Hi Mathieu,
Thank you for responding. I've thought about this over the last few
days a bit, and I first want to commend you for the large efforts you
and your collaborators are making to improve the port system. Already
I have noticed positive changes, very impressive. Further comments
inline.
+--On 28 novembre 2014 20:47:18 -0700 "Russell L. Carter"
wrote:
| The little major one is, a perl5 upgrade should not require
| rebuilding ~2/3 of the ports tree. Maybe I'm off a bit, but
| I don't think by a material amount. This turns out to be the
| minor problem. I don't actually care, a
I'm going to top post here, using my last message, appended,
as an example.
So the ports crew are to be commended for the tremendous work
they are doing, it's difficult to see how they could do more.
The number of commits/week are awesome, and the rate of change
is terrific. I think it is aweso
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> Have you read the instructions in /usr/ports/UPDATING? You should have
> done:
>
> # pkg upgrade -f
Let's say that, err, someone forgot to read UPDATING when going from 8.4
to 9.3, and that said someone now has a screwed-up ports area, due to the
pa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/28/14 16:31, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Russell L. Carter
> wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> Greetings, So pkg wants to upgrade perl to 5.18. It appears that
>> due to conflic
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Russell L. Carter
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Greetings,
> So pkg wants to upgrade perl to 5.18. It appears that due to
> conflicts with existing 5.16 binaries, this requires deinstalling
> 224 ports, including xorg, and all th
