Hello!
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 03:10:43PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
>[...]
>make search key=
>is more or less deprecated...
What exact replacement do you have in eye for the use case of finding
where in the ports tree a port is (i.e. if one actually wants to use
a port rather than a package)?
Ki
Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> make search key=
> is more or less deprecated...
Interesting, So is /usr/ports/INDEX being dumped too at some point.
Or will it still have listings showing dependancies and stuff?
"Greg Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And something like screen is dependent on the OS. Should it be made
> apparent in the ports that the OS needs to be installed before you can
> install screen?
So to follow this a little further... you're saying X is an OS, not
something that runs on an
> make search key=
> is more or less deprecated...
What is the preffered make target now?
Regards
Edd
On 2/28/06, Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hannah Schroeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > X isn't in packages, but in simple tarballs.
> >
> > cd / ; for i in some/path/x*.tgz; do tar xvvzpf $i; done
> >
> > Configure if needed, run X.
> >
>
> Nick Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:55:29AM +0100, Joachim Schipper wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 07:01:26PM -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
> > Hannah Schroeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > X isn't in packages, but in simple tarballs.
> > > cd / ; for i in some/path/x*.tgz; do tar xvvzpf $i; done
> >
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 07:01:26PM -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Hannah Schroeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > X isn't in packages, but in simple tarballs.
> >
> > cd / ; for i in some/path/x*.tgz; do tar xvvzpf $i; done
> >
> > Configure if needed, run X.
> >
>
> Nick Holland <[EMAIL PROTECT
Hannah Schroeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> X isn't in packages, but in simple tarballs.
>
> cd / ; for i in some/path/x*.tgz; do tar xvvzpf $i; done
>
> Configure if needed, run X.
>
Nick Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No.
> X is not a "package". It is a file set, not part of the po
Harry Putnam wrote:
...
So shouldn't `X' appear as a dependancy? Or whatever package supplies
X?
No.
X is not a "package". It is a file set, not part of the ports tree.
Assuming I need to backup and get the installation package *x*.tgz. I'm not
sure how to proceed.
http://www.openbsd.org
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:00:53PM -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
>[...]
>So shouldn't `X' appear as a dependancy? Or whatever package supplies
>X?
>Assuming I need to backup and get the installation package *x*.tgz. I'm not
>sure how to proceed.
>I've installed from a recent snapshot and the
Ray Lai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have no part of X installed so should I see some dependancies listed
>> here?
>># make search key=ratpoison
>> Port: ratpoison-1.3.0p1
>> Path: x11/ratpoison
>> Info: minimal wm based on GNU screen
>> Maint: William Yodlowsky <[EMAIL PROT
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:04:46PM -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Maybe I don't understand what the dependancy lines are supposed to
> do. I thought they would list any dependancies.
>
> I have no part of X installed so should I see some dependancies listed
> here?
># make search key=ratpoison
Maybe I don't understand what the dependancy lines are supposed to
do. I thought they would list any dependancies.
I have no part of X installed so should I see some dependancies listed
here?
# make search key=ratpoison
Port: ratpoison-1.3.0p1
Path: x11/ratpoison
Info: minimal wm b
13 matches
Mail list logo
