Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
* From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Look, we're obviously not going to convince each other with this discussion. I'm sorry I caused you much trouble by adding it without working it with you first, but I believe the current state is workable for both of us. Can we leave it as it is? * 2. Your INDEX files can frequently be out of date with the ports *collection and someone should be able to do their own "make index" *when that happens. There is a "chopindex" script in ports/Tools/portbuild/scripts that anyone can use to clean up the index file (remove extra dependencies, lines for non-existent packages, etc.). *packages and that is simply not [yet] the case. The INDEX file *certainly isn't for the ports - they already get the dependency *information out of the Makefiles - it's for the packages and for *rudimentary search features. It is for all of them, as well as things like the ports web page. The one I commit is simply one with most information -- you can derive the package index from this one, but not the other way around. * To put it another way, consider me as Bruce and this as a really * egregious style(9) bug on your part. You can argue about it forever, * but it won't make you any less wrong in the end. :) If you want to declare yourself Bruce, go ahead. Then I'm going to take your advice about Bruce-filters and take note to your opinion but respectfully stand by my decision, thank you very much. :) Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
* From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Look, we're obviously not going to convince each other with this discussion. I'm sorry I caused you much trouble by adding it without working it with you first, but I believe the current state is workable for both of us. Can we leave it as it is? * 2. Your INDEX files can frequently be out of date with the ports *collection and someone should be able to do their own "make index" *when that happens. There is a "chopindex" script in ports/Tools/portbuild/scripts that anyone can use to clean up the index file (remove extra dependencies, lines for non-existent packages, etc.). *packages and that is simply not [yet] the case. The INDEX file *certainly isn't for the ports - they already get the dependency *information out of the Makefiles - it's for the packages and for *rudimentary search features. It is for all of them, as well as things like the ports web page. The one I commit is simply one with most information -- you can derive the package index from this one, but not the other way around. * To put it another way, consider me as Bruce and this as a really * egregious style(9) bug on your part. You can argue about it forever, * but it won't make you any less wrong in the end. :) If you want to declare yourself Bruce, go ahead. Then I'm going to take your advice about Bruce-filters and take note to your opinion but respectfully stand by my decision, thank you very much. :) Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
> * it's part of the dependancy chain now for a lot of packages, > > You are entitled to you opinion, but please don't misrepresent the > facts. They are not part of the dependency chain for any *packages*. Sorry if the english I used was ambiguous - I should have said "to install packages using sysinstall, and possibly the pkg_add tool as well in the future, the INDEX file is part of the dependency chain." This is indisputably true and if you'd care to argue the point, I'll be happy to point you at the relevant source code. > True, but all the INDEX files *I* make for package sets (and those are > the only ones you ought to be using, since those are the only ones > truly synced with the time of package builds) have the XFree86 stuff > stripped. :) This point is irrelevant for a number of reasons, only several of which I will list here: 1. I'm hardly the only one who splits up package sets and/or makes FreeBSD ISO images and it's possible to derive an otherwise perfectly reasonable INDEX file from multiple sources. It shouldn't be necessary to put a note on the file saying "go ask Satoshi if you want a sanitized INDEX file to use" and the very concept would violate POLA anyway. 2. Your INDEX files can frequently be out of date with the ports collection and someone should be able to do their own "make index" when that happens. 