local/libdata/xorg/libr
On Thursday 12 February 2009 03:22:04 n j wrote:
> Hello,
>
> could anyone help me what command should I use to find out which
> logcheck-required port _exactly_ is trying to install half of the X
> libraries?
>
> The logcheck port lists the following build depends (output of
> pretty-print-build-d
n j wrote:
> could anyone help me what command should I use to find out which
> logcheck-required port _exactly_ is trying to install half of the X
> libraries?
The Makefile says:
| BUILD_DEPENDS= docbook-to-man:${PORTSDIR}/textproc/docbook-to-man
| RUN_DEPENDS=lockfile:${PORTSDIR}/mail/proc
something as simple as logcheck really
needs all of these dependencies and I can't trace it far enough to see
which dependency is pulling all these X libs. How can I trace this
dependency hell? Is logcheck really this "heavy" or is the port that
bad?
Thank
Bill Moran wrote:
> You should be able to use portupgrade with the -o option to replace
> mod_php4 with php4. See the man page for portupgrade for examples
> (the EXAMPLES section in particular).
>
> In my experience, this works 90%+ of the time. If this is a
> production system, however, you'll
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:15:38 -0600 (CST)
Philip Hallstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Plus, this...
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] php4-cli]$ sudo pkg_delete -n mod_php4-4.4.1,1
> > pkg_delete: package 'mod_php4-4.4.1,1' is required by these other packages
> > and may not be deinstalled:
> > cacti-0
I'm trying to install Cacti, and it builds and installs fine. But, it's
looking for the php command-line binary as well, which the port did not pull
in for some reason.
So, I go to build php-cli, and install it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] php4-cli]$ sudo make install
===> Installing for php4-cli-4.4.2_
Hey people,
I'm trying to install Cacti, and it builds and installs fine. But, it's
looking for the php command-line binary as well, which the port did not pull
in for some reason.
So, I go to build php-cli, and install it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] php4-cli]$ sudo make install
===> Installing for ph
At 2004-04-20T14:19:56Z, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I get Java to compile and install, however Openoffice chokes because it
> starts to update all the Gnome stuff. I cannot get the update script to
> run sucessfully [...]
What problems are you having with the Gnome upgrade? If you can resolve
>
> I am trying to install OpenOffice 1.1.1 on a box with a fresh install of
> 5.2.1Release. I get Java to compile and install, however Openoffice
> chokes because it starts to update all the Gnome stuff. I cannot get the
> update script to run sucessfully, so now the Openoffice install dies and
On Tuesday 20 April 2004 09:19 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am trying to install OpenOffice 1.1.1 on a box with a fresh install of
> 5.2.1Release. I get Java to compile and install, however Openoffice
> chokes because it starts to update all the Gnome stuff. I cannot get the
> update script t
I am trying to install OpenOffice 1.1.1 on a box with a fresh install of
5.2.1Release. I get Java to compile and install, however Openoffice
chokes because it starts to update all the Gnome stuff. I cannot get the
update script to run sucessfully, so now the Openoffice install dies and
Gnome is h
, James
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: Dependency hell
On Apr 19, 2004, at 2:34 PM, Ziller, James wrote:
> So then is there a way that the ports/package system can automatically
> handle replacing libfoo.so.3 with libfoo.so.4, so that packages
> compiled to use libfoo.so.3
On Apr 19, 2004, at 2:34 PM, Ziller, James wrote:
So then is there a way that the ports/package system can automatically
handle replacing libfoo.so.3 with libfoo.so.4, so that packages
compiled to
use libfoo.so.3 can use libfoo.so.4 instead (assuming the new version
is
backward compatable)?
If th
arles Swiger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 1:18 PM
> To: Ziller, James
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: Dependency hell
>
>
> On Apr 19, 2004, at 10:28 AM, Ziller, James wrote:
> > So in other words I do have to recompile everythin
should be a symlink to the version of the library that's installed)?
Thanks for the responses,
James
-Original Message-
From: Charles Swiger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 1:18 PM
To: Ziller, James
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: Dependency hell
On Apr 19, 2004, at 10:28 AM, Ziller, James wrote:
So in other words I do have to recompile everything that depends on a
given
library just because that library is updated to a slightly newer
version?:(
Well, you could simply use the old version of the library.
It's not especially hard to write
"Ziller, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So in other words I do have to recompile everything that depends on a given
> library just because that library is updated to a slightly newer version?:(
Yes. The developers of the library chose not to maintain backward
compatibility. Fortunately, t
In the last episode (Apr 19), Ziller, James said:
> So in other words I do have to recompile everything that depends on a
> given library just because that library is updated to a slightly
> newer version? :(
If you want those dependant programs to use the new library, yes. It's
not required thou
: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: Dependency hell
"Ziller, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Making a simple symlink from libexpat.so.4 to libexpat.so.5 will allow
> xterm to run again - but of course that's a dirty disgusting way to do
> things. From wha
"Ziller, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Making a simple symlink from libexpat.so.4 to libexpat.so.5 will allow xterm
> to run again - but of course that's a dirty disgusting way to do things.
> From what I understood, pkgdb is the tool to fix this, but running pkgdb -F
> will not prompt me t
Hello all,
It's been awhile since I used FreeBSD but I've been itching to try
5.x so I installed it the other day. Im having big problems with the ports
collection and dependencies even though I've read through multiple docs on
using portupgrade which is suppose to make dealing with depen
28 matches
Mail list logo
