On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
The High Sierra buildbot worker is still busy building ports. If you
want to have a higher probability that you can receive binaries from us,
instead of having to build from source, don't upgrade yet. Same goes for
High Sierra-specific build failures of
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Chris Jones wrote:
Correction... It was sent to the users and *announce* mailing lists.
Wasn't in -users, but I did find it in -announce (to which I've just
subscribed).
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer."
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Dave Horsfall wrote:
Yes, you did miss it. The announcement was sent out on the 8th Octo to
both the user and devel lists. Search for the message "MacPorts 2.4.2
has been released" which I guess is clear enough ;)
Hmmm... I don't recall seeing it, so I must be getting fo
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Chris Jones wrote:
Yes, you did miss it. The announcement was sent out on the 8th Octo to
both the user and devel lists. Search for the message "MacPorts 2.4.2
has been released" which I guess is clear enough ;)
Hmmm... I don't recall seeing it, so I must be getting forg
On Oct 12, 2017, at 11:04 AM, ges...@ftp83plus.net wrote:
>
> The issue is the fan speed(=noise) and CPU usage (to a lesser degree), not so
> much temperature.
>
> 4- more specifically, would fan speed be set based on the CPU load trend,
> rather than actual temperature? Assuming "preventive co
Lets use real facts as opposed to your subjective feelings...
https://www.futuremark.com/pressreleases/is-it-true-that-iphones-get-slower-over-time
Apple does NOT intentional make their own older devices run slower than
they otherwise could. That is nonsense conspiracies. What they do do is
r
I'd love to be proved wrong, but my experience with different Apple devices
says otherwise. iPhone 3GS suddenly got painfully slow after the latest
compatible iOS. MacBook5,2 much slower after the latest compatible MacOSX
version. iPad 2 much slower after the latest compatible iOS version. Plus
On 2017-10-12 12:02, Chris Jones wrote:
> See
>
> https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-announce/2017-October/date.html
>
>
> Maybe its not in the below because it was sent to the announce list, and
> cc'ed to users ?
Sorry, that was my fault. The announce for 2.4.2 was meant to be sent
Deleting that entry does not resolve the problem.
I’m guessing there is another entry that it is trying to retrieve with no luck,
but which one?
myports.txt has 324 lines - after deletion of istumbler. (wc -l)
The installation is nominally Apache2, Aspell, Mailman, Mysql 56, perl5, php56,
po
On Oct 12, 2017, at 07:02, db wrote:
> On 12 Oct 2017, at 12:51, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-users/2017-September/043743.html
>> The High Sierra buildbot worker is still busy building ports. If you want to
>> have a higher probability that you can receive
On 12 Oct 2017, at 12:51, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-users/2017-September/043743.html
> The High Sierra buildbot worker is still busy building ports. If you want to
> have a higher probability that you can receive binaries from us, instead of
> having to
On 2017-10-10, at 1:25 PM, [ftp83plus] wrote:
> I won’t criticise the typos after reading my own grammar…;-)
>
> As for the processes, I often see kernel_task taking a rather large chunk of
> CPU. At the moment it’s hovering around 27%, but that’s an exception rather
> than the rule. Most of
On 2017-10-10, at 1:25 PM, [ftp83plus] wrote:
> I won’t criticise the typos after reading my own grammar…;-)
>
> As for the processes, I often see kernel_task taking a rather large chunk of
> CPU. At the moment it’s hovering around 27%, but that’s an exception rather
> than the rule. Most of
On Oct 11, 2017, at 19:12, William H. Magill wrote:
> I Have upgraded my mini to High Sierra and trying to migrate to Mac Ports
> 2.4.2.
> (I had previously upgraded my iMac with no problems.)
>
> The mini upgrade is failing in the restore_ports.tcl step
> ——--
> shianb
On Oct 8, 2017, at 20:04, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> Now that MacPorts is on 2.4.2, is High Sierra now fair game?
MacPorts 2.4.2 fixed a bug seen only on High Sierra with ports that want to
install files with the setuid bit set. A very small set of ports, but important
to fix nonetheless.
The res
See
https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-announce/2017-October/date.html
Maybe its not in the below because it was sent to the announce list, and
cc'ed to users ?
In any case, if you want to get notifications like this, make sure you
are signed up to the annouce list, as well as use
I don't know what went wrong but I didn't see the announcement here in the user
list, nor the announcement for the previous release.
And at least for 2.4.2 neither did the list archive
https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-users/2017-October/date.html
> Am 12.10.2017 um 10:28 schrieb Ch
On 12/10/17 09:27, Chris Jones wrote:
On 12/10/17 00:04, Dave Horsfall wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Dave Horsfall wrote:
Now that MacPorts is on 2.4.2, is High Sierra now fair game? Is it
likely to be even more bloated and slower on my old 4GB MacBook than
before?
Well, that generated a
On 12/10/17 00:04, Dave Horsfall wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Dave Horsfall wrote:
Now that MacPorts is on 2.4.2, is High Sierra now fair game? Is it
likely to be even more bloated and slower on my old 4GB MacBook than
before?
Well, that generated a fascinating discussion, but it didn't ans
On 12/10/17 03:27, [ftp83plus] wrote:
Already did. No difference.
I am beginning to suspect that Apple did this on purpose to push users to buy
new hardware. Just as it does crippling iPhone with bloated iOS.
Please stop make FUD like comments like this, they are no help (and also
wrong, b
20 matches
Mail list logo
