Re: Lion disk image for MacPorts 2.0.0-rc1

On Jul 20, 2011, at 22:38, James F. Marshall wrote: > On Jul 20, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Joshua Root wrote: > >> There's now a Lion installer available along with the rest > > Will this installer remove 1.9.2? Like all MacPorts installers (and all other installers, no?), it will overwrite any file

Re: Lion disk image for MacPorts 2.0.0-rc1

On Jul 20, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Joshua Root wrote: > There's now a Lion installer available along with the rest Will this installer remove 1.9.2? ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/list

Re: pre 2.0 EOL timeframe?

> "Ryan" == Ryan Schmidt writes: Ryan> The ability to install as an ordinary user has existed for years. Ryan> The ability for MacPorts to run with sudo but drop privileges to Ryan> an ordinary user has existed since 1.9, and will be on by default Ryan> (and MacPorts will create that user fo

Re: pre 2.0 EOL timeframe?

On Jul 20, 2011, at 15:56, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > Oh, for some reason, I thought this was an entirely different engine or > something. Maybe I was confused by the ability to install it as an > ordinary user not needing sudo in front of every port command. The ability to install as an ordin

Re: pre 2.0 EOL timeframe?

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > If you're asking what has changed, that's available as always in the > ChangeLog. > > https://svn.macports.org/repository/macports/trunk/base/ChangeLog > So is this change to not use the hardlink system (which seems fairly major) covered b

Re: pre 2.0 EOL timeframe?

On Jul 20, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > > In that case, does the "selfupdate" I'm doing every day automatically > bring me to 2.0 when it's final? yes -- Daniel J. Luke +==

Re: pre 2.0 EOL timeframe?

> "Ryan" == Ryan Schmidt writes: Ryan> MacPorts 2.0 isn't fundamentally different from MacPorts 1.9. I'm Ryan> not certain why we didn't call it 1.10. Blame the marketing Ryan> department. :) Oh, for some reason, I thought this was an entirely different engine or something. Maybe I was conf

Re: pre 2.0 EOL timeframe?

On Jul 20, 2011, at 15:44, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > Is there an easily accessed release note about > upgrading from 1.x? If you're asking how to upgrade, it should be no different from upgrading from any previous release: http://guide.macports.org/chunked/installing.macports.upgrade.html I

Re: pre 2.0 EOL timeframe?

> "Daniel" == Daniel J Luke writes: Daniel> So wait a week or two and then upgrade? Well, there's that. Is there an easily accessed release note about upgrading from 1.x? Daniel> ... or test it out on a non-production system? Sadly, I don't have any of these. Thus, I usually just wait a

Re: pre 2.0 EOL timeframe?

On Jul 20, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > >> "Daniel" == Daniel J Luke writes: > > Daniel> Traditionally, we only support the current release... > > Daniel> I'm not sure why you'd want to avoid 2.0 as opposed to any other > Daniel> MacPorts release... > > I'm always a bit ne

Re: pre 2.0 EOL timeframe?

> "Daniel" == Daniel J Luke writes: Daniel> Traditionally, we only support the current release... Daniel> I'm not sure why you'd want to avoid 2.0 as opposed to any other Daniel> MacPorts release... I'm always a bit nervous about .0's. Maybe it's just undue paranoia. -- Randal L. Schwart

Re: pre 2.0 EOL timeframe?

On Jul 20, 2011, at 4:08 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > > I'm not terribly interested in upgrading to 2.0 until I have to bite the > bullet for Lion, which I'm hoping is a few months from now. (No > bleeding edge for my production machine, thank you.) > > Will 1.x be supported for at least a bi

pre 2.0 EOL timeframe?

I'm not terribly interested in upgrading to 2.0 until I have to bite the bullet for Lion, which I'm hoping is a few months from now. (No bleeding edge for my production machine, thank you.) Will 1.x be supported for at least a bit longer? What is the EOL timeframe? -- Randal L. Schwartz - Sto

Re: Trickle bandwidth shaper

On Jul 20, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 15:37, Ralph Seichter wrote: > On 20.07.11 00:51, Arno Hautala wrote: > > I'd enjoy using trickle as well, but I doubt it's possible without > > significant rewrites.. > > Well, perhaps ipfw-based traffic shaping is

Re: Trickle bandwidth shaper

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 15:37, Ralph Seichter wrote: > On 20.07.11 00:51, Arno Hautala wrote: > > I'd enjoy using trickle as well, but I doubt it's possible without > > significant rewrites.. > > Well, perhaps ipfw-based traffic shaping is the proper way to do things > with OS X. Randal Schwartz h

Lion disk image for MacPorts 2.0.0-rc1

There's now a Lion installer available along with the rest: One known issue: 'port pkg' may not work correctly on Lion with dropped privileges. The symptom is that the built package does not install any files. Some

Re: Trickle bandwidth shaper

On 20.07.11 00:51, Arno Hautala wrote: > I'd enjoy using trickle as well, but I doubt it's possible without > significant rewrites.. Well, perhaps ipfw-based traffic shaping is the proper way to do things with OS X. Randal Schwartz has suggested this direction aswell. I think I will give it a try

Re: Trickle bandwidth shaper

On 20.07.11 00:43, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > If you want to see trickle on Mac OS X, work with the developer of > the software to make that happen. I have sent an E-Mail to Marius Eriksen, and I hope he will answer. From my reading so far I guess that you're correct in assuming that trickle has not b

Re: MacPorts installation on a separate partition

Joshua and Daniel, Thank you for your input on this issue as well as the information that hard links are going away in the next version of MacPorts. Regards, Michelle On Jul 19, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Joshua Root wrote: > On 28164-7-23 05:59 , Michelle Gill wrote: >> Dear MacPorts Users, >> >> W