Hi,
ropers wrote on Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 03:25:58AM +0200:
>> On 2011-09-23, ropers wrote:
>>>$ mandoc -Tascii /usr/ports/infrastructure/build/dpb3.1 | less
> mandoc -Tascii /usr/ports/infrastructure/man/man1/dpb.1 | less
As you keep citing that line from the outdated undeadly article,
here
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 02:25:58 +0100, ropers wrote:
> > If the ports tree is in the usual place
>
> "If" being the operative word; to quote from undeadly, emphasis added:
This thread is about building -current packages from the ports tree, so I think
it's a reasonable assumption.
> > then yes 'm
To put things in perspective, the dpb framework is now about two years old.
It was a bit quirky and experimental until 4.9.
The addition of /usr/ports/infrastructure/man to man.conf happened a little
before 5.0.
So, people wanting to build packages *for current* should have no problem
accessing
> On 2011-09-23, ropers wrote:
>> dpb is not in base, there are no packages, it's not mentioned in the
>> OpenBSD FAQ or Porter's Handbook, and it's not listed at openports.se.
>> It can be found via the googles, but for your average OpenBSD user
>> typing man dpb will do exactly diddly squat. ;-)
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 02:19:04PM -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
> this is not a tool for the masses.
> Even if it WERE in base and there were a man page for it, I do not
> believe the developers would be interested in having people look at
> the FAQ and say, "...cool, I should do this!"
>
> Shoo
On 09/23/2011 11:32 AM, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
man dpb
While I appreciate the dubious "humour" of these questions repeating
near *every friggin release*, I also award you this badge for your
reply:
http://codinghorror.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a85dcdae970b0128776ff992970c-pi
dpb is not in base, there
On 2011-09-23, ropers wrote:
> On 23 September 2011 04:46, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
>> man dpb
>
> While I appreciate the dubious "humour" of these questions repeating
> near *every friggin release*, I also award you this badge for your
> reply:
> http://codinghorror.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a85dcdae970b
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 05:25:29PM +0200, ropers wrote:
> On 23 September 2011 04:46, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> > man dpb
>
> While I appreciate the dubious "humour" of these questions repeating
> near *every friggin release*, I also award you this badge for your
> reply:
> http://codinghorror.typep
>> man dpb
>
> While I appreciate the dubious "humour" of these questions repeating
> near *every friggin release*, I also award you this badge for your
> reply:
> http://codinghorror.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a85dcdae970b0128776ff992970c-pi
>
> dpb is not in base, there are no packages, it's not mentio
On 23 September 2011 04:46, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> man dpb
While I appreciate the dubious "humour" of these questions repeating
near *every friggin release*, I also award you this badge for your
reply:
http://codinghorror.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a85dcdae970b0128776ff992970c-pi
dpb is not in base, t
On 09/22/11 20:53, LeviaComm Networks wrote:
On 21-Sep-11 02:23, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
Hello list,
is this intentional, or there is some problem that prevents amd64
snapshot packags from being built?
I am seeing this too. What is going on? There are packages for other
platforms and none f
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:53 PM, LeviaComm Networks
wrote:
> On 21-Sep-11 02:23, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
>>
>> Hello list,
>>
>> is this intentional, or there is some problem that prevents amd64
>> snapshot packags from being built?
>>
> I am seeing this too. What is going on? There are packages
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:53 PM, LeviaComm Networks wrote:
>
> The only way I see to move forward would be to either downgrade to 4.9 or
> compile the damned packages myself.
>
Which would be faster than complaining.
On 21-Sep-11 02:23, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
Hello list,
is this intentional, or there is some problem that prevents amd64
snapshot packags from being built?
I am seeing this too. What is going on? There are packages for other
platforms and none for others. All the mirrors I have check has
One more reason to hate Gnome.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:25:40PM +0200, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Gregory Edigarov
> > wrote:
> > > Hello list,
> > >
> > > is this intentional, or there is some problem that
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:25:40PM +0200, Landry Breuil wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Gregory Edigarov
> wrote:
> > Hello list,
> >
> > is this intentional, or there is some problem that prevents amd64
> > snapshot packags from being built?
>
> The gremlins stole them.
Are you sure ?
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Gregory Edigarov
wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> is this intentional, or there is some problem that prevents amd64
> snapshot packags from being built?
The gremlins stole them.
Hello list,
is this intentional, or there is some problem that prevents amd64
snapshot packags from being built?
--
With best regards,
Gregory Edigarov
18 matches
Mail list logo
