On 16 January 2018 at 05:33, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> The reasons for not having a 10.5 Intel builder are that no users should need
> it (all users on 10.5 Intel should upgrade to 10.6) and the packages it would
> create would take up disk space on all mirrors; we have already had one
> MacPorts
On Jan 13, 2018, at 16:02, Tom Scott wrote:
> I sorry to send this question to you directly but my Macports question seems
> not to fit into the unusual cases so I’m not quite sure where to direct it.
>
> I’m using MacOS high Sierra 10.13.2 and prior to installing Macports Xcode
> 9.2 was inst
On Jan 14, 2018, at 14:47, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> On 14 January 2018 at 11:40, Chris Jones wrote:
>>
>> A buildbot exists for PPC, but not intel
>>
>> The assumption I believe being if you have an intel machine, you should
>> update at least to 10.6... the 10.5 buildbot exists because that is
On Jan 14, 2018, at 19:26, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> The 10.13.2 supplemental update in-activates the root account if enabled
> Luckily, on the machines I've updated, I also had a normal admin
> account, so no big deal ; but I also have a machine with no normal admin
> account, so if it does th
William H. Magill wrote:
> As I understood the description of the patch/update — the Root Account is
> only de-activated if it has no password.
> Making it just like all previous releases of OSX.
It wasn't an issue of having an _active_ root account
The root account wasn't active; but you could s
On Jan 15 13:39:34, macint...@mathiesen.info wrote:
> Apple shouldn't disable the root account through a supplementary update
> when I've chosen to activate it. They have _never_ done this before !
I agree that Apple shouldn't be touching the users setup,
such as enable/disable account's login. Bu
As I understood the description of the patch/update — the Root Account is only
de-activated if it has no password.
Making it just like all previous releases of OSX.
If you have activated the Root Account and supplied a password, then nothing
happens.
Read Mac Rumors description:
https://www.m
Jan Stary wrote:
> On Jan 15 10:21:05, macint...@mathiesen.info wrote:
>> One of the things I do on my boxes is activating the root account;
>
> Meaning that you can now do what?
> Login as root on a console?
> Login as root via ssh?
>
>> and in some cases removing the other admin accounts,
>
On Jan 15 10:21:05, macint...@mathiesen.info wrote:
> Jan Stary wrote:
> > I don't get it. 10.13.2 does _not_ have a root account by default? Why?
> > And if it does, how is that a problem? It's UNIX, of course there is
> > a 'root' account.
>
> macOS out-of-the-box has a de-activated root account
Jan Stary wrote:
> I don't get it. 10.13.2 does _not_ have a root account by default? Why?
> And if it does, how is that a problem? It's UNIX, of course there is
> a 'root' account.
macOS out-of-the-box has a de-activated root account; eg you can't log
in as root or ssh into the box as root. The r
It suddenly struck me what the difference between the systems are :
The two computers
with the problems have SSDs and Apple_APFS
without any issues have "Spinning Rust" and Apple_HFS
--
Bjarne D Mathiesen
Korsør ; Danmark ; Europa
---
11 matches
Mail list logo
