error in step 2 of the automake update

Hello i am trying to update my ports. i did read the UPDATING step 1 did succeed step 2 errors out with the following error configure: error: Autoconf 2.52 or better is required ===> Script "configure" failed unexpectedly. Please report the problem to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized

On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:27:37PM -0700, Kurt Abahar wrote: > However, I don't know how to get a hold of this "lag > time." Is it a few days, a few weeks or ... ? You can get an _idea_ of the degree of the lag via the following URL: http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/packagestats.html The

failure: portupgrade -f 'autoconf*' 'automake*'

===> autoconf-2.61_1 is already installed You may wish to ``make deinstall'' and install this port again by ``make reinstall'' to upgrade it properly. If you really wish to overwrite the old port of devel/autoconf261 without deleting it first, set the variable "FORCE_PKG_

Re: failure: portupgrade -f 'autoconf*' 'automake*'

Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote: > ===> autoconf-2.61_1 is already installed > You may wish to ``make deinstall'' and install this port again > by ``make reinstall'' to upgrade it properly. > If you really wish to overwrite the old port of devel/autoconf261 > without deleting i

Re: failure: portupgrade -f 'autoconf*' 'automake*'

Alex Dupre wrote: > I think it's missing a '-' in the --program-suffix of autoconf261. And the same for automake 1.10. -- Alex Dupre ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send

Possibly unbuildable ports reminder

Dear porters, This is just a reminder to please periodically check the list of unbuildable ports at http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/ . A list by MAINTAINER is http://people.freebsd.org/~fenner/errorlogs/ so you can easily check the status of ports that you maintain. In addition, the li

failure: portupgrade -f 'autoconf*' 'automake*'

Alex Dupre wrote: > Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote: > > ===> autoconf-2.61_1 is already installed > > You may wish to ``make deinstall'' and install this port again > > by ``make reinstall'' to upgrade it properly. > > If you really wish to overwrite the old port of devel/autoconf2

Re: failure: portupgrade -f 'autoconf*' 'automake*'

On Jul 28, 2007, at 03:03 , Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote: I think, there should be a '-' in front of every ${BUILD_VERSION}. Additionally to the one at --program-suffix, there are three more missing. The appropriate fix has already been committed. Given the very small window of things bein

failure: portupgrade -f 'autoconf*' 'automake*'

Ade wrote: > On Jul 28, 2007, at 03:03 , Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote: > > I think, there should be a '-' in front of every ${BUILD_VERSION}. > > > > Additionally to the one at --program-suffix, there are three more > > missing. > > The appropriate fix has already been committed. Given the very sma

Re: Call for testers for yet another ports upgrade program, ports+

On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 09:48:47PM -0400 I heard the voice of Yoshihiro Ota, and lo! it spake thus: > > Q. Is it safe to assume all dependencies are STATIC? > A. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Lots of ports change dependancies based on what's installed, so if you install one thing you have to assume

Re: ports/113685: [patch] devel/subversion: install broken

[LoN]Kamikaze wrote: > Lev Serebryakov wrote: >> Hello bug-followup, >> >> Did you have `/usr/local' as symlink? Or something other non-standard in >> your tree? >> I can not reproduce this one, and I don't like `magic fix' without >> understanding of problem... >> > > No, I don't have any s

Re: ports/113685: [patch] devel/subversion: install broken

Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Hello bug-followup, > > Did you have `/usr/local' as symlink? Or something other non-standard in > your tree? > I can not reproduce this one, and I don't like `magic fix' without > understanding of problem... > No, I don't have any such thing. The problem is that t

Re: failure: portupgrade -f 'autoconf*' 'automake*'

On Jul 28, 2007, at 05:36 , Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote: Was I wrong that in contrast to 259, in 261 there should not be a '-' in front of the 3 ${BUILD_VERSION} in post-patch? Nope, you weren't wrong. It just happened to be a cosmetic fix, only addressing issues within the manpages themsel

REQUEST FOR TESTERS: `devel/mingw32-gcc'

Hello ports, Latest versions of `mingw32-binutils' and `mingw32-bin-msvcrt' were committed. `mingw32-gcc' is on pipeline. But it is BIG update: new version is 4.2.0 I ask you to test this `almost new' port before commit. http://lev.serebryakov.spb.ru/download/port-mingw32-gcc-4.2.0.tar.

Speedup for pkg_version

This is a kludge, but it makes pkg_version 4 times faster on my set up. The idea is that "make -V PKGNAME" should ordinarily be a very fast operation. So it runs a very cut down version of bsd.port.mk. If that bombs with an error, then it does the full bsd.port.mk. Maybe portsmanager and si

Re: Speedup for pkg_version

Stephen Montgomery-Smith píše v so 28. 07. 2007 v 19:44 -0500: > This is a kludge, but it makes pkg_version 4 times faster on my set up. > The idea is that "make -V PKGNAME" should ordinarily be a very fast > operation. So it runs a very cut down version of bsd.port.mk. If that > bombs with

Re: Call for testers for yet another ports upgrade program, ports+

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:49:39 -0700 Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hiro, > > I'm happy to respond to you, but first I'd like to make clear that I'm > not trying to talk you out of anything. If there is a better way to > manage ports, or even just a different approach, I'm all for it. I >

Re: Speedup for pkg_version

Pav Lucistnik wrote: Stephen Montgomery-Smith píše v so 28. 07. 2007 v 19:44 -0500: This is a kludge, but it makes pkg_version 4 times faster on my set up. The idea is that "make -V PKGNAME" should ordinarily be a very fast operation. So it runs a very cut down version of bsd.port.mk. If t

Re: Speedup for pkg_version

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: This is a kludge, but it makes pkg_version 4 times faster on my set up. The idea is that "make -V PKGNAME" should ordinarily be a very fast operation. So it runs a very cut down version of bsd.port.mk. If that bombs with an error, then i

Re: Call for testers for yet another ports upgrade program, ports+

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:59:36 -0500 "Matthew D. Fuller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 09:48:47PM -0400 I heard the voice of > Yoshihiro Ota, and lo! it spake thus: > > > > Q. Is it safe to assume all dependencies are STATIC? > > A. Yes, it is. > > No, it's not. Lots of por

Re: Call for testers for yet another ports upgrade program, ports+

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Yoshihiro Ota wrote: On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:49:39 -0700 Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hiro, I'm happy to respond to you, but first I'd like to make clear that I'm not trying to talk you out of anything. If there is a better way to manage ports, or even just a dif