> On 11 May2021, at 8:13 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On May 11, 2021, at 14:57, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
>
>> On 11 May2021, at 12:59 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 11, 2021, at 11:26, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
>>>
On 11 May2021, at 12:20 PM, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
>
On May 11, 2021, at 14:57, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
> On 11 May2021, at 12:59 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> On May 11, 2021, at 11:26, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 May2021, at 12:20 PM, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
>>>
Sorry, but cannot find the relevant syntax in docs…
How
On May 11, 2021, at 11:26, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
> On 11 May2021, at 12:20 PM, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but cannot find the relevant syntax in docs…
>>
>> How do I exclude SEVERAL ports from the “port upgrade outdated and not ….”
>> command?
>>
>> (sbcl has fatal build error, so
Specifically, maxima depends on sbcl. But if I try…
port upgrade outdated and not \(maxima or sbcl\)
...or even...
port upgrade outdated and not \(maxima or sbcl\)
...it still tries to upgrade sbcl.
What am I doing wrong?
> On 11 May2021, at 12:20 PM, Murray Eisenberg
>
Sorry, but cannot find the relevant syntax in docs…
How do I exclude SEVERAL ports from the “port upgrade outdated and not ….”
command?
(sbcl has fatal build error, so other ports dependent on it cannot upgrade
either:
if I try “port upgrade outdated and not sbcl” it still tries to upgrade
Le 11/05/2021 à 10:39, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :
Looking at
https://github.com/macports/macports-www/
I can't find a license statement that applies to the stuff in the
repository. So: What license is it under? I suggest to add a small
`README.md` file that mention it...
Werner
Looking at
https://github.com/macports/macports-www/
I can't find a license statement that applies to the stuff in the
repository. So: What license is it under? I suggest to add a small
`README.md` file that mention it...
Werner
> On 11 May 2021, at 01:11, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 9, 2021, at 17:07, Gerben Wierda wrote:
>
>> I relied on the fact that man page/help of reclaim said it would not remove
>> active installs. So, having read that, I assumed it was unable to damage the
>> running setup and I
