On 20 May 2006, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:09:15AM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
I have a simpler question: is there any plan to make installing
xbase a requirement in the foreseeable future?
no. nothing in {base,comp,man,misc,game,etc}XX.tgz depends on
On Monday 22 May 2006 17:27, Liviu Daia wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase this. How realistic will be to run an OpenBSD
firewall or router without xbase a few years from now?
Very, in my opinion.
With the release of 3.9, there seems to be a new trend among port
maintainers to make running
On 22 May 2006, Lars Hansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 22 May 2006 17:27, Liviu Daia wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase this. How realistic will be to run an
OpenBSD firewall or router without xbase a few years from now?
Very, in my opinion.
With the release of 3.9, there seems
* Liviu Daia wrote:
The consistent answer I got on ports@ was that it has been decided
that installing X is not a showstopper, and a number of personal
attacks for suggesting otherwise. :-) Which is why I'm now asking if
this is the official position.
Yes, that _is_ the official
On 22 May 2006, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Liviu Daia wrote:
The consistent answer I got on ports@ was that it has been
decided that installing X is not a showstopper, and a number of
personal attacks for suggesting otherwise. :-) Which is why I'm now
asking if this is
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:27:18PM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
On 20 May 2006, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:09:15AM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
I have a simpler question: is there any plan to make installing
xbase a requirement in the foreseeable
On 22 May 2006, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:27:18PM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
On 20 May 2006, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:09:15AM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
I have a simpler question: is there any plan to make
Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:27:18PM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
On 20 May 2006, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:09:15AM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
I have a simpler question: is there any plan to make installing
xbase a
Liviu Daia [2006-05-22, 12:27:18]:
Ok, let me rephrase this. How realistic will be to run an OpenBSD
firewall or router without xbase a few years from now?
Huh? You do not and will not need xbase to run a firewall/router.
With the release of 3.9, there seems to be a new trend among
On 2006/05/22 14:42, steven mestdagh wrote:
Clearly, this no_x11 stuff has a low priority.
The error message could use work though;
Can't install gd-2.0.33p2: lib not found fontconfig.3.0
Even by looking in the dependency tree:
jpeg-6bp3, png-1.2.8, libiconv-1.9.2p3
Maybe it's in a dependent
On 22 May 2006, steven mestdagh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Liviu Daia [2006-05-22, 12:27:18]:
Ok, let me rephrase this. How realistic will be to run an
OpenBSD firewall or router without xbase a few years from now?
Huh? You do not and will not need xbase to run a firewall/router.
On Monday 22 May 2006 Liviu Daia wrote:
On 22 May 2006, Lars Hansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 22 May 2006 17:27, Liviu Daia wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase this. How realistic will be to run an
OpenBSD firewall or router without xbase a few years from now?
Extremely realistic.
On 22 May 2006, Can Erkin Acar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 22 May 2006 Liviu Daia wrote:
On 22 May 2006, Lars Hansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 22 May 2006 17:27, Liviu Daia wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase this. How realistic will be to run an
OpenBSD firewall or
my reply to this thread has no references b/c most of the prior stuff is
irrelevant to the contents of this reply.
the reason nobody wants to accomodate liviu is that it takes WORK, namely other
people's valuable time that could be spent working on code that 1 person is
agitating about. in all
On 22 May 2006, Jacob Yocom-Piatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my reply to this thread has no references b/c most of the prior stuff
is irrelevant to the contents of this reply.
the reason nobody wants to accomodate liviu is that it takes WORK,
namely other people's valuable time that could be
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 06:15:02PM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
(1) My question was about the official policy. When / if I'm pointed to
a written form of that policy (which is basically what I'm asking
for), I might consider submitting a patch to it. :-)
You have received many replies
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 02:52:59PM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
On 22 May 2006, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:27:18PM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
On 20 May 2006, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:09:15AM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
could we now close this thread and go back to work?
On 22 May 2006, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 02:52:59PM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
On 22 May 2006, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:27:18PM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
On 20 May 2006, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What most ports (at least gd/php and maybe tk) need from X11 is nothing more
than libfreetype
My simple solution is to copy /usr/X11R6/lib/libfreetype.so.X.X from
a box with X11 to the server without X11. Just copy it to /usr/local/lib
and everything works.
I mean, you could make libs into its
On Monday 22 May 2006 20:42, steven mestdagh wrote:
If you are still talking about making no_x11 flavors for the gd library
and everything that depends on it, I doubt this will happen.
You wouldnt really need to make no_x11 flavors of everything that depends on
GD, only GD itself would need
On Monday 22 May 2006 22:28, Liviu Daia wrote:
If you still don't get it, my problem is that,
with the current policy, three years from now there will be 50+ other
ports depending on X for no reason.
That's a pretty wild speculation considering the only problem now is that *1*
console
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 02:43:36AM +0200, viq wrote:
Sorry if it sounds otherwise, I have no intention of telling anyone what to
do
and how, just sharing some idea I had that could possibly satisfy both sides
of the argument, and maybe allow to avoid bi-weekly reocurring question.
Seeing
On 19 May 2006, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 02:43:36AM +0200, viq wrote:
Sorry if it sounds otherwise, I have no intention of telling
anyone what to do and how, just sharing some idea I had that could
possibly satisfy both sides of the argument, and maybe
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:09:15AM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
On 19 May 2006, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, I'm not suggesting that xbase be a port; I'm just offering some
perspective.
as far as biweekly question, that should be a clue that the people
asking the question
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:09:15AM +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
I have a simpler question: is there any plan to make installing
xbase a requirement in the foreseeable future?
no. nothing in {base,comp,man,misc,game,etc}XX.tgz depends on anything
from xbaseXX.tgz, and that is extremely
Sorry if it sounds otherwise, I have no intention of telling anyone what to do
and how, just sharing some idea I had that could possibly satisfy both sides
of the argument, and maybe allow to avoid bi-weekly reocurring question.
Seeing all those why can't I compile port XX? install xbase but I
27 matches
Mail list logo
