Michael Powell nightre...@hotmail.com writes:
David Arendt wrote:
Hi,
well I don't actually now which package it was, but I compiled gdm (so
it should be one of it's dependencies). A compilation resulted in a non
working gdm (something with pam support not found on execution). Upon
Hi,
When I did the test, I used FreeBSD 8.2 amd64 using the ports collection
delivered with this distribution.
Yesterday I did a checkout of the latest ports tree. I compiled bash,
xorg, xfce and gdm using the default options. When trying to login using
gdm, it still complains about a missing
David Arendt wrote:
Hi,
well I don't actually now which package it was, but I compiled gdm (so
it should be one of it's dependencies). A compilation resulted in a non
working gdm (something with pam support not found on execution). Upon
installing gdm and is dependencies from packages,
On 7/17/11, David Arendt ad...@prnet.org wrote:
When I did the test, I used FreeBSD 8.2 amd64 using the ports collection
delivered with this distribution.
I see. Since that time, there have been very few changes to the
version of the base system used to build the packages for 8, but more
to
? If not, it would be very good to make it available as ports
default options seem to be different from options used to compile
official packages.
Thanks in advance
Bye,
David Arendt
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org
package collection available
somewhere ? If not, it would be very good to make it available as ports
default options seem to be different from options used to compile
official packages.
Official packages are compiled using the default options in each port.
What have you found where
used to compile the official freebsd package collection available
somewhere ? If not, it would be very good to make it available as ports
default options seem to be different from options used to compile
official packages.
Official packages are compiled using the default options in each
? If not, it would be very good to make it available as ports
default options seem to be different from options used to compile
official packages.
As far as I know, the default options are used to compile the standard
packages. Where did you think that there were differences? The
official builds
well I don't actually now which package it was, but I compiled gdm (so
it should be one of it's dependencies). A compilation resulted in a non
working gdm (something with pam support not found on execution). Upon
installing gdm and is dependencies from packages, everything worked
correctly.