On 2016-04-26, at 7:47 AM, Geoffrey Odhner wrote:
> I wish what you say were true, but Time Machine eventually can get to a point
> where it requires you to delete everything or start a new backup volume.
> This can happen when its size is considerably larger than the
El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2016, Ryan Schmidt
escribió:
>
> On Apr 26, 2016, at 5:11 PM, César wrote:
>
> > El martes, 26 de abril de 2016, Ryan Schmidt escribió:
> >
> >> On Apr 26, 2016, at 4:31 PM, César wrote:
> >>
> >> > After installing GCC 5.3.0 in Tiger, I
On Apr 26, 2016, at 5:11 PM, César wrote:
> El martes, 26 de abril de 2016, Ryan Schmidt escribió:
>
>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 4:31 PM, César wrote:
>>
>> > After installing GCC 5.3.0 in Tiger, I realized that if I invoke ld from
>> > the command line, I'm actually invoking /opt/local/bin/ld. I
El martes, 26 de abril de 2016, Ryan Schmidt
escribió:
>
> On Apr 26, 2016, at 4:31 PM, César wrote:
>
> > After installing GCC 5.3.0 in Tiger, I realized that if I invoke ld from
> the command line, I'm actually invoking /opt/local/bin/ld. I realize that
> GCC 5.3.0 may
On Apr 26, 2016, at 4:31 PM, César wrote:
> After installing GCC 5.3.0 in Tiger, I realized that if I invoke ld from the
> command line, I'm actually invoking /opt/local/bin/ld. I realize that GCC
> 5.3.0 may require a newer linker than the default in Xcode for Tiger, but
> even if I select
Hi,
After installing GCC 5.3.0 in Tiger, I realized that if I invoke ld from
the command line, I'm actually invoking /opt/local/bin/ld. I realize that
GCC 5.3.0 may require a newer linker than the default in Xcode for Tiger,
but even if I select GCC 4.0.1 as the current compiler, ld still invokes
On Tuesday April 26 2016 13:06:20 Brandon Allbery wrote:
>I think you can rely on that for maybe 95% of things, but the remaining
>5%... I've had to help people fix things afterward.
Do you remember what kind of issue? I'm curious to know under what conditions
"base" cares whether supposedly
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:02 PM, René J.V. wrote:
> Is that really a problem? IIRC I've already had restored files that had
> "mysteriously" gone missing by (force) deactivating the corresponding port
> and then activating it again
I think you can rely on that for maybe
On Tuesday April 26 2016 09:28:09 Brandon Allbery wrote:
>The registry's a bit of a risk, since it will be logically inconsistent if
>you aren't backing up the whole install. If I needed to worry about this,
Is that really a problem? IIRC I've already had restored files that had
"mysteriously"
I wish what you say were true, but Time Machine eventually can get to a point
where it requires you to delete everything or start a new backup volume. This
can happen when its size is considerably larger than the size of the drive it's
backing up. I know this because it has happened to me.
René J.V. Bertin wrote on 26.04.2016 13:19:
Superfluous backing up of course ends up wasting significant amount of space on
the backup disk esp. for developers who regularly to something like `port -n
upgrade --force` after an incremental rebuild with only minimal changes. It is
also costly
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:19 AM, René J.V. wrote:
> Is there a good way to exclude most of MacPorts from being backed up while
> retaining the possibility to reinstall without rebuilding? I'm thinking of
> backing up selected bits from var/macports (notably the registry and
Hi,
I'm probably not the only one who noticed: after deactivating and reactivating
a large port like Qt5, the next Time Machine backup announces (or at least
claims) to have much more to backup that one would expect (over 1.5Gb in case
for Qt5). That suggests that the backup engine looks at
13 matches
Mail list logo