> On 08 ott 2016, at 15:46, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> I suppose it's possible someone managed to install it in a secondary
> non-standard prefix, if they also had the dependencies installed in the
> standard prefix.
Yeah, that is indeed possible. I commited r153706 with
> On Oct 8, 2016, at 8:43 AM, Aljaž Srebrnič wrote:
>
>> On 08 ott 2016, at 11:40, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> /opt/local should not be hardcoded.
>
> Of course. Should I revbump it just to be sure? It wouldn’t build in a
> non-standard prefix
> On 08 ott 2016, at 11:40, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> /opt/local should not be hardcoded.
Of course. Should I revbump it just to be sure? It wouldn’t build in a
non-standard prefix anyway.
--
Aljaž Srebrnič a.k.a g5pw
My public key: https://g5pw.me/key
Key fingerprint
setting the
> patchfiles again would clobber the first patch
> Closes #49203
> Added: trunk/dports/sysutils/bacula/files/patch-configure-qt4.diff (0 =>
> 153697)
> --- trunk/dports/sysutils/bacula/files/patch-configure-qt4.diff
> (rev 0)
> +++ trun