Am 12.07.2011 03:22, schrieb Doug Barton:
> spamassassin has the following for RUN_ and BUILD_:
>
> ${SITE_PERL}/Bundle/LWP.pm:${PORTSDIR}/www/p5-libwww
>
> That path is no longer correct, resulting in a loop. I can fix it here
> if the maintainer agrees, but it should likely be searched for all
At the moment when I do
pkg_version -vIL=
I get
exiv2-0.21,1 > succeeds index (index has 0.21.1)
From what I can see the difference is a comma or a dot, so maybe it's
just a typo but I think it needs to be corrected.
Thanks
/Leslie
__
2011/7/12 Matthias Andree :
> Am 12.07.2011 03:22, schrieb Doug Barton:
>> spamassassin has the following for RUN_ and BUILD_:
>>
>> ${SITE_PERL}/Bundle/LWP.pm:${PORTSDIR}/www/p5-libwww
>>
>> That path is no longer correct, resulting in a loop. I can fix it here
>> if the maintainer agrees, but it
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:28:29 +0200, Leslie Jensen wrote:
At the moment when I do
pkg_version -vIL=
I get
exiv2-0.21,1 > succeeds index (index has
0.21.1)
From what I can see the difference is a comma or a dot, so maybe it's
just a typo but I think it needs to be c
Hi,
OPTIONS=JACK "JACK support" on \
ALSA "ALSA support" off \
PORTAUDIO "PortAudio support" off \
LIBARCHIVE "LibArchive support" off \
LASH "Lash support" off \
PORTAUDIO "Portaudio support" off \
PORTAUDIO
On 12 July 2011 06:54, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/11/2011 22:51, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>> On 07/12/2011 12:37 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> You'll likely get better results posting URls, FYI.
>>
>> I used to give complete URLs. Then I got told off, and told only to
>> write ports/x.
>
On 12 July 2011 11:54, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> OPTIONS= JACK "JACK support" on \
> ALSA "ALSA support" off \
> PORTAUDIO "PortAudio support" off \
> LIBARCHIVE "LibArchive support" off \
> LASH "Lash support" off \
>
Am 12.07.2011 15:48, schrieb Chris Rees:
> On 12 July 2011 06:54, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 07/11/2011 22:51, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>>> On 07/12/2011 12:37 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
You'll likely get better results posting URls, FYI.
>>>
>>> I used to give complete URLs. Then I got tol
12.07.2011 17:48, Chris Rees пишет:
On 12 July 2011 06:54, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/11/2011 22:51, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/12/2011 12:37 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
You'll likely get better results posting URls, FYI.
I used to give complete URLs. Then I got told off, and told only
At the end of 2010, the -f option was added to the native
readlink/stat(1) for CURRENT[1]. It was MFCed to RELENG-7 and -8 two
weeks later[2].
"readlink -f" works in CURRENT, 7-STABLE, or 8-STABLE since then.
Porters running these newer versions may find "readlink -f" slipping
through in the
Chris Rees wrote:
+10.
Sometimes I wonder if some people think we have a magic ability to get
to a PR by double-clicking on the number!
Stephen, I think you perhaps may have been told off for putting links
into PR audit trails? THAT is a bad idea; audit trails automatically
link PRs -- as you
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 06:38:05PM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
> 12.07.2011 17:48, Chris Rees ??:
> > On 12 July 2011 06:54, Doug Barton wrote:
> >> On 07/11/2011 22:51, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> >>> On 07/12/2011 12:37 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> You'll likely get better r
12.07.2011 19:29, Shaun Amott пишет:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 06:38:05PM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
12.07.2011 17:48, Chris Rees ??:
On 12 July 2011 06:54, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/11/2011 22:51, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/12/2011 12:37 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
You'l
On 07/12/2011 07:38, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
> In chromium follow to:
You can do something similar in FF with keywords, but that doesn't
really help you when the PR number is in an e-mail.
Yes, I realize it sounds incredibly lame to complain about the time it
takes to cut/paste one PR number.
Chris Rees writes:
> On 12 July 2011 11:54, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> OPTIONS= JACK "JACK support" on \
>> ALSA "ALSA support" off \
>> PORTAUDIO "PortAudio support" off \
>> LIBARCHIVE "LibArchive support" off \
>>
12.07.2011 22:03, Doug Barton пишет:
On 07/12/2011 07:38, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
In chromium follow to:
You can do something similar in FF with keywords, but that doesn't
really help you when the PR number is in an e-mail.
Yes, I realize it sounds incredibly lame to complain about the tim
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the window
manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was not found.
Then, I realized compiz-manager.desktop was automagically replaced by
compizmanager.desktop. Now I tracked it down to this commit:
Sat Nov 27 17:42:46 20
On 07/12/2011 05:25 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the window
manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was not found.
Then, I realized compiz-manager.desktop was automagically replaced by
compizmanager.desktop. Now I tracked it dow
Hi,
After the recent icu and libgcrypt updates I decided to try and find a
way to avoid rebuilding everything which depends on a particular
port when its shared library version is bumped.
Previously I was profitably using sysutils/libchk, producing in the end
the list of packages which *have* to
On 07/12/2011 12:39, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
> 12.07.2011 22:03, Doug Barton пишет:
>> On 07/12/2011 07:38, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
>>> In chromium follow to:
>>
>> You can do something similar in FF with keywords, but that doesn't
>> really help you when the PR number is in an e-mail.
>>
>>
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the window
manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was not found.
Then, I realized compiz-manager.desktop was automagically replaced by
compizmanager.desktop. Now I tracked it down
On 07/12/2011 05:25 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
After I updated x11-wm/compiz, GNOME was not able to start the window
manager. Basically, it complained that compiz-manager was not found.
Then, I realized compiz-manager.desktop was automagically replaced by
compizmanager.desktop. Now I tracked it dow
On 07/12/2011 21:08, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> Thinking more about it, it seems to me that instead of silently deleting
> the disallowed characters in the filename, that the port should declare
> itself broken if there are disallowed characters. That way, this
> particular error would have
On 07/12/2011 11:17 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/12/2011 21:08, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Thinking more about it, it seems to me that instead of silently deleting
the disallowed characters in the filename, that the port should declare
itself broken if there are disallowed characters. That
On 07/12/2011 21:29, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> On 07/12/2011 11:17 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 07/12/2011 21:08, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>>> Thinking more about it, it seems to me that instead of silently deleting
>>> the disallowed characters in the filename, that the port should
25 matches
Mail list logo
