On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:14:16 -0800 (PST)
White Hat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was a change in the ports system -
/usr/ports/UPDATING 20070205 - which now renders
portmanager unable to run correctly. While it is
possible to update a single port; i.e., portmanager
/path/to-port/, if I
On Tuesday February 06, 2007 at 08:19:27 (AM) RW wrote:
Probably it's just that someone need to patch it to change
sysutils/portmanager to ports-mgmt/portmanager in the source.
As a workaround try linking portmanager's new port directory to where
its old one was. As there will be a MOVED
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 08:37:15 -0500
Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I reported this problem around 10 am. yesterday. Sometime around 2
pm. a patch was submitted. An updated version of 'portmanager' was in
the port's system by 4 pm. Personally, I consider that a rather quick
fix.
I
There was a change in the ports system -
/usr/ports/UPDATING 20070205 - which now renders
portmanager unable to run correctly. While it is
possible to update a single port; i.e., portmanager
/path/to-port/, if I attempt to do a general ports
update; i.e., portmanager -u, I receive the
following
White Hat wrote:
There was a change in the ports system -
/usr/ports/UPDATING 20070205 - which now renders
portmanager unable to run correctly. While it is
possible to update a single port; i.e., portmanager
/path/to-port/, if I attempt to do a general ports
update; i.e., portmanager -u, I
On Monday February 05, 2007 at 01:33:25 (PM) Eric wrote:
i recommend switching to portmaster. its actively maintained and a lot
better than portmanager
I tried portmaster once, and found it slower and not as through as
portmanager at fully updating a system.
I just discovered the same
Gerard Seibert wrote:
On Monday February 05, 2007 at 01:33:25 (PM) Eric wrote:
i recommend switching to portmaster. its actively maintained and a lot
better than portmanager
I tried portmaster once, and found it slower and not as through as
portmanager at fully updating a system.
I
