On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:50:37AM +0200, Landry Breuil wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 08:06:02PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since the plan is to make 2.6 the default, some people have mentioned the
> > python update posted on ports@ some time ago, so below is the updat
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 08:06:02PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since the plan is to make 2.6 the default, some people have mentioned the
> python update posted on ports@ some time ago, so below is the update as well
> as moving the default.
> I've not removed 2.5 for the time
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 12:40:46PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 06.07.2010 at 00:11:26 -0400, William Yodlowsky
> wrote:
> > 3.0 won't be upgraded any more, which is why -current has 3.6 in its
> > place.
>
> ok - I've yesterday seen an empty 3.6 directory, but at least a wor
Hi,
On Tue, 06.07.2010 at 00:11:26 -0400, William Yodlowsky
wrote:
> 3.0 won't be upgraded any more, which is why -current has 3.6 in its
> place.
ok - I've yesterday seen an empty 3.6 directory, but at least a working
3.5 directory. 4.7 ships with 3.0.18, though.
> Even Firefox 3.5 is deprec
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 08:06:02PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since the plan is to make 2.6 the default, some people have mentioned the
> python update posted on ports@ some time ago, so below is the update as well
> as moving the default.
> I've not removed 2.5 for the time
On 2010/07/05 17:41, Landry Breuil wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 05:29:12PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, 04.07.2010 at 14:00:11 +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> > > That's no longer true, we do have people handling stable ports and
> > > packages
> > > for security purpos
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 05:29:12PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 04.07.2010 at 14:00:11 +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> > That's no longer true, we do have people handling stable ports and packages
> > for security purposes.
>
> it would be great, then, to also note updates on this
Hi,
On Sun, 04.07.2010 at 14:00:11 +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> That's no longer true, we do have people handling stable ports and packages
> for security purposes.
it would be great, then, to also note updates on this page:
http://www.openbsd.org/pkg-stable.html
TIA!
--
Kind regards,
--Toni
Hi,
I'm on the list, so please...
On Sun, 04.07.2010 at 12:22:21 +0100, Stuart Henderson
wrote:
> On 2010/07/04 11:18, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > I can go. In many cases, this works just fine.
>
> In many cases, it works, but also in many cases, it breaks.
right. I didn't say anything different
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 11:18:59AM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Umm... Marc's response made it very clear that a user of ports or
> packages is mostly out in the dust. I didn't expect much else,
> anyway, but this is one of OpenBSD's real weaknesses, as there is
> no security support for ports nor
On 2010/07/04 11:18, Toni Mueller wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding about what I consider
> to be the problem, and what you think what I'm doing.
>
> On Sat, 03.07.2010 at 22:49:19 +0200, Matthias Kilian
> wrote:
> > If you're trying to use a current ports tree
Hi,
there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding about what I consider
to be the problem, and what you think what I'm doing.
On Sat, 03.07.2010 at 22:49:19 +0200, Matthias Kilian
wrote:
> If you're trying to use a current ports tree on a -stable system,
To clarify: I'm not using a -current
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 06:53:07PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> On Fri, 02.07.2010 at 12:27:27 +0100, Stuart Henderson
> wrote:
> > Sorry reports from 4.7 are not too helpful here for this. If it
> > happens for anyone on -current, please capture full build logs -
>
> I'm aware that the project
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 01:40:54PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2010/07/02 15:34, Pekka Niiranen wrote:
> > Damien Miller wrote:
> > >On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > >
> > >>The things I use regularly work fine. Admittedly this is not all that
> > >>many programs, but in the
Hi Stuart,
On Fri, 02.07.2010 at 12:27:27 +0100, Stuart Henderson
wrote:
> Sorry reports from 4.7 are not too helpful here for this. If it
> happens for anyone on -current, please capture full build logs -
I'm aware that the project may not have that much of an interest in
looking at this, but
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, David Coppa wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
> >
> > Care to give a reason why not? Typically 2.x.0 releases have suffered
> > from a number of bugs and compatibility problems. I don't think it is
> > a great idea that we jump onto them straight aw
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
> Don't believe the hype. It might be that python 2.7 is going to be great,
> but experience has shown that, for many software projects, upstream
> engineering quality is sorely lacking... (of course, python is not
> GNU python, so it starts with t
On 2010/07/02 14:49, David Coppa wrote:
> You may have reasons, but these sentences from
> http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/2.7.html sound good to me:
>
> < worked on making it a good release for the long term.>>
>
> < production systems that have not been ported to Python 3.x.>>
>
> < mainte
On 2010/07/02 14:49, David Coppa wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Pekka Niiranen wrote:
> >
> >> Damien Miller wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > The things I use regularly work fine. Admittedly this is no
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 01:01:59PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 23.06.2010 at 20:06:02 +0100, Federico G. Schwindt
> wrote:
> > specially on something else than i386 and amd64, although more testing on
> > those won't hurt.
