Hey all,
i'm surprised discovering that installing rb-fxruby installed it for ruby
1.8.x.
and also installed ruby under /opt
i'm using mostly ruby 1.9 (macports) and i'd like to know how to install
FXRuby for that version of ruby, if any.
also i'm surprised to see that when i look for ruby now
Hi, I cannot get the gnome working by following the steps written in wiki/GNOME
To debug the problem I ran the commands which written in
~/.xinitrc.d/90-gnome.sh line by line in the xterm.
sudo launchctl load -w /Library/LaunchDaemons/org.freedesktop.dbus-system.plist
launchctl load -w
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 4:13 PM, benzwt chin ben...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I cannot get the gnome working by following the steps written in
wiki/GNOME
To debug the problem I ran the commands which written in
~/.xinitrc.d/90-gnome.sh line by line in the xterm.
sudo launchctl load -w
On May 30, 2010, at 04:28, benzwt chin wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 4:13 PM, benzwt chin wrote:
dyld: Library not loaded: /opt/local/lib/libXinerama.1.dylib
Referenced from: /opt/local/bin/quartz-wm
Reason: no suitable image found. Did find:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 17:13, Joshua Root j...@macports.org wrote:
Josh
Very odd indeed. I can't replicate this with test ports with the same
versions and revisions. I take it 'port echo outdated' also gives you
nothing?
Yes
$ port outdated
The following installed ports are outdated:
gcc44
On 2010-5-31 12:47 , Adam Mercer wrote:
The gcc44 port was at version 4.4.1_0 a while ago, i.e. for at least 7
months, and as I upgrade my outdated ports about once a week this has
been a problem for a while and can't be related to the switch to
1.9.0-rc1. This has started showing up as of
On 2010-5-31 13:32 , Joshua Root wrote:
On 2010-5-31 12:47 , Adam Mercer wrote:
The gcc44 port was at version 4.4.1_0 a while ago, i.e. for at least 7
months, and as I upgrade my outdated ports about once a week this has
been a problem for a while and can't be related to the switch to
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 22:32, Joshua Root j...@macports.org wrote:
Is there a way the registry could have got corrupted in some strange
way that would result port to think gcc44 wasn't installed?
Maybe. Post the contents of the receipt.
I've uploaded it to
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 22:41, Joshua Root j...@macports.org wrote:
The quickest way to get to the bottom of this may be for you to do some
good old fashioned printf debugging in get_outdated_ports, to see at
what point gcc44 gets excluded from the list.
I'll take a look, although I'm not
On 2010-5-31 13:53 , Adam Mercer wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 22:41, Joshua Root j...@macports.org wrote:
The quickest way to get to the bottom of this may be for you to do some
good old fashioned printf debugging in get_outdated_ports, to see at
what point gcc44 gets excluded from the
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 23:01, Joshua Root j...@macports.org wrote:
You want proc get_outdated_ports, which in trunk starts at line 707 of
src/port/port.tcl. Hopefully it's not too hard to follow.
Thanks, found it... just got to learn the basic of tcl now :-)
Cheers
Adam
On 2010-5-31 13:52 , Adam Mercer wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 22:32, Joshua Root j...@macports.org wrote:
Is there a way the registry could have got corrupted in some strange
way that would result port to think gcc44 wasn't installed?
Maybe. Post the contents of the receipt.
I've
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 23:06, Joshua Root j...@macports.org wrote:
Well, that actually explains a lot. The receipt has 'epoch 2', while the
current portfile is at epoch 1. No idea how it got there unless you used
a modified portfile at some point, but in any case the epoch value would
have
On 2010-5-31 14:14 , Adam Mercer wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 23:06, Joshua Root j...@macports.org wrote:
Well, that actually explains a lot. The receipt has 'epoch 2', while the
current portfile is at epoch 1. No idea how it got there unless you used
a modified portfile at some point, but
Maybe you should ask whoever you heard this from. If you can't specify a
particular technical difference, I doubt anybody can point you to the
right setting even if it exists.
On 2010-5-31 14:27 , Danny Michel wrote:
any ideas?
On 5/29/10 6:27 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
Well, maybe you should
On 2010-5-31 14:38 , Brandon Allbery wrote:
On May 31, 2010, at 00:29 , Joshua Root wrote:
Maybe you should ask whoever you heard this from. If you can't specify a
particular technical difference, I doubt anybody can point you to the
right setting even if it exists.
I suspect he means
On May 31, 2010, at 00:56 , Joshua Root wrote:
On 2010-5-31 14:38 , Brandon Allbery wrote:
On May 31, 2010, at 00:29 , Joshua Root wrote:
Maybe you should ask whoever you heard this from. If you can't
specify a
particular technical difference, I doubt anybody can point you to
the
right
17 matches
Mail list logo
