Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 03:04:57PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: > Why do you think that discussing problems with packages constitutes > whining? Are the developers now supposed to get feedback from the user > community by divination? please go read your original post. is that useful feedback or whining/complaining/bitching? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:18 PM, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for making my point! There's no good reason why git should require > X, so the package version should not. Now I understand why there's so many issues in the world. Love you way you deliberately misinterpret my words. I hope that's not what you do as chief scientist at work. But your argument is correct. There's no good reason why git should require X. Go bitch at the upstream for including Wish. Tell them to separate it out into two packages. git and git-gui. Let us know what Linus tells you. KTHXHAND -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 04:54:34PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote:
> At 05:23 PM 7/16/2008 -0400, William Boshuck wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 03:42:15PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote:
>> >
>> > I always do my homework,
>>
>> Is the following mindless word-drool about 'put startx into rc'
>> an example of how you do your homework?
>
> Yep, .. though I relied on another post instead of experience.
check src/distrib/miniroot/install.{sh,sub}
--
jared
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
At 09:03 PM 7/16/2008 -0400, bofh wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:41 PM, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Flavors is what enables the no_x11 option. What do you not understand about packages? If CVS requires X, then it requires X. You need to understand OpenBSD's philosophy. Why are services enabled that you will typically disable while "hardening" a linux box? It's in the FAQ. That is why OpenBSD's maintainers say, go ahead and install X if your package needs it. Thanks for making my point! There's no good reason why git should require X, so the package version should not. Lee
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
At 10:52 AM 7/17/2008 +1000, Damien Miller wrote: On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, L. V. Lammert wrote: You know, if you spent 1/10th of the effort that you have wasted ranting on learning the ports system then you could have modified the port to place the X11-requiring bits in a subpackage already. It isn't hard at all. You know, if you spend 1/20th of the time you spend bitching about problems reported by users, then a lot more would get done too! Can't patch what's already done, now, can you? Nobody cares about your rants, but if you make a patch then you have a solution. Better look in the mirror. I mentioned a problem, .. the maintainer told us that there was a git-main that did not require X. You're the one doing all the ranting. If you don't want to waste a lot of bandwidth, you don't have to reply. At least I don't reply individually. Lee
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:41 PM, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Marc Espie wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 09:30:02AM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: > > > If a command line tool like git has a 'GUI Helper', then that package > is > > > broken (which, I believe, is the case in this situation). > > > > You don't get it, so I'll explain it. > > > Yes, I DO get it, but, unfortunately, you don't. Having an 'X' version of > something as fundamental as a version control system is just plain dumb. > Unfortunately, it appears that you don't get it. I just downloaded the git source code from the main repository. it comes with a bunch of X related things. The INSTALL file talks about wish and git-gui. This indicates that the main package requires X. Marc's comments about not wasting time is the correct thing. > That has nothing to do with flavors! What if CVS required X? I doubt it > Flavors is what enables the no_x11 option. What do you not understand about packages? If CVS requires X, then it requires X. You need to understand OpenBSD's philosophy. Why are services enabled that you will typically disable while "hardening" a linux box? It's in the FAQ. That is why OpenBSD's maintainers say, go ahead and install X if your package needs it. In any case, it's in the maintainer's hands, as he has control. The point > of the discussion was to suggest that the no-X11 version BE the default > package, and I think that point has been made. > As Marc indicated - lack of time or interest would be the primary reasons. -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, L. V. Lammert wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Marc Espie wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 09:30:02AM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: > > > If a command line tool like git has a 'GUI Helper', then that package is > > > broken (which, I believe, is the case in this situation). > > > > You don't get it, so I'll explain it. > > > Yes, I DO get it, but, unfortunately, you don't. Having an 'X' version of > something as fundamental as a version control system is just plain dumb. > That has nothing to do with flavors! What if CVS required X? I doubt it > would be in the tree for more than 30 seconds, if it got committed at all. > > As the maintainer explained some time ago, there has been a no-X11 version > of GIT since April, so the question is, really, why that isn't the > package. Good suggestion, I think you would agree. You know, if you spent 1/10th of the effort that you have wasted ranting on learning the ports system then you could have modified the port to place the X11-requiring bits in a subpackage already. It isn't hard at all. Nobody cares about your rants, but if you make a patch then you have a solution. -d
