viq [2006-05-21, 02:49:50]:
> Anyone else seeing this? I tried building kile and it errors out on 'patch'
> step saying that patch to src/kile/syntax/Makefile.in seems to be already
> applied.
A $Revision$ tag inside a patch got substituted upon committing, I have
removed this. Should be okay no
Anyone else seeing this? I tried building kile and it errors out on 'patch'
step saying that patch to src/kile/syntax/Makefile.in seems to be already
applied.
--
viq
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 07:16:47PM +0200, Johan Torin wrote:
> On Saturday 20 May 2006 15:03, Lars Hansson wrote:
> > What "make update" does is eactly what the pkg tools does, ie pkg_add -r so
> > it's neather better or worse. Well, it's worse because you need to install
> > the entire ports tree
On Saturday 20 May 2006 10:23, Liviu Daia wrote:
> On 20 May 2006, steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > Liviu Daia [2006-05-20, 10:20:54]:
> > > More no_x11 fun, this time with nmap. Nmap depends on libdnet,
> > > which depends on Python (huh?), which depends on Tk, which depends
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 06:27:38AM -0400, Chad M Stewart wrote:
>
> On May 19, 2006, at 2:52 PM, marius wrote:
>
> >Hi Chad,
> >
> >I had the same problem installing another port dependant on Python. I
> >found that installing tk-8.4.7 first, and then restarting the previous
> >installation made
On Saturday 20 May 2006 15:03, Lars Hansson wrote:
> What "make update" does is eactly what the pkg tools does, ie pkg_add -r so
> it's neather better or worse. Well, it's worse because you need to install
> the entire ports tree and compile the port into a package etc. Just using
> packages is fas
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 09:44:51PM +0800, Lars Hansson wrote:
> On Saturday 20 May 2006 21:29, Keith Matthews wrote:
> > And not so long ago there was a no_x11 version of tk.
>
> There has never been a no_x11 version of Tk. Ever.
There has, however, been a no-Tk version ('no_tkinter') of python f
On 5/18/06, Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
attached you find my attempt at porting Safe::Hole.
This module allows you to call subroutines defined outside of a Safe
compartment within the context of where they were defined (ie,
bypassing the rules for the Safe compartment for t
Hi.
Since all files in /etc/raddb are readable by anyone (and those might
contain passwords), I propose this very little change to the freeradius
port.
Regards,
--
Antoine Jacoutot
Observatoire de Paris
SIO - Centre de calcul (Bat 15)
5, Place Jules Janssen
92195 Meudon Cedex
Tel : +33 (0)1.
On Saturday 20 May 2006 21:29, Keith Matthews wrote:
> And not so long ago there was a no_x11 version of tk.
There has never been a no_x11 version of Tk. Ever.
---
Lars Hansson
On Sat, 20 May 2006 15:14:55 +0200
steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lars Hansson [2006-05-20, 20:26:14]:
> > > Something along the lines of "In case you want to use ports later, you
> > > will need X even on a non-X system to satisfy dependencies." in the
> > > Installation-FAQ will re
On 20 May 2006, steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Liviu Daia [2006-05-20, 11:23:29]:
[...]
> > Is building from ports still supported on OpenBSD?
>
> Yes. People who build ports are expected to have all filesets
> installed, including X.
Having used OpenBSD for 7+ years, 3.9 is
Lars Hansson [2006-05-20, 20:26:14]:
> > Something along the lines of "In case you want to use ports later, you
> > will need X even on a non-X system to satisfy dependencies." in the
> > Installation-FAQ will remedy the situation for newcomers proactively.
>
> Except that you dont need X to build
On Saturday 20 May 2006 20:52, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> Since you are up-to-date, please share with me: which ?
man pkg_add
> True. "make clean" won't neither. But "make update" does. Surprised ?
What "make update" does is eactly what the pkg tools does, ie pkg_add -r so
it's neather better or worse.
