James Cook wrote:
> $ uname -a
> FreeBSD glider 6.3-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 6.3-PRERELEASE #0: Tue Dec 11 13:40:40
> PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GLIDER i386
>
> The problem:
> - Install games/freebsd-games
> - run hack
> - Say "y" when it asks if you're experienced.
> - Type "
hi
I cannot install [B]graphviz[/B] from ports on my freeBSD 6.2-RELEASE-p9 due to
the following errors:
# cd /usr/ports/graphics/graphviz
# make install clean
===> Vulnerability check disabled, database not found
===> Found saved configuration for graphviz-2.16
=> graphviz-2.16.tar.gz doesn
Am Freitag 11 Januar 2008 schrieb Aryeh M. Friedman:
> Thierry Thomas wrote:
> > Le Jeu 10 jan 08 à 12:06:16 +0100, Volker Glatz
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > écrivait :
> >> Hi there,
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> >> I installed miro with "portinstall miro" - not changing any make
>
> options. It
>
> >>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Schmehl wrote:
> Some of this has been discussed ad infinitum, but, in an off-list
> conversation, I came up with this list of suggested improvements
> for port. I'd like to see these things done, but I'm not sure how.
> Improve the docs? Creat
Ghirai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-01-07:
> Just letting you know that nmap 4.52 is out, along with a new
> frontend. I was wondering when you'll add it to the ports tree.
I am working on it. There are a number of big changes (new lua based
nmap scripting engine, python based zenmap replacing nmapf
Some of this has been discussed ad infinitum, but, in an off-list conversation,
I came up with this list of suggested improvements for port. I'd like to see
these things done, but I'm not sure how. Improve the docs? Create a checklist?
1) You can't build a dependent port and first set the co
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:59:26 -0600, Volker Glatz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am Freitag 11 Januar 2008 schrieb Aryeh M. Friedman:
Thierry Thomas wrote:
> Le Jeu 10 jan 08 à 12:06:16 +0100, Volker Glatz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> écrivait :
>> Hi there,
>
> Hello,
>
>> I installed miro with "po
n 1/11/08, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some of this has been discussed ad infinitum, but, in an off-list
> conversation,
> I came up with this list of suggested improvements for port. I'd like to see
> these things done, but I'm not sure how. Improve the docs? Create a
> checklis
Quoting Chuck Robey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 10 Jan 2008
21:05:16 -0500):
I actually got the linux flash9 working. Why didn't I post it, put in a
patch? Because one of the main reasons that it doesn't work now is the
insane way that much Linux libraries are installed. If folks would h
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 06:40:35PM +0100, Guido Falsi wrote:
> I think that too much formalization in the porting rules would harm the
> system.
That seems to have been the community consensus in the past.
Nevertheless, the PH could use some improvement. Most of what I've
tried to put in there
--On Friday, January 11, 2008 10:34:15 -0600 Scot Hetzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
n 1/11/08, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some of this has been discussed ad infinitum, but, in an off-list
conversation, I came up with this list of suggested improvements for port.
I'd like to see th
Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 06:40:35PM +0100, Guido Falsi wrote:
I think that too much formalization in the porting rules would harm the
system.
That seems to have been the community consensus in the past.
Nevertheless, the PH could use some improvement. Most of what I've
tri
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:29:14 -0600 Paul Schmehl wrote:
Seems that some answers (well, maybe some not obvious, some lack
examples, etc.) are already at the Porters Handbook:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/index.html
> Some of this has been discussed ad infinitum
Paul Schmehl wrote:
Is this how it should always be done?
This is my point. On many of these criteria there is an uncomfortable
amount of "squishyness" so that port maintainers, *especially* new ones,
are unsure what the "right" thing to do is. The porters handbook seems
written from the s
Guido Falsi wrote:
Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 06:40:35PM +0100, Guido Falsi wrote:
I think that too much formalization in the porting rules would harm
the system.
That seems to have been the community consensus in the past.
Nevertheless, the PH could use some improvement. M
--On Friday, January 11, 2008 12:23:31 -0600 Mark Linimon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:10:45AM -0600, Paul Schmehl wrote:
The porters handbook seems written from the standpoint of a guide more
than a manual.
That's something that I was going to work on, um, last year
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Quoting Chuck Robey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:05:16
> -0500):
>
>> I actually got the linux flash9 working. Why didn't I post it, put in a
>> patch? Because one of the main reasons that it doesn't wor
On 1/11/08, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --On Friday, January 11, 2008 10:34:15 -0600 Scot Hetzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > n 1/11/08, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Some of this has been discussed ad infinitum, but, in an off-list
> >> conversation, I came up wi
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:10:45AM -0600, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> The porters handbook seems written from the standpoint of a guide more
> than a manual.
That's something that I was going to work on, um, last year :-)
We need both. Right now we have this hybrid which isn't a completely
satisfactor
Le Ven 11 jan 08 à 4:25:04 +0100, Jeremy Messenger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
écrivait :
>
> The boost with WITH_PYTHON=yes and boost-python are exactly same. The
> boost-python call on boost with WITH_PYTHON=yes define. Read in
> devel/boost-python/Makefile. I doubt this crash issue has to do with
On 13/12/2007, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just wonder if you asked the general population, whether they'd rather
> have ports or packages, I bet most would vote for packages, aside from
> those that actually like watching the compilation output fly by.
I do like to watch it but in additi
--- Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 13/12/2007, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I just wonder if you asked the general population, whether they'd rather
> > have ports or packages, I bet most would vote for packages, aside from
> > those that actually like watching the compilation outp
I'm going to try to combine your two posts so that I can answer in one,
my apologies if I scramble something.
Paul Schmehl wrote:
Some of this has been discussed ad infinitum, but, in an off-list
conversation, I came up with this list of suggested improvements for
port. I'd like to see these
23 matches
Mail list logo