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Marc Espie wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 09:30:02AM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: > > If a command line tool like git has a 'GUI Helper', then that package is > > broken (which, I believe, is the case in this situation). > > You don't get it, so I'll explain it. > Yes, I DO get it, but, unfortunately, you don't. Having an 'X' version of something as fundamental as a version control system is just plain dumb. That has nothing to do with flavors! What if CVS required X? I doubt it would be in the tree for more than 30 seconds, if it got committed at all. As the maintainer explained some time ago, there has been a no-X11 version of GIT since April, so the question is, really, why that isn't the package. Good suggestion, I think you would agree. In any case, it's in the maintainer's hands, as he has control. The point of the discussion was to suggest that the no-X11 version BE the default package, and I think that point has been made. Lee == Leland V. Lammert[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chief ScientistOmnitec Corporation Network/Internet Consultants www.omnitec.net ==
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 09:30:02AM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: > If a command line tool like git has a 'GUI Helper', then that package is > broken (which, I believe, is the case in this situation). You don't get it, so I'll explain it. There are a lot of packages in OpenBSD. We can spend time providing stupid options like manually removing X, and then spend more time testing, and testing again. Each flavor you add has a cost: more tests. Either they're not done, and then stuff breaks (because untested packages don't work, murphy's law), or it detracts from more useful stuff. Moving some X11 stuff to subpackages makes sense. Creating some no_x11 stuff, *very* occasionally, makes sense. Most of the time, it's a wast of time. It makes for more complicated dependency trees, build errors, packaging errors, runtime errors. We'd rather spend time doing valuable things. You can very well install X on a production server. You don't have to run it. If you're afraid it's going to hole your precious machine, just remove the setuid binaries, it's darn simple, and it won't affect package dependencies. If you don't like the current situation, go run something else. We have enough stuff to do already, we're not into adding knobs just because it's neater. There are huge amounts of useful modifications to do that are ways more important than creating no_x11 flavors (and testing them).
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
At 05:23 PM 7/16/2008 -0400, William Boshuck wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 03:42:15PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: > > I always do my homework, Is the following mindless word-drool about 'put startx into rc' an example of how you do your homework? Yep, .. though I relied on another post instead of experience. Lee
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 03:42:15PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: > > I always do my homework, Is the following mindless word-drool about 'put startx into rc' an example of how you do your homework? On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 09:30:02AM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Tony Abernethy wrote (to tedu@): > > > Out of curiosity, what happens when you install X but > > answer "no" to the question about intending to RUN X? > > > ... It would install all the C crap and not put startx > in rc, in general.
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
At 09:54 PM 7/16/2008 +0200, Landry Breuil wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:08 PM, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That doesn't fix the main problem, however, .. a version control package > should NOT be in packages as an X flavor. > > It was mentioned earlier that there is a non-X version in ports - why > don't the maintainers FIX the problem and make that the package instead of > all this bitching about why people compain about broken packages? You've been told that git had a -x11 subpackage since april in -current, now can you please stop your incessant pointless whining ? Can you at least do your own homework and learn how things work in OpenBSD ? Landry Why do you think that discussing problems with packages constitutes whining? Are the developers now supposed to get feedback from the user community by divination? If you don't want to waste bandwidth, stop being so childish that you have to have the last word. 97% of the bandwidth wasted on this topic is from whiners that have contributed abssolutely NOTHING to the discussion. Thankfully Bernd Ahlers had good info to contribute, so thank you. Lee
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
At 09:54 PM 7/16/2008 +0200, Landry Breuil wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:08 PM, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That doesn't fix the main problem, however, .. a version control package > should NOT be in packages as an X flavor. > > It was mentioned earlier that there is a non-X version in ports - why > don't the maintainers FIX the problem and make that the package instead of > all this bitching about why people compain about broken packages? You've been told that git had a -x11 subpackage since april in -current, now can you please stop your incessant pointless whining ? Can you at least do your own homework and learn how things work in OpenBSD ? Landry I always do my homework, .. why do you persist in wasting bandwidth? Lee
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of L. V. Lammert > It was mentioned earlier that there is a non-X version in ports - why > don't the maintainers FIX the problem and make that the package instead > of > all this bitching about why people compain about broken packages? > > Lee Why don't YOU fix the problem and submit a patch? don
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:08 PM, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That doesn't fix the main problem, however, .. a version control package > should NOT be in packages as an X flavor. > > It was mentioned earlier that there is a non-X version in ports - why > don't the maintainers FIX the problem and make that the package instead of > all this bitching about why people compain about broken packages? You've been told that git had a -x11 subpackage since april in -current, now can you please stop your incessant pointless whining ? Can you at least do your own homework and learn how things work in OpenBSD ? Landry
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On 7/16/08, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It was mentioned earlier that there is a non-X version in ports - why > don't the maintainers FIX the problem and make that the package instead of > all this bitching about why people compain about broken packages? The problem was fixed months ago. There's not much left to do except bitch at the bitchers.