3. The assumption has always been that the dependency lists in the INDEX file will reflect one's best-effort attempt at providing all the packages so referenced in whatever package [sub]collection you're providing to someone. In order to qualify for inclusion in this file, the XFree86 port should therefore be generating suitable packages and that is simply not [yet] the case. The INDEX file certainly isn't for the ports - they already get the dependency information out of the Makefiles - it's for the packages and for rudimentary search features. And I think I am on fairly safe ground when I tell you what the INDEX file is for because I was the one to add it in the first place back in 1995, as the cvs log entry for ports/Makefile will cheerfully tell you: revision 1.8 date: 1995/01/14 11:27:06; author: jkh; state: Exp; lines: +7 -1 1. Make an index rule 2. Commit an INDEX file containing information on the various ports. I know when and why I added INDEX files and I know when and why you added breakage to this mechanism, breakage you have been seemingly unwilling to simply fix, preferring to back patch the end-product instead of fixing the generation script OR providing the XFree86-3.3.4 meta-port which goes and loads the appropriate subcomponents and makes the INDEX file entries "true" again. To put it another way, consider me as Bruce and this as a really egregious style(9) bug on your part. You can argue about it forever, but it won't make you any less wrong in the end. :) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
> * it's part of the dependancy chain now for a lot of packages, > > You are entitled to you opinion, but please don't misrepresent the > facts. They are not part of the dependency chain for any *packages*. Sorry if the english I used was ambiguous - I should have said "to install packages using sysinstall, and possibly the pkg_add tool as well in the future, the INDEX file is part of the dependency chain." This is indisputably true and if you'd care to argue the point, I'll be happy to point you at the relevant source code. > True, but all the INDEX files *I* make for package sets (and those are > the only ones you ought to be using, since those are the only ones > truly synced with the time of package builds) have the XFree86 stuff > stripped. :) This point is irrelevant for a number of reasons, only several of which I will list here: 1. I'm hardly the only one who splits up package sets and/or makes FreeBSD ISO images and it's possible to derive an otherwise perfectly reasonable INDEX file from multiple sources. It shouldn't be necessary to put a note on the file saying "go ask Satoshi if you want a sanitized INDEX file to use" and the very concept would violate POLA anyway. 2. Your INDEX files can frequently be out of date with the ports collection and someone should be able to do their own "make index" when that happens. 3. The assumption has always been that the dependency lists in the INDEX file will reflect one's best-effort attempt at providing all the packages so referenced in whatever package [sub]collection you're providing to someone. In order to qualify for inclusion in this file, the XFree86 port should therefore be generating suitable packages and that is simply not [yet] the case. The INDEX file certainly isn't for the ports - they already get the dependency information out of the Makefiles - it's for the packages and for rudimentary search features. And I think I am on fairly safe ground when I tell you what the INDEX file is for because I was the one to add it in the first place back in 1995, as the cvs log entry for ports/Makefile will cheerfully tell you: revision 1.8 date: 1995/01/14 11:27:06; author: jkh; state: Exp; lines: +7 -1 1. Make an index rule 2. Commit an INDEX file containing information on the various ports. I know when and why I added INDEX files and I know when and why you added breakage to this mechanism, breakage you have been seemingly unwilling to simply fix, preferring to back patch the end-product instead of fixing the generation script OR providing the XFree86-3.3.4 meta-port which goes and loads the appropriate subcomponents and makes the INDEX file entries "true" again. To put it another way, consider me as Bruce and this as a really egregious style(9) bug on your part. You can argue about it forever, but it won't make you any less wrong in the end. :) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
* From: Tim Vanderhoek * I can claim a bit of the responsibility. It was done after Sue Blake * complained that there was no way to distinguish packages requiring X * from those that didn't. I wrote some extended message discussing * different types of dependencies, and then Satoshi wrote the change. * * However, my archives show I pointed-out the problem (with possible * solutions) from the start. Perhaps I would have been more urgent if * I'd forseen the future, but it's one of those things you look at and * figure "ah, it's so Freaking obvious that someone will fix it". * * The change was made long before the release and there was plenty of * time to fix any breakage. It was just never fixed. Ok, but also note that there aren't any dependencies left in packages anymore. I intend to ressurect those when the XFree86 port is broken up into more manageable chunks, but until then, the packages will ship with no XFree86 dependencies. Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
