On Tue, 13 17:43 , Marc Espie wrote:
> I'm sorry to say, but you guys are completely clueless.
>
> The commit to modules.port.mk that says you need to have a current 'make'
> binary happened over a month ago, and it's just that: update source,
> rebuild make, end of story.
Well, you seem to be r
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:07:29PM +, Jesse Scott wrote:
> Markus Schatzl wrote:
> >On Mon, 12 23:23 , Marc Espie wrote:
> >
> >>As far as possible, avoid working on -current stuff using a system whose
> >>uname still says 4.0. Even though we try to avoid it, *every release*
> >>a few ports
On Tuesday 13 February 2007 06:07, Jesse Scott wrote:
> Markus Schatzl wrote:
> I ran into the same thing. Once the system rebuilt I had to perform the
> dreadful pkg_delete -q /var/db/pkg/* since the ports built on 4.0 would
> not work on 4.1-beta.
>
> > This happens with every other port (e.g. tr
Markus Schatzl wrote:
On Mon, 12 23:23 , Marc Espie wrote:
As far as possible, avoid working on -current stuff using a system whose
uname still says 4.0. Even though we try to avoid it, *every release*
a few ports (mostly gnu stuff, of course) uses hardcoded release numbers
in the weirdest p
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:12:29AM +0100, Markus Schatzl wrote:
> On Mon, 12 23:23 , Marc Espie wrote:
> > As far as possible, avoid working on -current stuff using a system whose
> > uname still says 4.0. Even though we try to avoid it, *every release*
> > a few ports (mostly gnu stuff, of course
On Mon, 12 23:23 , Marc Espie wrote:
> As far as possible, avoid working on -current stuff using a system whose
> uname still says 4.0. Even though we try to avoid it, *every release*
> a few ports (mostly gnu stuff, of course) uses hardcoded release numbers
> in the weirdest places, and we get br