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 02:08:51PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ted Unangst wrote: > > > On 7/15/08, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No, I'm sending an email to misc when a package depends on X that should > > > **NOT** depend on X. That's what's broken, obviously, if you're saying I > > > should be installing X on a production server. NOT. > > > > tar zxf X > > pkg_add crap > > rm -r /usr/X11R6 > > > That doesn't fix the main problem, however, .. a version control package > should NOT be in packages as an X flavor. > > It was mentioned earlier that there is a non-X version in ports - why > don't the maintainers FIX the problem and make that the package instead of > all this bitching about why people compain about broken packages? Maybe the maintainers don't consider this a bug. Why don't you fix it yourself? > > Lee > > == > Leland V. Lammert[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Chief ScientistOmnitec Corporation > Network/Internet Consultants www.omnitec.net > ==
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Tony Abernethy wrote: > Ted Unangst wrote: > > >If a command line tool like git has a 'GUI Helper', then that package is > >broken (which, I believe, is the case in this situation). > > The parallel argument is that if any GUI tool has a command line > helper function, then that package is broken. > (Microsoft Windows still has a command line) > You might have a point of view, but it seems to me to be > extremely naive and provincial and almost certainly wrong. > Sorry, that doesn't even make sense. Want to try again? What does the wrong flavor in packages have to do with your comment? Lee == Leland V. Lammert[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chief ScientistOmnitec Corporation Network/Internet Consultants www.omnitec.net ==
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ted Unangst wrote: > On 7/15/08, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, I'm sending an email to misc when a package depends on X that should > > **NOT** depend on X. That's what's broken, obviously, if you're saying I > > should be installing X on a production server. NOT. > > tar zxf X > pkg_add crap > rm -r /usr/X11R6 > That doesn't fix the main problem, however, .. a version control package should NOT be in packages as an X flavor. It was mentioned earlier that there is a non-X version in ports - why don't the maintainers FIX the problem and make that the package instead of all this bitching about why people compain about broken packages? Lee == Leland V. Lammert[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chief ScientistOmnitec Corporation Network/Internet Consultants www.omnitec.net ==
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 09:30:02AM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Tony Abernethy wrote (to tedu@): > > > Out of curiosity, what happens when you install X but > > answer "no" to the question about intending to RUN X? > > > ... It would install all the C crap and not put startx > in rc, in general. The question has nothing to do with "put startx in rc ...". (Hint: grep -A 5 expect /usr/src/distrib/miniroot/install.sub) > If a command line tool like git has a 'GUI Helper', then that > package is broken (which, I believe, is the case in this > situation). If someone spews the foregoing kind of misinformation to this list, then that someone is broken. cheers, -b
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Marco Peereboom wrote: > You could also use a less retarded source control system. > Not my choice, unfortunately, .. almost all of the Rails projects use GIT. Lee == Leland V. Lammert[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chief ScientistOmnitec Corporation Network/Internet Consultants www.omnitec.net ==
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On 7/16/08, Tony Abernethy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ted Unangst wrote: > > > >If a command line tool like git has a 'GUI Helper', then that package is > >broken (which, I believe, is the case in this situation). I most certainly did not write that.
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ted Unangst wrote: > On 7/15/08, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, I'm sending an email to misc when a package depends on X that should > > **NOT** depend on X. That's what's broken, obviously, if you're saying I > > should be installing X on a production server. NOT. > > tar zxf X > pkg_add crap > rm -r /usr/X11R6 > You forgot to add: Put on hip boots . . . Lee
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Tony Abernethy wrote: > Ted Unangst wrote: > > > > On 7/15/08, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No, I'm sending an email to misc when a package depends on > > X that should > > > **NOT** depend on X. That's what's broken, obviously, if > > you're saying I > > > should be installing X on a production server. NOT. > > > > tar zxf X > > pkg_add crap > > rm -r /usr/X11R6 > > > Lovely. > > Out of curiosity, what happens when you install X but answer > "no" to the question about intending to RUN X? > Sorry, not going to happen. It would install all the C crap and not put startx in rc, in general. > Seems like if a package has any kind of GUI helper/configurator > thingee then it has a legitimate requirement for something in X. > If a command line tool like git has a 'GUI Helper', then that package is broken (which, I believe, is the case in this situation). Lee == Leland V. Lammert[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chief ScientistOmnitec Corporation Network/Internet Consultants www.omnitec.net ==
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
Ted Unangst wrote: >If a command line tool like git has a 'GUI Helper', then that package is >broken (which, I believe, is the case in this situation). The parallel argument is that if any GUI tool has a command line helper function, then that package is broken. (Microsoft Windows still has a command line) You might have a point of view, but it seems to me to be extremely naive and provincial and almost certainly wrong.
