Re: Is it O.K. to use the 7.0 ports tree on 6.3 ?

2007-11-24 Thread Pete French
> You've already received the right advice about not renaming the INDEX, > but I think it's also worth mentioning that untar'ing a static picture > of the ports tree is of little practical value unless you never plan > to update the base, and you never plan to update any ports on that > machine. S

Re: Is it O.K. to use the 7.0 ports tree on 6.3 ?

2007-11-24 Thread Roland Smith
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 12:25:32PM +, Pete French wrote: > > You've already received the right advice about not renaming the INDEX, > > but I think it's also worth mentioning that untar'ing a static picture > > of the ports tree is of little practical value unless you never plan > > to update t

Re: Is it O.K. to use the 7.0 ports tree on 6.3 ?

2007-11-24 Thread Kris Kennaway
Pete French wrote: You've already received the right advice about not renaming the INDEX, but I think it's also worth mentioning that untar'ing a static picture of the ports tree is of little practical value unless you never plan to update the base, and you never plan to update any ports on that

Re: Maestro 2E on 6.3-PRERELEASE

2007-11-24 Thread Ariff Abdullah
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:20:08 -0600 Greg Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have a Maestro 2E sound card that works perfectly on > 6.2-RELEASE-p8, but not on 6.3-PRERELEASE. Here's the dmesg: > Could be something else (acpi? bus changes? etc). The sound driver stuffs virtually unchanged. [

Re: Is it O.K. to use the 7.0 ports tree on 6.3 ?

2007-11-24 Thread Kris Kennaway
Pete French wrote: Yes, it definitely will not work. When files are deleted from the ports tree after your initial tarball extraction, c[v]sup will not notice that they are missing (since it does not have a baseline), and will not remove them. Thus, you will encounter ports with "stale" patch

Re: Is it O.K. to use the 7.0 ports tree on 6.3 ?

2007-11-24 Thread Pete French
> Yes, it definitely will not work. When files are deleted from the ports > tree after your initial tarball extraction, c[v]sup will not notice that > they are missing (since it does not have a baseline), and will not > remove them. Thus, you will encounter ports with "stale" patches that > n

external usb disk

2007-11-24 Thread Matthieu Bollot
Hi, I've got a 250GB ide disk, that I put in an external usb box. I've made 3 partitions under linux, ext2, all works fine. in dmesg I've got no error : da0 at umass-sim0 bus 0 target 0 lun 0 da0: Fixed Direct Access SCSI-0 device da0: 40.000MB/s transfers da0: 238475MB (488397168 512 byte secto