On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:57:50AM +, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> cd /usr/ports/print/ghostscript8
> make distclean
> make rmconfig
> make
This did the trick. Oddly, though, I did do this about an hour ago and
it still failed but, and probably completely coincidental, I rebooted
and gave it
Jamie Griffin wrote
in <20091221005442.ga54...@bsdbox.koderize.com>:
jg> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 02:06:39AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
jg>
jg> > Fixed just now. This build error occurred only when WITH_FT_BRIDGE
jg> > was enabled regardless of the platform.
jg>
jg> I'm still not able to build
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:54:42AM +, Jamie Griffin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 02:06:39AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
>
> > Fixed just now. This build error occurred only when WITH_FT_BRIDGE
> > was enabled regardless of the platform.
>
> I'm still not able to build this. I've update
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:54:42AM +, Jamie Griffin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 02:06:39AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
>
> > Fixed just now. This build error occurred only when WITH_FT_BRIDGE
> > was enabled regardless of the platform.
>
> I'm still not able to build this. I've update
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 02:06:39AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Fixed just now. This build error occurred only when WITH_FT_BRIDGE
> was enabled regardless of the platform.
I'm still not able to build this. I've updated my ports tree which
hasn't helped. Is there anything else I can do to get
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 02:06:39AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> David Wolfskill wrote
> in <20091220133238.gr...@bunrab.catwhisker.org>:
>
> da> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 01:27:31PM +, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> da> > ...
> da> > > (Though I note that
> /bkp/ports/print/ghostscript8/work/gho
David Wolfskill wrote
in <20091220133238.gr...@bunrab.catwhisker.org>:
da> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 01:27:31PM +, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
da> > ...
da> > > (Though I note that
/bkp/ports/print/ghostscript8/work/ghostscript-8.70/base/
da> > > does seem to be populated with several other fi
On 20.12.2009 14:18 (UTC+1), David Wolfskill wrote:
This was under stable/6; it may be relevant to note that as I have 4
slices configured on my laptop's disk, each of which is bootable
(stable/6, stable/7, stable/8,& head), /usr/ports is actually a symlink
from each of those slices to a file sy
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 05:32:38 -0800
David Wolfskill wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 01:27:31PM +, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> > ...
> > > (Though I note that
> > > /bkp/ports/print/ghostscript8/work/ghostscript-8.70/base/
> > > does seem to be populated with several other files.)
> >
> > is
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 01:27:31PM +, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> ...
> > (Though I note that
> > /bkp/ports/print/ghostscript8/work/ghostscript-8.70/base/
> > does seem to be populated with several other files.)
>
> is this i386?
Aye
> I reported this already for sparc and ia64:
> http
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 05:18:40AM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
> This was under stable/6; it may be relevant to note that as I have 4
> slices configured on my laptop's disk, each of which is bootable
> (stable/6, stable/7, stable/8, & head), /usr/ports is actually a symlink
> from each of those
This was under stable/6; it may be relevant to note that as I have 4
slices configured on my laptop's disk, each of which is bootable
(stable/6, stable/7, stable/8, & head), /usr/ports is actually a symlink
from each of those slices to a file system that is mountable regardless
of which slice is bo
12 matches
Mail list logo
