On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 22:27:23 +0200
Rainer Hurling wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> for me it helps to set the following link
>
> ln -s /compat/linux/lib/libssl.so.0.9.8g /compat/linux/lib/libssl.so.5
>
> Hope this helps,
> Rainer Hurling
>
>
> On 08.08.2009 21:25 (UTC+2), Doug Barton wrote:
> > I vague
Juergen Lock wrote:
> In article <4a7dd122.10...@freebsd.org> you write:
>> I vaguely recall seeing something about this, but don't recall if
>> there was a resolution.
>
> Well head defaults to f10 linux base now
I've been using that for a while even before it became the default.
> Btw, any pa
Hi Doug,
for me it helps to set the following link
ln -s /compat/linux/lib/libssl.so.0.9.8g /compat/linux/lib/libssl.so.5
Hope this helps,
Rainer Hurling
On 08.08.2009 21:25 (UTC+2), Doug Barton wrote:
I vaguely recall seeing something about this, but don't recall if
there was a resolution.
In article <4a7dd122.10...@freebsd.org> you write:
>I vaguely recall seeing something about this, but don't recall if
>there was a resolution.
Well head defaults to f10 linux base now so I'd say you'll need
at least the proper libflashsupport for that (the one installed by
the www/linux-f10-flashp
I vaguely recall seeing something about this, but don't recall if
there was a resolution.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To
Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> Ok cool. I would definitely like to be able to specify things
> dynamically on a per-run basis as well though without adding +IGNOREME
> files. I often want to special case the exclusion of ports one time only.
I agree that it's something that we need to be able to do. I
Doug Barton wrote:
Lawrence Stewart wrote:
Today, I again had need of the ability to exclude multiple ports from an
update run. It turns out your tip doesn't work with portmaster, though I
suspect it would with portupgrade.
For now, if you need to exclude more than one port you can check the
Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> Today, I again had need of the ability to exclude multiple ports from an
> update run. It turns out your tip doesn't work with portmaster, though I
> suspect it would with portupgrade.
For now, if you need to exclude more than one port you can check the
man page about +I
Lawrence Stewart wrote:
Frederique Rijsdijk wrote:
Lawrence Stewart wrote:
Hijacking the thread slightly, but is there a way to exclude multiple
ports using the -x switch (or multiple -x switches)? Logically, I want
to be able to do something like this:
portmaster -a -x '*foo*' -x '*bar*'
p
On 8/8/2009 12:31 PM, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
On 8/8/2009 10:43 AM, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
/usr/ports/devel/apr# make
===> apr-gdbm-db42-1.3.8.1.3.9 depends on file: /usr/local/bin/python2.6
But python IS there, exactly as stated in the first line above.
What gives? I just
Jonathan wrote:
On 8/8/2009 10:43 AM, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
/usr/ports/devel/apr# make
===> apr-gdbm-db42-1.3.8.1.3.9 depends on file: /usr/local/bin/python2.6
But python IS there, exactly as stated in the first line above.
What gives? I just went through going from python 2.5 to 2.6.
Do
/usr/ports/devel/apr# make
===> apr-gdbm-db42-1.3.8.1.3.9 depends on file:
/usr/local/bin/python2.6 - found
===> apr-gdbm-db42-1.3.8.1.3.9 depends on file:
/usr/local/bin/perl5.8.9 - found
===> apr-gdbm-db42-1.3.8.1.3.9 depends on file:
/usr/local/bin/automake-1.9 - found
===> apr-gdbm-
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:34:42 +0200
piotr.smy...@heron.pl wrote:
> I wonder what is the reason we do check-conflicts so late only in
> the _INSTALL_SEQ. Why not put it into _SANITY_SEQ. Right now one
> has to wait to fetch a dist, build port and suddenly before
> installing a conflicts pops up an
Hello,
I've just installed the latest KDE 4.3 and amarok-2.1.1, with the following
setup :
-
-- The following external packages were located on your system.
-- This installation will have the extra features provided by t
I wonder what is the reason we do check-conflicts so late only in
the _INSTALL_SEQ. Why not put it into _SANITY_SEQ. Right now one
has to wait to fetch a dist, build port and suddenly before
installing a conflicts pops up and one has to resolve it. Quite
annoying in some cases.
--
Piotr Sm
Hi,
there is a PR submitted two weeks ago - ports/137112: [mail/courier] update to
0.62 - with no sign of activity on it until yet. Could some committer look at
it? I would like to see it in before 8.0 release...
Regards,
Milan
___
freebsd-ports@freeb
16 matches
Mail list logo
