[snip snipperdy snip]
Olli, was it really necessary to quote all 236 (!) of those lines?
AvW
--
I'm not completely useless, I can be used as a bad example.
pgpQMWtVlnLfC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 08/06/2014 17:54, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> It seems like a completely unworkable solution to me. For example, say
> you have a port with 10 options. Imagine how many different binaries
> you would have to have to cover every possible combination of selected
> options. It would take a huge amount
--On June 8, 2014 at 2:50:53 PM -0400 Lowell Gilbert
wrote:
Paul Schmehl writes:
Thanks, but no, you misunderstand. I just upgraded to servers to 8.4
and decided to adopt the new pkgng system at the same time. Any time
I upgrade the OS, I always rebuild all ports. I've been using
portmas
Paul Schmehl writes:
> Thanks, but no, you misunderstand. I just upgraded to servers to 8.4
> and decided to adopt the new pkgng system at the same time. Any time
> I upgrade the OS, I always rebuild all ports. I've been using
> portmaster -ad to do that for a while now.
Presumably it's a typ
On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On June 8, 2014 at 10:32:33 AM -0600 Warren Block
wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Paul Schmehl wrote:
Yes, I do have a few ports with none-default options. The problem is,
they're critical ports (like apache22).
At present, these have to be built fro
--On June 8, 2014 at 7:17:01 PM +0200 Torfinn Ingolfsen
wrote:
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Paul Schmehl
wrote:
Thanks, but no, you misunderstand. I just upgraded to servers to 8.4 and
decided to adopt the new pkgng system at the same time. Any time I
upgrade the OS, I always rebuild
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
>
> Thanks, but no, you misunderstand. I just upgraded to servers to 8.4 and
> decided to adopt the new pkgng system at the same time. Any time I upgrade
> the OS, I always rebuild all ports. I've been using portmaster -ad to do
> that for a
--On June 8, 2014 at 6:05:35 PM +0200 olli hauer wrote:
On 2014-06-08 17:20, Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On June 7, 2014 at 11:16:04 PM +0200 olli hauer wrote:
On 2014-06-07 22:40, Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On June 7, 2014 at 10:22:41 PM +0200 "A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven"
wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On June 8, 2014 at 10:32:33 AM -0600 Warren Block
wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Paul Schmehl wrote:
Yes, I do have a few ports with none-default options. The problem is,
they're critical ports (like apache22).
At present, these have to be built from ports. Long-term, there is a
plan to ha
On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Paul Schmehl wrote:
Yes, I do have a few ports with none-default options. The problem is,
they're critical ports (like apache22).
At present, these have to be built from ports. Long-term, there is a
plan to have multiple packages for ports with options.
On 2014-06-08 17:20, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On June 7, 2014 at 11:16:04 PM +0200 olli hauer wrote:
>
>> On 2014-06-07 22:40, Paul Schmehl wrote:
>>> --On June 7, 2014 at 10:22:41 PM +0200 "A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven"
>>> wrote:
>>>
Paul Schmehl wrote:
> Recently I upgraded two servers
--On June 8, 2014 at 11:38:37 AM -0400 Kevin Phair
wrote:
On 6/8/14, 11:20 AM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On June 7, 2014 at 11:16:04 PM +0200 olli hauer wrote:
Do you see which port is looping?
Perhaps a port was moved / renamed / removed and portmaster therfore is
looping around
Sadly I c
On 6/8/14, 11:20 AM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On June 7, 2014 at 11:16:04 PM +0200 olli hauer wrote:
Do you see which port is looping?
Perhaps a port was moved / renamed / removed and portmaster therfore is
looping around
Sadly I cannot help more since I used all the years tinderbox /
poudri
Hi Paul,
On 08/06/2014 16:20, Paul Schmehl wrote:
I have this in my /etc/make.conf file:
DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=yes
FORCE_PKG_REGISTER=yes
WITH_PKG=yes
This should read:
WITH_PKGNG=yes
to encourage the use of the new pkg tools.
Thanks,
Daniel.
__
--On June 7, 2014 at 11:16:04 PM +0200 olli hauer wrote:
On 2014-06-07 22:40, Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On June 7, 2014 at 10:22:41 PM +0200 "A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven"
wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
Recently I upgraded two servers to 8.4 and implemented the pkgng
system.
[snip]
Is portmaster not
> On 07 Jun 2014, at 23:16, olli hauer wrote:
>
>> On 2014-06-07 22:40, Paul Schmehl wrote:
>> --On June 7, 2014 at 10:22:41 PM +0200 "A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Schmehl wrote:
>>>
Recently I upgraded two servers to 8.4 and implemented the pkgng system.
>>> [snip]
>>
On 2014-06-07 22:40, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On June 7, 2014 at 10:22:41 PM +0200 "A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven"
> wrote:
>
>> Paul Schmehl wrote:
>>
>>> Recently I upgraded two servers to 8.4 and implemented the pkgng system.
>> [snip]
>>> Is portmaster not the appropriate method for updating ports w
--On June 7, 2014 at 10:22:41 PM +0200 "A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven"
wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
Recently I upgraded two servers to 8.4 and implemented the pkgng system.
[snip]
Is portmaster not the appropriate method for updating ports with pkgng?
It depends whether you're talking about *buil
Paul Schmehl wrote:
> Recently I upgraded two servers to 8.4 and implemented the pkgng system.
[snip]
> Is portmaster not the appropriate method for updating ports with pkgng?
It depends whether you're talking about *building* packages from the ports
tree or installing binary packages.
As for bu
--On June 7, 2014 at 10:04:17 PM +0200 Torfinn Ingolfsen
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Paul Schmehl
wrote:
I'm an oldtimer, having used the port building system for years.
Recently I upgraded two servers to 8.4 and implemented the pkgng system.
Now, when I run portmaster -ad, i
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> I'm an oldtimer, having used the port building system for years. Recently I
> upgraded two servers to 8.4 and implemented the pkgng system. Now, when I
> run portmaster -ad, it seems to keep reinstalling the same ports over and
> over ag
21 matches
Mail list logo