On 2006/05/20 20:52, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> >No, packages has a better method.
> Since you are up-to-date, please share with me: which ?
pkg_add -ui
Lars Hansson wrote:
No, packages has a better method.
Since you are up-to-date, please share with me: which ?
"make install" for a port will not update an
already installed port.
True. "make clean" won't neither. But "make update" does. Surprised ?
If you cant figure that out by yourse
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 07:05:47PM +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> Joachim Schipper wrote:
>
> >OTOH, it is expected you either know what you are doing or just install
> >packages - and in fact, if you do know what you are doing, you typically
> >*still* install packages.
>
> Or, maybe, if you know wha
On Saturday 20 May 2006 19:05, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> Or, maybe, if you know what you are doing, you still install ports, for
> their IMHO better method of updating.
No, packages has a better method. "make install" for a port will not update an
already installed port.
There's a reason Theo, Espie et
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:24:47AM +0100, Keith Matthews wrote:
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 10:44:23 +0200
> steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes. People who build ports are expected to have all filesets installed,
> > including X.
>
> Oh, where is this documented please ?
Well, for one,
Joachim Schipper wrote:
OTOH, it is expected you either know what you are doing or just install
packages - and in fact, if you do know what you are doing, you typically
*still* install packages.
Or, maybe, if you know what you are doing, you still install ports, for
their IMHO better method
On May 19, 2006, at 2:52 PM, marius wrote:
Hi Chad,
I had the same problem installing another port dependant on Python. I
found that installing tk-8.4.7 first, and then restarting the previous
installation made it go away.
I got it working. I first cleaned up python, then tk, then built &
On Sat, 20 May 2006 10:44:23 +0200
steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes. People who build ports are expected to have all filesets installed,
> including X.
>
Oh, where is this documented please ?
Joachim Schipper dixit (2006-05-20, 11:22:35):
> On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:53:21AM +0200, Florin Iamandi wrote:
> > Liviu Daia dixit (2006-05-20, 10:26:02):
> >
> > > Is building from ports still supported on OpenBSD?
> >
> > I don't think it was ever "supported"...
> > http://openbsd.org/faq/f
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:53:21AM +0200, Florin Iamandi wrote:
> Liviu Daia dixit (2006-05-20, 10:26:02):
>
> > Is building from ports still supported on OpenBSD?
>
> I don't think it was ever "supported"...
> http://openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PkgVsPorts
Well, it *is* supported to the extent th
Liviu Daia dixit (2006-05-20, 10:26:02):
> Is building from ports still supported on OpenBSD?
I don't think it was ever "supported"...
http://openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PkgVsPorts
--
Florin Iamandi (Slippery)
Reason is the first victim of emotion. -- Scytale, Dune Messiah
Liviu Daia [2006-05-20, 11:23:29]:
> On 20 May 2006, steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Liviu Daia [2006-05-20, 10:20:54]:
> > > More no_x11 fun, this time with nmap. Nmap depends on libdnet,
> > > which depends on Python (huh?), which depends on Tk, which depends
> > > on X. Bu
On 20 May 2006, steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Liviu Daia [2006-05-20, 10:20:54]:
> > More no_x11 fun, this time with nmap. Nmap depends on libdnet,
> > which depends on Python (huh?), which depends on Tk, which depends
> > on X. Building a no_python flavor of libdnet first solv
Liviu Daia [2006-05-20, 10:20:54]:
> More no_x11 fun, this time with nmap. Nmap depends on libdnet,
> which depends on Python (huh?), which depends on Tk, which depends on X.
> Building a no_python flavor of libdnet first solves the problem...
Which "problem" is that? We do not consider X a p
More no_x11 fun, this time with nmap. Nmap depends on libdnet,
which depends on Python (huh?), which depends on Tk, which depends on X.
Building a no_python flavor of libdnet first solves the problem...
Regards,
Liviu Daia
--
Dr. Liviu Daia http://w
29 matches
Mail list logo