> > I just tested it on i386 so far.
>
> FTBFS on
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Pekka Niiranen wrote:
>
>> Damien Miller wrote:
>> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> >
>> > > The things I use regularly work fine. Admittedly this is not all that
>> > > many programs, but in the absence of
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 10:42:05PM +1000, Damien Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Pekka Niiranen wrote:
>
> > Damien Miller wrote:
> > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > >
> > > > The things I use regularly work fine. Admittedly this is not all that
> > > > many programs, but i
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Pekka Niiranen wrote:
> Damien Miller wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >
> > > The things I use regularly work fine. Admittedly this is not all that
> > > many programs, but in the absence of better reports from the people who
> > > actually requested
On 2010/07/02 15:34, Pekka Niiranen wrote:
> Damien Miller wrote:
> >On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >
> >>The things I use regularly work fine. Admittedly this is not all that
> >>many programs, but in the absence of better reports from the people who
> >>actually requested the upda
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Pekka Niiranen
wrote:
> Damien Miller wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> The things I use regularly work fine. Admittedly this is not all that
>>> many programs, but in the absence of better reports from the people who
>>> actually requ
Damien Miller wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Stuart Henderson wrote:
The things I use regularly work fine. Admittedly this is not all that
many programs, but in the absence of better reports from the people who
actually requested the update...
No additional regression test failures on amd64 (one
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> The things I use regularly work fine. Admittedly this is not all that
> many programs, but in the absence of better reports from the people who
> actually requested the update...
>
> No additional regression test failures on amd64 (one is fixed).
>
On 2010/07/02 13:01, Toni Mueller wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 23.06.2010 at 20:06:02 +0100, Federico G. Schwindt
> wrote:
> > specially on something else than i386 and amd64, although more testing on
> > those won't hurt.
> > I just tested it on i386 so far.
>
> FTBFS on 4.7/amd64:
Sorry re
Hi,
On Wed, 23.06.2010 at 20:06:02 +0100, Federico G. Schwindt
wrote:
> specially on something else than i386 and amd64, although more testing on
> those won't hurt.
> I just tested it on i386 so far.
FTBFS on 4.7/amd64:
===> Building package for python-2.6.5
Create /home/ports/packages/a
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:09:42PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2010/06/29 14:49, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 08:06:02PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Since the plan is to make 2.6 the default, some people have mentioned
> > > the
>
On 2010/06/29 14:49, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 08:06:02PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since the plan is to make 2.6 the default, some people have mentioned the
> > python update posted on ports@ some time ago, so below is the update as well
> >
I've been using it this way for over a year now with my own patch on i386
and amd64. Things like easy_install, pylons, py-libxml, py-libxslt, psycopg2
etc all work well. As it's been said before plone might suck.
Cheers,
Brandon
On Jun 29, 2010 9:51 AM, "Federico G. Schwindt" wrote:
On Wed, Jun
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 08:06:02PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since the plan is to make 2.6 the default, some people have mentioned the
> python update posted on ports@ some time ago, so below is the update as well
> as moving the default.
> I've not removed 2.5 for the time
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:13:26PM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 08:06:02PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since the plan is to make 2.6 the default, some people have mentioned the
> > python update posted on ports@ some time ago, so below is the up
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 08:06:02PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since the plan is to make 2.6 the default, some people have mentioned the
> python update posted on ports@ some time ago, so below is the update as well
> as moving the default.
> I've not removed 2.5 for the time
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:01:22PM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 08:06:02PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since the plan is to make 2.6 the default, some people have mentioned the
> > python update posted on ports@ some time ago, so below is the up
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 08:06:02PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since the plan is to make 2.6 the default, some people have mentioned the
> python update posted on ports@ some time ago, so below is the update as well
> as moving the default.
> I've not removed 2.5 for the time
Hi,
Since the plan is to make 2.6 the default, some people have mentioned the
python update posted on ports@ some time ago, so below is the update as well
as moving the default.
I've not removed 2.5 for the time being as some have shown some concerns
and we can always kill it later.
So if yo
38 matches
Mail list logo
