On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:48:13 -0500
"Jeremy Messenger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:29:22 -0500, RW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:51:18 -0700
> > Ted Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm sorry if this sounds like a complaint. I just spen
* RW ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > autoconf-2.59_3 = up-to-date with port
> > autoconf-2.61_2 = up-to-date with port
> These two are no problem, they are different ports.
> > autoconf-wrapper-20070404 = up-to-date with port
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:29:22 -0500, RW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:51:18 -0700
Ted Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm sorry if this sounds like a complaint. I just spent 2 days
attempting to salvage a sane 6.2 development box which does not use
X-Windows, because I stu
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:51:18 -0700
Ted Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry if this sounds like a complaint. I just spent 2 days
> attempting to salvage a sane 6.2 development box which does not use
> X-Windows, because I stumbled into the Xorg quagmire. Recognizing
> that the ports sys
I'm sorry if this sounds like a complaint. I just spent 2 days
attempting to salvage a sane 6.2 development box which does not use
X-Windows, because I stumbled into the Xorg quagmire. Recognizing that
the ports system is itself a remarkable achievement, I would distill my
concern down to one t
