In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10 Jul, Will Andrews wrote:
>
> >> Only if ports-base isn't anymore in ports-all or my local CVS tree is
> >
> > ports-base was/has never [been] in ports-all, for some strange reason.
>
> Really?
[...]
> I read
On 10 Jul, Will Andrews wrote:
>> Only if ports-base isn't anymore in ports-all or my local CVS tree is
>
> ports-base was/has never [been] in ports-all, for some strange reason.
Really?
/usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile:
---snip---
## Ports Collection.
#
# The easiest way to get the por
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:44:08 EST, Ade Lovett wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 06:32:22PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> > But you didn't update /usr/ports/Mk, did you? :-)
>
> This is nothing to do with parts of /usr/ports being out of date
> and has already been mentioned on both -ports and -c
On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 07:15:31PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Only if ports-base isn't anymore in ports-all or my local CVS tree is
ports-base was/has never [been] in ports-all, for some strange reason.
--
Will Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+
On 10 Jul, Ade Lovett wrote:
>> But you didn't update /usr/ports/Mk, did you? :-)
Only if ports-base isn't anymore in ports-all or my local CVS tree is
messed up.
But you didn't do an »grep -i pod /usr/ports/Mk/*«, did you? :-)
> This is nothing to do with parts of /usr/ports being out of date
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 06:32:22PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> > But you didn't update /usr/ports/Mk, did you? :-)
>
> This is nothing to do with parts of /usr/ports being out of date
> and has already been mentioned on both -ports and -current.
Will fix now...
M
--
Mark Murray
Join the ant
On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 06:32:22PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> But you didn't update /usr/ports/Mk, did you? :-)
This is nothing to do with parts of /usr/ports being out of date
and has already been mentioned on both -ports and -current.
>From my -current box, which is most definitely up to da
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:51:46 +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> after the messages about the perl update have settled I decided to
> update my perl-ports (p5-*), but I get a warning (the "echo $(PATH)"
> below is inserted into the port Makefile by me).
But you didn't update /usr/ports/Mk, did
> From: "Alexander N. Kabaev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I am perfectly aware of the way OpenBSD builds contrib software. I am just
> making a point that they have found perl 5.6.0 is stable enough to be
> included into their OS.
Well, knowing the way they build their contrib stuff, one would expec
> I had some free time today so I started converting perl 5.6.0 to bmake.
> So far, I've gotten libperl to build and plan to keep at the rest of it.
> Given my schedule, it will probably take me another week to get the build
> right and another week or so to test its integration with build/insta
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Anton Berezin writes:
: It is an issue of personal relationships and politics, not the technical
: one. Tom Christiansen uses OpenBSD and advocates Perl to it (and other
: way around).
tchrist lives in Boulder, as does millert (Todd Miller) and the high
tech commin
Could we stop this nonsense thread now? No one is against it. The only
reason why it is not in the tree is that no one has the time to actually
implement the change.
If someone wants it in the tree, do the work and submit it to the
current maintainer of Perl in FreeBSD.
Thanks in advance.
Nick
We want to update our system perl5. It'll take some work. If you want
to do the work, your patches will be greatly appreciated by our perl5
maintainer, Mark Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Since nobody here has offered to do any _work_ on incorporating perl
5.6.0 into FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT, please w
On Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 12:57:16AM -0400, Alexander N. Kabaev wrote:
> I am perfectly aware of the way OpenBSD builds contrib software. I am
> just making a point that they have found perl 5.6.0 is stable enough
> to be included into their OS.
It is an issue of personal relationships and politic
At 12:57 AM -0400 2000/4/7, Alexander N. Kabaev wrote:
> I am perfectly aware of the way OpenBSD builds contrib software. I am just
> making a point that they have found perl 5.6.0 is stable enough to be
> included into their OS.
It's my understanding that we already have a better and
On 6-Apr-00 at 23:35, Kris Kennaway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > You can't just make install in /usr/ports/lang/perl any more - there's
> > a FORBIDDEN in there.
>
> Right, because we actually have a later version in the base system
> (5.005_03 vs
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Including Perl in the make world build is something entirely different
> > from doing a make install /usr/ports, I'm sure.
>
> You can't just make install in /usr/ports/lang/perl any more - there's
> a FORBIDDEN in there.
Right, because we actuall
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kris
Kennaway writes:
: acceptable style for FreeBSD, not to mention probably breaking certain
: features we support such as cross-compilation :-)
One can almost cross compile OpenBSD. But the almost is due to the
zillions of imported files that use the "native" b
On 3-Apr-00 at 02:56, Nick Hibma ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Are there actually any good reasons why we _should_ upgrade in the first
> place? Security fixes, added functionality we require, etc. The perl we
> have is stable and the problems it has are well known, which is good
> enough in 99
On 3-Apr-00 at 10:09, Brad Knowles ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> At 11:59 AM -0400 2000/4/3, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
>
> > PERL is not just used by the FreeBSD system, it's also used by many
> > applications ran on top of FreeBSD. Those applications are more likely
> > to require an up-t
I am perfectly aware of the way OpenBSD builds contrib software. I am just
making a point that they have found perl 5.6.0 is stable enough to be
included into their OS.
