If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 09:21:35PM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> > If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 07:57:31AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
>
> > Haven't been to Macau...but there's lots of jade in Hong Kong t
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 09:21:35PM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> openjade is a descendent of jade (I don't think jade is being developed
> anymore). For some reason, jade has some problems running on the Alpha.
> I asked nik once why we don't just use openjade for everything...I think
> the answer
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 09:21:35PM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 07:57:31AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> Haven't been to Macau...but there's lots of jade in Hong Kong too. :-)
One hour by fast boat, I was surprised. Worth
If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 07:57:31AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> > Oh heck. Alphas build docs with openjade, not jade. We forgot to deal
> > with that in the definition of ${MINIMALDOCPORTS}, so release builds
> > containing docs but not a ports t
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 05:50:54PM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 05:42:08PM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 07:57:31AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> > > [Removing mi from explicit recipients to spare him the agony.]
>
> > I'll try when I get back home. I
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 05:42:08PM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 07:57:31AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> > [Removing mi from explicit recipients to spare him the agony.]
> I'll try when I get back home. I just managed to lockup the DS10 remotely
> (grr) by typing "show power
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 07:57:31AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> [Removing mi from explicit recipients to spare him the agony.]
Sorry mi, should have done that myself.
> If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
>
> > > > The DS10 is now rolling tarballs (with NODOC=YES) so that make release
[Removing mi from explicit recipients to spare him the agony.]
If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > > The DS10 is now rolling tarballs (with NODOC=YES) so that make release
> > > appears to have run OK. I can try (overnight) a new make release without
> > > the NODOC and see what to
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 04:11:18PM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
>
> > Eh, that was the other machine, yes, the build went OK and the
> > ports necessary ports for doc building were also correctly built.
>
> OK, cool.
Apparantly not.
> > The DS10 is
If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> Eh, that was the other machine, yes, the build went OK and the
> ports necessary ports for doc building were also correctly built.
OK, cool.
> The DS10 is now rolling tarballs (with NODOC=YES) so that make release
> appears to have run OK. I can t
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 10:52:50AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
>
> > This probably also explains why make release succeeded yesterday on another
> > alpha, it seems to be fixed now:
>
> OK. I think I may have been slightly wrong on what ailed the g
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 10:32:48AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 10:25:41AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> > >
> >
> > make NODOC=YES ?
> >
> > I know that's not the "real" answer.
>
> Nope. We need an RC to test -- this means as close to the real release
> as we can get
If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> This probably also explains why make release succeeded yesterday on another
> alpha, it seems to be fixed now:
OK. I think I may have been slightly wrong on what ailed the graphics/
gd port (apologies to mi), but if it's fixed, this is a moot poin
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 10:25:41AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 09:05:16AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> > which is deprecated, use instead"
> > gdft.c:36: freetype/freetype.h: No such file or directory
> > gdft.c:37: freet
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 10:32:48AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 10:25:41AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> > >
> >
> > make NODOC=YES ?
> >
> > I know that's not the "real" answer.
>
> Nope. We need an RC to test -- this means as close to the real release
> as we can get
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 10:25:41AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 09:05:16AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> > > If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > > > I get the impression that even if a machine has the necessary
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 10:25:41AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> >
>
> make NODOC=YES ?
>
> I know that's not the "real" answer.
Nope. We need an RC to test -- this means as close to the real release
as we can get.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hacke
If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 09:05:16AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> > If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > > I get the impression that even if a machine has the necessary docproj
> > > buildtools ports installed a 'make release' builds them
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 09:05:16AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > I get the impression that even if a machine has the necessary docproj
> > buildtools ports installed a 'make release' builds them from scratch
> > again? Is this true? And why?
>
> Ye
If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> I get the impression that even if a machine has the necessary docproj
> buildtools ports installed a 'make release' builds them from scratch
> again? Is this true? And why?
Yes, it's true. We need to rebuild the docproj ports inside the chroot
area
20 matches
Mail list logo
