On 2 November 2011 15:05, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
> OK, I know this is just a "meta" package, and not really essential to
> my survival, but nonetheless, I'm hitting a brick wall with this one:
>
> -
> -- The following O
Nevermind. Turning off the KDEWEBDEV option in x11/kde4 allowed the
upgrade to succeed (forgot I had turned this on yesterday out of
curiosity).
I suppose, then, that the subject line of this thread should have been
"Build failure in www/kdewebdev4" instead.
Sorry for the noise.
--
Conrad J.
Adam McDougall wrote:
> Some of that sounds true to my experience, for a while I've noticed while
> installing a new port with portupgrade that it will install the default
> dependencies before prompting with the options screen to find out which
> ones I want. For example if I do 'portupgrade -N
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Adam McDougall wrote:
[...]
Some of that sounds true to my experience, for a while I've noticed while
installing a new port with portupgrade that it will install the default
dependencies before prompting with the options screen to find out which
ones I want. For example
Adam McDougall wrote:
[...]
Some of that sounds true to my experience, for a while I've noticed while
installing a new port with portupgrade that it will install the default
dependencies before prompting with the options screen to find out which
ones I want. For example if I do 'portupgrade -N p
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:21:02AM +0100, Jimmy Renner wrote:
Quoting Mark Linimon :
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:13:36PM -0500, Robert Huff wrote:
>> The maintainer, ruby@, is aware of this; a check of the PR
>> database shows multiple open PRs, none critical but many serious
>> goin
Quoting Mark Linimon :
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:13:36PM -0500, Robert Huff wrote:
The maintainer, ruby@, is aware of this; a check of the PR
database shows multiple open PRs, none critical but many serious
going back six months and more.
As an aside, the Severity and Priority fields have be
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:13:36PM -0500, Robert Huff wrote:
> The maintainer, ruby@, is aware of this; a check of the PR
> database shows multiple open PRs, none critical but many serious
> going back six months and more.
As an aside, the Severity and Priority fields have been so often abused
as
