On 27/09/2011, at 13:33, Ade Lovett wrote:
> That is to say, until 9.0-R happens, and for some considerable period
> afterwards, ya'll can pretty much expect ports/ to be non-functional on
> HEAD. PRs mentioning this will be gleefully closed referencing this
> message.
I imagine you can work aro
Ade Lovett wrote:
> The undeniable fact is that configure scripts in general have
> chosen to do things a certain way. Unfortunately for us (us
> being FreeBSD), we have now broken these conceptions by moving
> to a dual-digit major release.
I don't suppose
REVISION="A.1"
i.e. using a sing
Is the cups-base problem on the assigned list, being incompatible with the
optional avahi (DNSSD)?
> The BROKEN message references http://www.avahi.org/ticket/303 -- look
> there for more information on why it's marked as such.
Tom
___
freebsd-ports@
On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
Kevin Oberman writes:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett wrote:
With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, h h wrote:
Kevin Oberman writes:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett wrote:
With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
The issue stems from configure scripts (to cho
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:28:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
> >Kevin Oberman writes:
> >
> >>On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett wrote:
> >>
> >>>With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
> >>>expected, ports/ is going to be e
At 11:18 27/09/2011, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for
> their tenth version of their operating system ...
At least there will be a long rest after
the move to 10 is complete.. until FreeBSD 100.
Or move to hexadecimal
$ export
On 09/27/11 16:46, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Ade Lovett wrote:
The undeniable fact is that configure scripts in general have
chosen to do things a certain way. Unfortunately for us (us
being FreeBSD), we have now broken these conceptions by moving
to a dual-digit major release.
I don't s
On 27 September 2011 10:18, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:28:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
> > >Kevin Oberman writes:
> > >
> > >>On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>With the advent of the conversion of HEA
Eduardo Morras writes:
> At 11:18 27/09/2011, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
>
>> > Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for
>> > their tenth version of their operating system ...
>>
>>At least there will be a long rest after
>>the move to 10 is complete.. until FreeBSD 1
krad writes:
> we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?
Robert Huff
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 08:22:54AM -0400, Robert Huff wrote:
>
> krad writes:
> > we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
>
> Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?
Not quite. There they mostly said "No way that this program will still
be in use when
2011/9/27 O. Hartmann :
> Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for their
> tenth version of their operating system ...
FreeBSD XP anyone?
> ___
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/lis
On 27 September 2011 20:22, Robert Huff wrote:
>
> krad writes:
>> we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
>
> Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?
Our children will be dealing with Y2038. :-)
Adrian
___
On 27 September 2011 13:57, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 27 September 2011 20:22, Robert Huff wrote:
> >
> > krad writes:
> >> we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
> >
> >Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?
>
> Our children will be dealing with Y20
Adrian Chadd writes:
> >> we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
> >
> > Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?
>
> Our children will be dealing with Y2038. :-)
Statistically, some of us will.
R
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 09:36:17AM -0400 I heard the voice of
Robert Huff, and lo! it spake thus:
> Adrian Chadd writes:
> > Our children will be dealing with Y2038. :-)
>
> Statistically, some of us will.
Actually, I had to deal with it just last week...
--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | f
On 09/27/11 16:27, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 09:36:17AM -0400 I heard the voice of
> Robert Huff, and lo! it spake thus:
>> Adrian Chadd writes:
>>> Our children will be dealing with Y2038. :-)
>> Statistically, some of us will.
> Actually, I had to deal with it just last
On 27 September 2011 10:18, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:28:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
>> >Kevin Oberman writes:
>> >
>> >>On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10
On Sep 27, 2011 10:04 AM, "Chris Rees" wrote:
>
> On 27 September 2011 10:18, Anton Shterenlikht
wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:28:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
> >> On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
> >> >Kevin Oberman writes:
> >> >
> >> >>On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett wrote
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Or, maybe automate this, as now port system warns user about "possible
> network servers" -- check all installed binaries and libraries for
> linkage with non-system-gcc libraries and add "run" dependency. But
> I'm not sure it is easy to do, as it sh
On (26/09/2011 23:03), Ade Lovett wrote:
> With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
> expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
>
> The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completely
> at random) assuming that FreeBSD would
On Sep 27, 2011, at 8:50 PM, Gleb Kurtsou wrote:
> On (26/09/2011 23:03), Ade Lovett wrote:
>> With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
>> expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
>>
>> The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose someth
Hi--
On Sep 27, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Gleb Kurtsou wrote:
> It's more exciting than that. FreeBSD >= 10 is already seized by Apple :)
>
> http://www.google.com/codesearch#search/&q=__FreeBSD__%5CW%2B10&type=cs
MacOS X doesn't define __FreeBSD__ either in CPP macros or the system headers:
% touch f
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Rainer Hurling wrote:
> This morning I tried to upgrade my ports after installing the new 10-CURRENT
> (amd64).
There was a message about this on the list already.
> Does anyone else observes this behaviour? I would really appreciate some
> help.
https://groups.
I am sending this to you because you maintain a port that depends upon
math/qhull. I plan to move this to math/qhull5, because the new version
of qhull is not necessarily compatible with the port(s) you maintain.
This is the complete list.
games/kdegames4, math/labplot, math/octave-devel, math
Eitan Adler wrote:
> 2011/9/27 O. Hartmann :
> > Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin
> > 10 'X' for their tenth version of their operating system ...
>
> FreeBSD XP anyone?
Are you sure there's a sufficient window of opportunity? :)
___
27 matches
Mail list logo
