On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:09:57PM -0300, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ever since the addition of graphics/libjpeg-turbo, I had
> been wondering how one could possibly build the whole ports tree
> with it instead of graphics/jpeg. I wanted the choice.
>
> Therefore,
On Sunday 13 June 2010 22:06:06 Doug Barton wrote:
> On 06/13/10 07:30, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > on 13/06/2010 16:36 Max Brazhnikov said the following:
> >> qmake is designed to use special mkspecs for compilers. The
only
> >> solution now is to create qmake mkspecs files for each
compiler.
> >> T
On Jun 15, 2010, at 18:09 , Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ever since the addition of graphics/libjpeg-turbo, I had
> been wondering how one could possibly build the whole ports tree
> with it instead of graphics/jpeg. I wanted the choice.
>
> Therefore, I wrote the
On Wednesday 16 June 2010 11:02:38 Alberto Villa wrote:
> ok, i think i'll fix this, also thanks to a contribution from clang folks
> unfortunately, it really means adding more qmake.conf's, but after
all
> there aren't so many compilers
>
> and, of course, it will respect CC
here's (attached) w
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:09:57PM -0300, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira
> wrote:
>> It will automagically detected the already installed jpeg
>> port variant (libjpeg-turbo or jpeg) and depend on it. If the user prefers
>> to set th
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:29:48AM +0200 I heard the voice of
Sébastien Santoro, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> There is a conflict between graphics/gd and devel/bazaar, cf.
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=147418
>
> Would it be acceptable to rename the bzr's annotate command into a
> bz
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 08:21 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 15/06/2010 07:46:27, Eric wrote:
> > It would seem from reading the various posting that the two missing features
> > are some sort of clean way of saying "this license or higher" and
On 15/06/2010 02:46, Marco Bröder wrote:
> BSD-2-clause# Simplified BSD License
> BSD-3-clause# Modified or New BSD License
> BSD-4-clause# Original BSD License
Just a side note, am I the only one using a single clause variant
of the BSDL? I really don't give a damn what people do with
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 02:38:29 -0700
Ade Lovett wrote:
>
> On Jun 15, 2010, at 18:09 , Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Ever since the addition of graphics/libjpeg-turbo, I had
> > been wondering how one could possibly build the whole ports tree
> > with it instead of
Hi,
I have a csup'd the ports tree, and I wanted to selectively update apache22
port by using ports-mgmt/portcheckout.
I have cvsup-mirror installed to do this, however it appears that
portcheckout did not checkout the correct version.
If I do a clean checkout from the cvs mirror on my machin
The devel/apr* ports have an option to use /dev/random, which is on by
default.
I was wondering under what circumstances anyone would turn that off. As
far as I can see switching it off doesn't replace /dev/random with
anything else.
___
freebsd-ports
On Jun 16, 2010, at 4:01 PM, RW wrote:
> The devel/apr* ports have an option to use /dev/random, which is on by
> default.
>
> I was wondering under what circumstances anyone would turn that off. As
> far as I can see switching it off doesn't replace /dev/random with
> anything else.
On some pla
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:07:34 -0700
Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2010, at 4:01 PM, RW wrote:
> > The devel/apr* ports have an option to use /dev/random, which is on
> > by default.
> >
> > I was wondering under what circumstances anyone would turn that
> > off. As far as I can see switching
On Jun 16, 2010, at 5:00 PM, RW wrote:
> Right, but I'm asking about the "make config" port option, not the configure
> options to apr itself.
When you enable the option via make config, apr's ./configure gets fed the
appropriate flag:
> OPTIONS= ...
> DEVRANDOM "Use /dev/random or compatible
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:45:53 -0700
Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2010, at 5:00 PM, RW wrote:
> > Right, but I'm asking about the "make config" port option, not the
> > configure options to apr itself.
>
> When you enable the option via make config, apr's ./configure gets
> fed the appropriate
On 6/16/2010 9:14 PM, RW wrote:
> Right, but my question was about why anyone would set the option to
> "off".
>
> On the face of it, it's a pointless option since turning it off either
> does nothing or it makes Apache less secure.
>
I will ask d...@apr if there is any reason they can think of t
16 matches
Mail list logo
