On 27 February 2017 at 04:43, Justin C. Walker wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2017, at 18:05 , Christopher Stone wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 2017, at 19:57, Justin C. Walker wrote:
>>> Now, "port info" denies any knowledge of the port.
>>
>> Hey Justin,
>>
>> Try search instead of info:
>>
>> port search "surf"
For
On 27 February 2017 at 09:49, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> - On 10.11: edit the Portfile for k3dsurf and replace dependency on
> qt3-mac with qt4-mac, check if that compiles. If k3dsurf doesn't work
> with Qt 4 (which is possible, the last release seems to be from
> 2007/2009), there's no hope for thi
On 27 February 2017 at 11:07, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> I just figured out that k3dsurf depends on qt3-mac which doesn't
> compile on > 10.6, but one can still install qt3 and compile k3dsurf
> against qt3. That one uses X11, so it won't look nice, but that's
> still better than nothing.
I just tr
I changed the source to git. Can I safely delete the rsync tarball and related
files at /opt/local/var/macports/sources/rsync.macports.org/ ?
I also upgraded to 2.4.1 using `port`. Are there any files remaining from it
that could/should be deleted? I noticed that this is still using rsync.
On Feb 27, 2017, at 05:08, db wrote:
> I changed the source to git. Can I safely delete the rsync tarball and
> related files at /opt/local/var/macports/sources/rsync.macports.org/ ?
Sure.
> I also upgraded to 2.4.1 using `port`. Are there any files remaining from it
> that could/should be d
What about unnecessary files from the upgrade to 2.4.1 using `port`? Up until
now I always used the package, which had the consequence of writing my profile,
but at least it never increased the prefix size by 1 GB.
On 27 Feb 2017, at 19:16, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 05:08, d
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 12:52, db wrote:
>
> What about unnecessary files from the upgrade to 2.4.1 using `port`?
What files are you referring to?
> Up until now I always used the package, which had the consequence of writing
> my profile, but at least it never increased the prefix size by 1 GB
On 27 Feb 2017, at 20:48, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> What files are you referring to?
> Are you claiming that something new is using up 1GB of space?
Starting with 4.8 GB MacPorts prefix, I changed the source to using git and
upgraded to 2.4.1 via `port` — it went up to 5.9, from which I deleted .35
Seems that gcc6-6.3.0_2.darwin_10.x86_64.tbz2 was not pre-built; is that an
error, or intentional?
On 27 February 2017 at 22:46, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> Seems that gcc6-6.3.0_2.darwin_10.x86_64.tbz2 was not pre-built; is that an
> error, or intentional?
According to Ryan the VMs running 10.6 and 10.8 are currently down
after power outage and at least one of them needs some more work to
br
10 matches
Mail list logo
