On Jun 19, Norberto Meijome wrote:
> force uninstall bison and install bison2. fix all dependencies to bison
> with pkgdb -F. carry on with OO.
>
> granted, it's broken, but hardly critical.
Actually, as I mentioned to Chuck yesterday, I did a bit of creative
Googling, and it was because my syste
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:33:43 -0700
Clint Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, so I'm required to resolve this myself if I want to install this port?
force uninstall bison and install bison2. fix all dependencies to bison with
pkgdb -F. carry on with OO.
granted, it's broken, but hardly critic
Clint Olsen wrote:
> I'm trying to install openoffice, and some sub-portion of the port is
> installing bison2, and later it tries to install bison and then it
> complains about conflicting ports. How is one supposed to deal with
> sub-port conflicts like these? Why do we /ever/ allow ports to h
On Jun 18, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Clint Olsen wrote:
[ ... ]
% ls -l /usr/local/bin/perl5
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 24 Mar 23 2006 /usr/local/bin/perl5@ -> /
usr/local/bin/perl5.8.8
...but it doesn't magically happen.
Ok, so I'm required to resolve this myself if I want to install
this port?
On Jun 18, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Two ports which install files to the same place conflict-- you can't
> have two different versions of a file at the same path location. With
> some work, it is possible to install multiple versions of some ports
> (like Perl, Berkeley DB, GNU autoconf, etc) using
On Jun 18, 2007, at 3:59 PM, Clint Olsen wrote:
I'm trying to install openoffice, and some sub-portion of the port is
installing bison2, and later it tries to install bison and then it
complains about conflicting ports. How is one supposed to deal with
sub-port conflicts like these? Why do we /
