On 02/06/2016 21:08, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
> It's not fair to compare RedHat to FreeBSD. Companies pay good money to
> maintain the support for the systems they are using. They don't pay
> FreeBSD a penny. I think the real issue preventing a wider adoption at
> companies is not that there is no LTS
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 09:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
Roger Marquis wrote:
> > How about "freebsd-update fetch; freebsd-update install; reboot"?
>
> Tried that but didn't find it reliable.
In what way was it unreliable? Did you report your problems in
bugzilla, lists or forums?
> Have also heard rumors of
Dear port maintainer,
The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your
ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check
each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate,
submit/commit an update. If any ports have already been updated, you
Hi there,
> On 01 Jun 2016, at 2:12 PM, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
>
> There is a main difference - if you upgraded from 9.2 to 9.3, you don't need
> to recompile (reinstall) all ports, but if you upgraded from 9.3 to 10.x you
> need to reinstall all your packages and then remov
Suppose that you have a portA which is a dependency of a lot of other ports.
You also have a portB which is a replacement/update/upgrade for portA.
PortB provides replacements for the executables generated/supplied by
PortA but for various reasons you still want to use some of PortA
installed
On 03/06/2016 07:26, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 02/06/2016 21:08, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
It's not fair to compare RedHat to FreeBSD. Companies pay good money to
maintain the support for the systems they are using. They don't pay
FreeBSD a penny. I think the real issue preventing a wider adoption a
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 17:17:57 +0200
Franco Fichtner wrote:
> The initial release was 10.0, which was phased out after a
> year, leaving us no choice but to go 10.1 just two months
> after our initial release in order to receive official security
> updates. Worst case it takes a few months to adapt
> On 03 Jun 2016, at 6:23 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 17:17:57 +0200
> Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
>> The initial release was 10.0, which was phased out after a
>> year, leaving us no choice but to go 10.1 just two months
>> after our initial release in order to receive official s
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Patrick Powell wrote:
> Suppose that you have a portA which is a dependency of a lot of other
> ports.
>
> You also have a portB which is a replacement/update/upgrade for portA.
>
> PortB provides replacements for the executables generated/supplied by
> PortA but f
Patrick Powell writes:
> Suppose that you have a portA which is a dependency of a lot of other ports.
>
> You also have a portB which is a replacement/update/upgrade for portA.
>
> PortB provides replacements for the executables generated/supplied by
> PortA but for various reasons you still want
On 02 Jun 2016, at 22:28, O. Hartmann wrote:
>
> Building/updating port devel/beignet fails with
>
> [ 42%] Building CXX object
> backend/src/CMakeFiles/gbe.dir/llvm/llvm_unroll.cpp.o
> [ 42%] Building C object
> backend/src/CMakeFiles/gbe.dir/backend/gen/gen_mesa_disasm.c.o
> [ 42%] Building
11 matches
Mail list logo