* From: Tim Vanderhoek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * I can claim a bit of the responsibility. It was done after Sue Blake * complained that there was no way to distinguish packages requiring X * from those that didn't. I wrote some extended message discussing * different types of dependencies, and then Satoshi wrote the change. * * However, my archives show I pointed-out the problem (with possible * solutions) from the start. Perhaps I would have been more urgent if * I'd forseen the future, but it's one of those things you look at and * figure "ah, it's so Freaking obvious that someone will fix it". * * The change was made long before the release and there was plenty of * time to fix any breakage. It was just never fixed. Ok, but also note that there aren't any dependencies left in packages anymore. I intend to ressurect those when the XFree86 port is broken up into more manageable chunks, but until then, the packages will ship with no XFree86 dependencies. Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 10:32:40AM -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > Just to clear up a misconception; this isn't actually a sysinstall > problem. This is a ports bug which Satoshi or somebody introduced > when they added a dependency on the XFree86 port very prematurely. It I can claim a bit of the responsibility. It was done after Sue Blake complained that there was no way to distinguish packages requiring X from those that didn't. I wrote some extended message discussing different types of dependencies, and then Satoshi wrote the change. However, my archives show I pointed-out the problem (with possible solutions) from the start. Perhaps I would have been more urgent if I'd forseen the future, but it's one of those things you look at and figure "ah, it's so Freaking obvious that someone will fix it". The change was made long before the release and there was plenty of time to fix any breakage. It was just never fixed. -- This is my .signature which gets appended to the end of my messages. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 10:32:40AM -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > Just to clear up a misconception; this isn't actually a sysinstall > problem. This is a ports bug which Satoshi or somebody introduced > when they added a dependency on the XFree86 port very prematurely. It I can claim a bit of the responsibility. It was done after Sue Blake complained that there was no way to distinguish packages requiring X from those that didn't. I wrote some extended message discussing different types of dependencies, and then Satoshi wrote the change. However, my archives show I pointed-out the problem (with possible solutions) from the start. Perhaps I would have been more urgent if I'd forseen the future, but it's one of those things you look at and figure "ah, it's so Freaking obvious that someone will fix it". The change was made long before the release and there was plenty of time to fix any breakage. It was just never fixed. -- This is my .signature which gets appended to the end of my messages. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
* From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" * Just to clear up a misconception; this isn't actually a sysinstall * problem. This is a ports bug which Satoshi or somebody introduced * when they added a dependency on the XFree86 port very prematurely. It * was premature because no actual package exists for XFree86 yet and yet * it's part of the dependancy chain now for a lot of packages, You are entitled to you opinion, but please don't misrepresent the facts. They are not part of the dependency chain for any *packages*. * resulting * in severe dysfunction unless it's removed by hand from the INDEX you * use for package adding. True, but all the INDEX files *I* make for package sets (and those are the only ones you ought to be using, since those are the only ones truly synced with the time of package builds) have the XFree86 stuff stripped. :) -PW To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > the parts that they need. However right after 3.2-R came out there was a > > flurry of -questions mail about broken pkg dependencies because sysinstall > > wasn't properly registering the X install. If the port depending on the > > Just to clear up a misconception; this isn't actually a sysinstall > problem. Okey dokey. As long as y'all are aware of it I'm happy, I just hadn't seen it mentioned. Thanks for clarifying, Doug -- On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does. -- Will Rogers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
