On Tuesday January 24 2017 19:14:28 Brandon Allbery wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 6:53 PM, René J.V. Bertin
>wrote:
>
>> 0775 (0001:1101) turning into 0255 (000:10101101), there's no
>> logical explanation (involving umask()) for that, is there?
>That is what you'd get if the *umask
On 1/25/17 7:50 AM, macports-changes-ow...@lists.macports.org wrote:
Your mail to 'macports-changes' with the subject
[macports-ports] branch master updated: miredo: adopt and update
to 1.2.6
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
I started to get the same emails for every pull request opened by me when
someone merges it.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Zero King wrote:
> On 1/25/17 7:50 AM, macports-changes-ow...@lists.macports.org wrote:
>
>> Your mail to 'macports-changes' with the subject
>>
>> [macports-ports]
I'm getting these emails too for pull requests I created that have
been approved.
Is someone able to whitelist github sending emails to the
macport-changes list...
John
On 25 January 2017 at 09:26, Ivan Larionov wrote:
> I started to get the same emails for every pull request opened by me when
On Tuesday January 24 2017 19:14:28 Brandon Allbery wrote:
>> 0775 (0001:1101) turning into 0255 (000:10101101), there's no
>> logical explanation (involving umask()) for that, is there?
I messed up a bit: I'm getting a 0225 permission, not 255. IOW, the user and
group read+write per
> On Jan 24, 2017, at 15:20, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 01:32, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 23, 2017, at 21:05, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
>>> wrote:
>>> commit b45c6c288b90421df0407b17a5885033bfb4efdd
>>>
>>> Author: Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
>
On 2017-01-25 13:50, John Patrick wrote:
> I'm getting these emails too for pull requests I created that have
> been approved.
>
> Is someone able to whitelist github sending emails to the
> macport-changes list...
Sorry for the inconvenience, these mails are certainly not intended to
go out to y
On Jan 25, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Rainer Müller wrote:
> Your message was held for moderation because SpamAssassin gave the
> message a score of 6.2 for the following reasons:
>
> HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
> HEADER_SPAM,
2.499 2.499 1.994 0.585
> HTML_MESSAGE,
0.001
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:10 AM, René J.V. Bertin
wrote:
> Why yes indeed, but then the question becomes why the umask would
> sometimes get set to 0255. Does that sound like a value that base might use
> in certain conditions? I never use umask myself, one of those things I
> shoot myself in the
On Wednesday January 25 2017 12:51:07 Brandon Allbery wrote:
>There was at least one past bugfix where the code (for "install" of
>directories, iirc?) was inappropriately using the umask directly.
And that happened intermittently and in such a way that doing things like
activating verbose mode (
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear all,
I just tried to get the macports postfix running on my macos Sierra
machine. But I could not get useful logs out of it.
If I start the service via "port load postfix" I see two messages in
/var/log/system.log from com.apple.xpc.launchd, but
On Jan 25, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Johannes Kastl wrote:
>
> I just tried to get the macports postfix running on my macos Sierra
> machine. But I could not get useful logs out of it.
you're looking in the wrong place.
For stuff built on Sierra, logging goes through apple's new logging system.
see th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25.01.17 20:06 Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> For stuff built on Sierra, logging goes through apple's new
> logging system.
>
> see the 'log' manpage.
Aaaah, finally one thing that Apple does differently than anybody
else. Nice. ;-)
> To replicate tail
When using Mac OS X 10.7 and I try to get info on any port that uses the
Qt5 PortGroup, I get the error that "Port qt56-qtbase not found". A
little searching finds that in the qt5-1.0 PortGroup, the proc
"qt5.get_default_name" returns "qt56" for this OS version, which is then
used as the base for
any update for the acceptance of the typesafe-activator port submission???
https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/130
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/53177
Cheers,
John
You are not missing anything.
That was my mistake.
I will fix it as soon as I get the chance.
Sorry about that.
-Marcus
> On Jan 25, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Michael Dickens wrote:
>
> When using Mac OS X 10.7 and I try to get info on any port that uses the
> Qt5 PortGroup, I get the error that "Port
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there,
after Daniel told me the right way to get to the logs, I tried to
setup postfix to forward local mails via a relayhost.
Postfix is installed with +pcre+sasl+smtputf8+tls, so basically
sending via tls and authenticating to the relayhost shou
> On Jan 25, 2017, at 4:19 PM, Johannes Kastl wrote:
> Postfix is installed with +pcre+sasl+smtputf8+tls, so basically
> sending via tls and authenticating to the relayhost should work.
>
> But: I can't get postfix to accept the servers certificate, no
> matter which smtp_tls_CAfile I set. I trie
> On Jan 25, 2017, at 16:00, Andrea D'Amore wrote:
>
> Andrea D'Amore (anddam) pushed a commit to branch master
> in repository macports-ports.
>
>
> https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/commit/7309fe0c7a76d6dfd7d23b7d0f22aa62e263cd0c
>
> The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:53:25AM +0100, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> > The only difference in MacPorts behavior I would expect here is the
> > check whether output is to a terminal.
>
> Between the 2 commands above? Indeed, but there must be subtle
> differences in the overall context. Strace
On Wednesday January 25 2017 23:53:29 Clemens Lang wrote:
Hi,
> Pextlib is an extension for the Tcl interpreter. Yes, InstallCmd() is
> called by Tcl, but the way this works is that the Pextlib library is
> loaded into Tcl and registers the xinstall command, which causes Tcl to
> invoke InstallC
On 2017-1-26 01:41 , Rainer Müller wrote:
Your message was held for moderation because SpamAssassin gave the
message a score of 6.2 for the following reasons:
HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, HEADER_SPAM, HTML_MESSAGE,
HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG, MIME_HTML_ONLY, NO_RELAYS, TO_NO_BRKTS_HTML_ONLY,
URIBL_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25.01.17 22:28 Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> What does `openssl s_client -connect 78.46.5.205:25 -starttls
> smtp` > say?
"verify return: 1" sounds like problems, but "Verify return code: 0
(ok)" at the end sounds ok.
>> openssl s_client -connect 78.46.
23 matches
Mail list logo