On 07-Apr-00 Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Alexander N. Kabaev wrote:
>
>> According to OpenBSD ournal site, Ope
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Alexander N. Kabaev wrote:
> According to OpenBSD ournal site, OpenBSD-current has perl 5.6.0 in it's source
> tree already.
OpenBSD don't even try to make their "bundled software" comply with the
rest of the system build architecture - they basically just import the
perl dis
According to OpenBSD ournal site, OpenBSD-current has perl 5.6.0 in it's source
tree already.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
(cc-list pruned)
On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:24:06AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> My stupid question, though, is why is this such a big issue? Would it be
> too hard to extend our /usr/src build process so that it is smart enough
> to do an install out of ports, and just build the port
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > Christopher Masto wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:52:13AM +0100, Nick Hibma wrote:
> > > > Are there actually any good reasons why we _should_ upgrade in the first
> > > > place?
> > >
> > > Of course. W
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Doug Barton wrote:
> Christopher Masto wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:52:13AM +0100, Nick Hibma wrote:
> > > Are there actually any good reasons why we _should_ upgrade in the first
> > > place?
> >
> > Of course. We now have an obsolete version of Perl. That sh
Christopher Masto wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:52:13AM +0100, Nick Hibma wrote:
> > Are there actually any good reasons why we _should_ upgrade in the first
> > place?
>
> Of course. We now have an obsolete version of Perl. That should be
> reason enough to upgrade.
You haven
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
> Which either gives me two different versions of PERL to worry about or
> forces me to use an unsupported version for making the world. It's bad
> enough that I have to work around the sendmail bug in the base system
> ;-)
The issue with perl, t
Brad Knowles wrote:
>
> At 11:59 AM -0400 2000/4/3, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
>
> > PERL is not just used by the FreeBSD system, it's also used by many
> > applications ran on top of FreeBSD. Those applications are more likely
> > to require an up-to-date version of PERL. We for one need
At 11:59 AM -0400 2000/4/3, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
> PERL is not just used by the FreeBSD system, it's also used by many
> applications ran on top of FreeBSD. Those applications are more likely
> to require an up-to-date version of PERL. We for one need the (overly
> late) 64-bit suppo
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:52:13AM +0100, Nick Hibma wrote:
> Are there actually any good reasons why we _should_ upgrade in the first
> place?
Of course. We now have an obsolete version of Perl. That should be
reason enough to upgrade.
5.6 is the first major release in over a year. It has si
Nick Hibma wrote:
> Are there actually any good reasons why we _should_ upgrade in the first
> place? Security fixes, added functionality we require, etc. The perl we
> have is stable and the problems it has are well known, which is good
> enough in 99% of the cases.
PERL is not just used by the
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 07:01:10AM -0500, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> I would think the perl upgrade would also be done in current. I would
> think you would want to track this sort of thing as closely as
> possible - unless there is an pending release - which there isn't.
> Users will follow c
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Christopher Masto wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 05:56:22PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> >
> > > Are there any plans to merge perl-5.6.0 into current? I don't have any
> > > plans for using it currently, but I curious.
> >
I have no real reason for including its functionality - I am as of yet -
pretty much a perl novice. However, judging by the past, the C compiler
upgrade is done in current - and I would think the perl upgrade would also
be done in current. I would think you would want to track this sort of
thing
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 17:56:22 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
> Hmm. What with the nightmarish build structure of perl, I'm sure that
> reading this is just going to wreck Mark's day.
I doubt it. Not for a while, anyway. Mark and I chatted about the
state of the mailing lists over drinks last Frid
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 10:52:13 +0100, Nick Hibma wrote:
> Are there actually any good reasons why we _should_ upgrade in the first
> place? Security fixes, added functionality we require, etc. The perl we
> have is stable and the problems it has are well known, which is good
> enough in 99% of th
Are there actually any good reasons why we _should_ upgrade in the first
place? Security fixes, added functionality we require, etc. The perl we
have is stable and the problems it has are well known, which is good
enough in 99% of the cases.
Including Perl in the make world build is something en
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 05:56:22PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
> > Are there any plans to merge perl-5.6.0 into current? I don't have any
> > plans for using it currently, but I curious.
>
> Hmm. What with the nightmarish build structure of perl
On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Are there any plans to merge perl-5.6.0 into current? I don't have any
> plans for using it currently, but I curious.
Hmm. What with the nightmarish build structure of perl, I'm sure that
reading this is just going to wreck Mark's day. In light
40 matches
Mail list logo