* From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Just to clear up a misconception; this isn't actually a sysinstall * problem. This is a ports bug which Satoshi or somebody introduced * when they added a dependency on the XFree86 port very prematurely. It * was premature because no actual package exists for XFree86 yet and yet * it's part of the dependancy chain now for a lot of packages, You are entitled to you opinion, but please don't misrepresent the facts. They are not part of the dependency chain for any *packages*. * resulting * in severe dysfunction unless it's removed by hand from the INDEX you * use for package adding. True, but all the INDEX files *I* make for package sets (and those are the only ones you ought to be using, since those are the only ones truly synced with the time of package builds) have the XFree86 stuff stripped. :) -PW To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > the parts that they need. However right after 3.2-R came out there was a > > flurry of -questions mail about broken pkg dependencies because sysinstall > > wasn't properly registering the X install. If the port depending on the > > Just to clear up a misconception; this isn't actually a sysinstall > problem. Okey dokey. As long as y'all are aware of it I'm happy, I just hadn't seen it mentioned. Thanks for clarifying, Doug -- On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does. -- Will Rogers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
> the parts that they need. However right after 3.2-R came out there was a > flurry of -questions mail about broken pkg dependencies because sysinstall > wasn't properly registering the X install. If the port depending on the Just to clear up a misconception; this isn't actually a sysinstall problem. This is a ports bug which Satoshi or somebody introduced when they added a dependency on the XFree86 port very prematurely. It was premature because no actual package exists for XFree86 yet and yet it's part of the dependancy chain now for a lot of packages, resulting in severe dysfunction unless it's removed by hand from the INDEX you use for package adding. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
> the parts that they need. However right after 3.2-R came out there was a > flurry of -questions mail about broken pkg dependencies because sysinstall > wasn't properly registering the X install. If the port depending on the Just to clear up a misconception; this isn't actually a sysinstall problem. This is a ports bug which Satoshi or somebody introduced when they added a dependency on the XFree86 port very prematurely. It was premature because no actual package exists for XFree86 yet and yet it's part of the dependancy chain now for a lot of packages, resulting in severe dysfunction unless it's removed by hand from the INDEX you use for package adding. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 06:54:32 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote: > It used to be that packages would depend on X, but Sheldon reminded me > (although I think it was accidental :-) that XFree86 was added to > PACKAGE_IGNORE_DEPENDS to prevent this. PKG_IGNORE_DEPENDS is what I had in mind. :-P Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 10:41:24PM -0700, Doug wrote:
>
> the parts that they need. However right after 3.2-R came out there was a
> flurry of -questions mail about broken pkg dependencies because sysinstall
> wasn't properly registering the X install. If the port depending on the
> existence of /var/db/pkg/X* is actually an error I'll report what I find to
> the -ports list.
You need to specify "port, eg. /usr/ports/x/y" or "package".
I'd be surprised if you find any port that depends on /var/db/pkg/x.
It used to be that packages would depend on X, but Sheldon reminded me
(although I think it was accidental :-) that XFree86 was added to
PACKAGE_IGNORE_DEPENDS to prevent this.
Thus, only /usr/ports should depend on X. Few if any of these should be
looking through ${PKG_DBDIR} for information. No packages should
depend on X.
--
This is my .signature which gets appended to the end of my messages.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 06:54:32 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote: > It used to be that packages would depend on X, but Sheldon reminded me > (although I think it was accidental :-) that XFree86 was added to > PACKAGE_IGNORE_DEPENDS to prevent this. PKG_IGNORE_DEPENDS is what I had in mind. :-P Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 10:41:24PM -0700, Doug wrote:
>
> the parts that they need. However right after 3.2-R came out there was a
> flurry of -questions mail about broken pkg dependencies because sysinstall
> wasn't properly registering the X install. If the port depending on the
> existence of /var/db/pkg/X* is actually an error I'll report what I find to
> the -ports list.
You need to specify "port, eg. /usr/ports/x/y" or "package".
I'd be surprised if you find any port that depends on /var/db/pkg/x.
It used to be that packages would depend on X, but Sheldon reminded me
(although I think it was accidental :-) that XFree86 was added to
PACKAGE_IGNORE_DEPENDS to prevent this.
Thus, only /usr/ports should depend on X. Few if any of these should be
looking through ${PKG_DBDIR} for information. No packages should
depend on X.
