hmm, on Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:47:15AM +0200, Marc Espie said that
You won't get any cookie from me, because you're attacking this from the
wrong point of view.
the basic premise, perhaps incorrect was, that i don't
touch the packages i modify, just overwrite a couple
of files and delete some
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 09:28:29AM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
hmm, on Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:47:15AM +0200, Marc Espie said that
You won't get any cookie from me, because you're attacking this from the
wrong point of view.
the basic premise, perhaps incorrect was, that i don't
touch
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 07:09:38PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
here is what i want to do:
i am using the ports framework to automate
a process which overwrites/deletes some existing
files of installed packages.
overwriting is not a problem and deleting these
mutilated packages with
here is what i want to do:
i am using the ports framework to automate
a process which overwrites/deletes some existing
files of installed packages.
overwriting is not a problem and deleting these
mutilated packages with pkg_delete -q is ok
too. but how can i delete some existing files
before
* frantisek holop [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081015 13:14]:
here is what i want to do:
i am using the ports framework to automate
a process which overwrites/deletes some existing
files of installed packages.
Doesn't this compromise the pkg system right from the start? The point
of packages is to
hmm, on Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 02:39:57PM -0400, Jim Razmus said that
Doesn't this compromise the pkg system right from the start? The point
of packages is to manage the orderly addition and removal of software
while accounting for dependencies.
yes it does :] read on.
Shouldn't the old
