Steven Mestdagh [2010-06-14, 20:22:02]:
> sure, 4.2.1 port attached (hardly changed wrt 4.2.4 port).
> only built blas/cblas with it, and that also works.
tested with gfortran 4.2.1 the ports which have fortran in MODULES.
this is on amd64. now we should compare regress to building with g77.
Federico G. Schwindt [2010-06-16, 17:00:19]:
> hi,
>
> is there any reason to keep 2.5 around and specially as the default?
> 2.6 has been stable for some time now and all the ports should work with
> it. itoh, 2.5 is not maintained anymore except for some sporadic security
> updates.
> havi
hi there,
i am just after a recent update to -current
and i noticed that i cannot start vlc,
unless i kill of the dbus processes it spawned.
also, if the dbus thingie is running while
closing vlc, it never quits "properly",
just stays there hanging.
is anyone seeing this?
OpenBSD 4.7-current (
> [..]
> Somebody posted a patch to update Python 2.6 to the latest version a few
> months ago. It would be good if this was committed along with this
> patch.
i agree, that'd be great but unfortunately only you and someone else
tested and that only covers i386 and amd64.
f.-
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:41:56PM -0400, Ian Darwin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 05:00:19PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > is there any reason to keep 2.5 around and specially as the default?
> > 2.6 has been stable for some time now and all the ports should work with
On 2010/06/16 17:00, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> hi,
>
> is there any reason to keep 2.5 around and specially as the default?
> 2.6 has been stable for some time now and all the ports should work with
> it. itoh, 2.5 is not maintained anymore except for some sporadic security
> updates.
>
On 2010/06/16 11:44, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> I am all for making 2.6 the default but eliminating 2.5 from the tree
> seems like a bad move to me. Now you'll force people to maintain their
> own port even though there is no real benefit for us to remove it.
They'll have to maintain their own stuf
We really need to make 2.6 the default.
On Jun 16, 2010 1:20 PM, "Henry Precheur" wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:44:22AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> I am talking about custom apps th...
All the people I know still stuck with 2.5 or less are keeping it,
because they are using something lik
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:44:22AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> I am talking about custom apps that you don't see. There is a lot of
> python code out there running on 2.5. I am not making it up; I know of
> several shops that do everything in 2.5.
All the people I know still stuck with 2.5 o
Python 2.3, 2.4, & 2.5 can be useful to test backward compatibility.
Lots of people --especially in the corporate world-- are still using old
Python versions. But in the case of OpenBSD I think that nobody would
mind if those old versions were removed.
Somebody posted a patch to update Python 2.6
I'm working on the development version of scribus, and I'm currently failing
with:
/usr/local/lib/libpython2.5.so.1.0: undefined reference to `openpty'
/usr/local/lib/libpython2.5.so.1.0: undefined reference to `forkpty'
Can this be caused by not being correctly linked to util?
I'm using a curr
I am talking about custom apps that you don't see. There is a lot of
python code out there running on 2.5. I am not making it up; I know of
several shops that do everything in 2.5.
I am all for making 2.6 the default but eliminating 2.5 from the tree
seems like a bad move to me. Now you'll forc
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 05:00:19PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> hi,
>
> is there any reason to keep 2.5 around and specially as the default?
> 2.6 has been stable for some time now and all the ports should work with
> it. itoh, 2.5 is not maintained anymore except for some sporadic sec
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 06:25:53PM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
>
> > hi,
> >
> > is there any reason to keep 2.5 around and specially as the default?
> > 2.6 has been stable for some time now and all the ports should work with
> > it. itoh
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:26:43AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> I would leave 2.5 alone too. I am sure there are apps that require it
> and it really doesn't hurt anything in the tree.
>
> Unfortunate side effect of these types of "languages".
if there is any app that needs 2.5, we can fix i
I would leave 2.5 alone too. I am sure there are apps that require it
and it really doesn't hurt anything in the tree.
Unfortunate side effect of these types of "languages".
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 05:00:19PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> hi,
>
> is there any reason to keep 2.5 around
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> hi,
>
> is there any reason to keep 2.5 around and specially as the default?
> 2.6 has been stable for some time now and all the ports should work with
> it. itoh, 2.5 is not maintained anymore except for some sporadic security
> updates.
>
hi,
is there any reason to keep 2.5 around and specially as the default?
2.6 has been stable for some time now and all the ports should work with
it. itoh, 2.5 is not maintained anymore except for some sporadic security
updates.
having to check your ports against 2.5 and 2.6 is time consumin
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Landry Breuil wrote:
> Ah, why not... i'd say it's up to the maintainer :)
>
> Or if you use mplayerplug-in and didn't switch to gecko-mediaplayer,
> raise up your hand!
Nobody seems to have stepped up so far...
Is anyone able to test the trac update with trac-ldapplugin?
(the Genshi update is committed now).
On 2010/06/14 15:36, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> The new version of Trac needs new Genshi (included; Trac is the
> only thing in ports using this at the moment).
>
> For Trac you will have to do the u
Build the haddock library, and split the program and the library
into different subpackages, because almost nothing will need the
library with the complete dependency on ghc. (The exception to
`nothing' above will be leksah, a Haskell GUI i'm currently porting).
comments? objections?
Index: Make
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:05:55PM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> If anyone is interested, let me know; I'll just import it (and all
> necessary dependencies). Otherwise, I'll remove this stuff from my
> local tree in a few days.
Some people asked me to just post the necessary ports here. Note:
a
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:48:39AM +0200, Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 04:07:42PM +0200, Jiri B. wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I found micq 0.5.3 in OpenBSD ports. It's obsolete, it has been renamed
> > to climm and its version is 0.7.1. So maybe micq is good candidate fo
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 04:07:42PM +0200, Jiri B. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I found micq 0.5.3 in OpenBSD ports. It's obsolete, it has been renamed
> to climm and its version is 0.7.1. So maybe micq is good candidate for
> deletion if nobody uses ports' version.
>
> My 2 cents
>
> Jiri
So, given the l
Hi,
security/stel doesn't build on gcc4 archs, due to use of
-fwritable-strings. While we can simply patch the makefile to remove the
use of such option, i'd rather garbage collect it into the attic,
because i doubt it offers features ssh(1) doesn't.
So if you use it for a good reason instead of
http://www.xkcd.com/754/
Marc, note the textbox that pops up when you park the mouse on the
cartoon - that's the bit I thought you'd appreciate given some of your
recent words about make.
;-))
*** NOTE *** Please DO NOT CC me. I subscribed to the list.
Mail to the sender address that does not or
26 matches
Mail list logo