--
This is my .signature which gets appended to the end of my messages.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 22:41:24 MST, Doug wrote: > > > However right after 3.2-R came out there was a flurry of -questions > > mail about broken pkg dependencies because sysinstall wasn't properly > > registering the X install. > > Is this a different problem from the broken compat22 installation? Yes. > > If the port depending on the existence of /var/db/pkg/X* is actually > > an error I'll report what I find to the -ports list. > > I'm pretty sure it constitutes "non-conformant" behaviour and I'd be > happy to look at it. Hrrmm... come to think of it, I think that the problem actually amounted to the ports not being able to register after installation was done. In other words, (IIRC) after they were built and installed ports that depended on X were unable to insert their +REQUIRED_BY entries, so this would not constitute "broken." However, I'm a bit fuzzy on it, and I'm very tired so I'm not sure. If I find anything odd I'll report it. Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 22:41:24 MST, Doug wrote: > However right after 3.2-R came out there was a flurry of -questions > mail about broken pkg dependencies because sysinstall wasn't properly > registering the X install. Is this a different problem from the broken compat22 installation? > If the port depending on the existence of /var/db/pkg/X* is actually > an error I'll report what I find to the -ports list. I'm pretty sure it constitutes "non-conformant" behaviour and I'd be happy to look at it. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:09:50 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote: > > > I seem to remember that you can get away with a simple "mkdir > > /var/db/pkg/xxx" to fake it. > > Can you think of any ports that test for the existance of XFree86 using > the package system? They use USE_X_PREFIX or USE_X_LIB, both of which > test for libX11, no? Well, in an ideal world the ports that need parts of X would only test for the parts that they need. However right after 3.2-R came out there was a flurry of -questions mail about broken pkg dependencies because sysinstall wasn't properly registering the X install. If the port depending on the existence of /var/db/pkg/X* is actually an error I'll report what I find to the -ports list. Thanks, Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:09:50 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote: > I seem to remember that you can get away with a simple "mkdir > /var/db/pkg/xxx" to fake it. Can you think of any ports that test for the existance of XFree86 using the package system? They use USE_X_PREFIX or USE_X_LIB, both of which test for libX11, no? Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 22:41:24 MST, Doug wrote: > > > However right after 3.2-R came out there was a flurry of -questions > > mail about broken pkg dependencies because sysinstall wasn't properly > > registering the X install. > > Is this a different problem from the broken compat22 installation? Yes. > > If the port depending on the existence of /var/db/pkg/X* is actually > > an error I'll report what I find to the -ports list. > > I'm pretty sure it constitutes "non-conformant" behaviour and I'd be > happy to look at it. Hrrmm... come to think of it, I think that the problem actually amounted to the ports not being able to register after installation was done. In other words, (IIRC) after they were built and installed ports that depended on X were unable to insert their +REQUIRED_BY entries, so this would not constitute "broken." However, I'm a bit fuzzy on it, and I'm very tired so I'm not sure. If I find anything odd I'll report it. Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 22:41:24 MST, Doug wrote: > However right after 3.2-R came out there was a flurry of -questions > mail about broken pkg dependencies because sysinstall wasn't properly > registering the X install. Is this a different problem from the broken compat22 installation? > If the port depending on the existence of /var/db/pkg/X* is actually > an error I'll report what I find to the -ports list. I'm pretty sure it constitutes "non-conformant" behaviour and I'd be happy to look at it. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:09:50 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote: > > > I seem to remember that you can get away with a simple "mkdir > > /var/db/pkg/xxx" to fake it. > > Can you think of any ports that test for the existance of XFree86 using > the package system? They use USE_X_PREFIX or USE_X_LIB, both of which > test for libX11, no? Well, in an ideal world the ports that need parts of X would only test for the parts that they need. However right after 3.2-R came out there was a flurry of -questions mail about broken pkg dependencies because sysinstall wasn't properly registering the X install. If the port depending on the existence of /var/db/pkg/X* is actually an error I'll report what I find to the -ports list. Thanks, Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:09:50 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote: > I seem to remember that you can get away with a simple "mkdir > /var/db/pkg/xxx" to fake it. Can you think of any ports that test for the existance of XFree86 using the package system? They use USE_X_PREFIX or USE_X_LIB, both of which test for libX11, no? Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 05:29:20PM -0700, Doug wrote: > > and installed it the "hard" way, however I know I'm going to run into > trouble down the road when ports start looking for the X stuff in > /var/db/pkg. I seem to remember that you can get away with a simple "mkdir /var/db/pkg/xxx" to fake it. Alternatively, $ cd /usr/ports/x11/XFree86 ; make generate-plist fake-pkg should be a little more correct. -- This is my .signature which gets appended to the end of my messages. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?
On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 05:29:20PM -0700, Doug wrote: > > and installed it the "hard" way, however I know I'm going to run into > trouble down the road when ports start looking for the X stuff in > /var/db/pkg. I seem to remember that you can get away with a simple "mkdir /var/db/pkg/xxx" to fake it. Alternatively, $ cd /usr/ports/x11/XFree86 ; make generate-plist fake-pkg should be a little more correct. -- This is my .signature which gets appended to the end of my messages. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