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
MY APOLOGIES --- getting cross-eyed in my old age. >On 7/16/08, Tony Abernethy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ted Unangst wrote: >> >> >> >If a command line tool like git has a 'GUI Helper', then that package is >> >broken (which, I believe, is the case in this situation). > >I most certainly did not write that.
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
Marc Espie [Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:30:28PM +0200] wrote: >> It's because of gitk which is a repository browser (or so >> http://git.or.cz/course/svn.html tells me). Annoying that there's no >> git-no_x11 but them's the breaks. > >Makes no sense. It's clearly a multi-package situation, not flavor. > devel/git has a -x11 subpackage since 2008/04/01. Regards, Bernd
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On 7/15/08, Darrin Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Out of curiosity, what happens when you install X but answer > > > "no" to the question about intending to RUN X? > > > > exactly the same thing that happens when you answer "yes". > > > Doesn't that question effect the machdep.allowaperature sysctl? Other > than that, I don't think it does anything. Exactly. allowaperture has no effect on installing X.
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ted Unangst wrote: > try it. install x, then resist the urge to type "startx". can you do > it? can you ignore the siren song, or do your fingers fly forth of > their own volition? I have it on good authority that plugging one's ears with wax helps. -d
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 08:11:37PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > On 7/15/08, Tony Abernethy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ted Unangst wrote: > > > tar zxf X > > > pkg_add crap > > > rm -r /usr/X11R6 > > > > > > > Lovely. > > > > Out of curiosity, what happens when you install X but answer > > "no" to the question about intending to RUN X? > > exactly the same thing that happens when you answer "yes". Doesn't that question effect the machdep.allowaperature sysctl? Other than that, I don't think it does anything. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
No, I want it *MY* way, all the time! Oh, wait, I'm not talking about a burger or my own distro, am I? On 7/15/08, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You could also use a less retarded source control system. > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:51:04PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Will Maier wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:30:36PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: >> > > Depends on tcl-8.4.7p6, .. maybe, .. but what does X have to do >> > > with git?? >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tk_%28framework%29 >> > >> > > Can't install tk-8.4.7p1: lib not found X11.11.1 >> > > >> > > Is this a broken dependency >> > >> > No. >> > >> > > or . . . ? Seems like git installed cleanly on 4.2. >> > >> > Are you going to send a mail to misc@ every time a package depends >> > on X? >> > >> No, I'm sending an email to misc when a package depends on X that should >> **NOT** depend on X. That's what's broken, obviously, if you're saying I >> should be installing X on a production server. NOT. >> >> Lee > > -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
You could also use a less retarded source control system. On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:51:04PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Will Maier wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:30:36PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: > > > Depends on tcl-8.4.7p6, .. maybe, .. but what does X have to do > > > with git?? > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tk_%28framework%29 > > > > > Can't install tk-8.4.7p1: lib not found X11.11.1 > > > > > > Is this a broken dependency > > > > No. > > > > > or . . . ? Seems like git installed cleanly on 4.2. > > > > Are you going to send a mail to misc@ every time a package depends > > on X? > > > No, I'm sending an email to misc when a package depends on X that should > **NOT** depend on X. That's what's broken, obviously, if you're saying I > should be installing X on a production server. NOT. > > Lee
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On 7/15/08, Tony Abernethy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ted Unangst wrote: > > tar zxf X > > pkg_add crap > > rm -r /usr/X11R6 > > > > Lovely. > > Out of curiosity, what happens when you install X but answer > "no" to the question about intending to RUN X? exactly the same thing that happens when you answer "yes". > > Seems like if a package has any kind of GUI helper/configurator > thingee then it has a legitimate requirement for something in X. > > Does installing X on a production server require that you > RUN X on that server? try it. install x, then resist the urge to type "startx". can you do it? can you ignore the siren song, or do your fingers fly forth of their own volition?
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
Ted Unangst wrote: > > On 7/15/08, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, I'm sending an email to misc when a package depends on > X that should > > **NOT** depend on X. That's what's broken, obviously, if > you're saying I > > should be installing X on a production server. NOT. > > tar zxf X > pkg_add crap > rm -r /usr/X11R6 > Lovely. Out of curiosity, what happens when you install X but answer "no" to the question about intending to RUN X? Seems like if a package has any kind of GUI helper/configurator thingee then it has a legitimate requirement for something in X. Does installing X on a production server require that you RUN X on that server?
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On 7/15/08, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, I'm sending an email to misc when a package depends on X that should > **NOT** depend on X. That's what's broken, obviously, if you're saying I > should be installing X on a production server. NOT. tar zxf X pkg_add crap rm -r /usr/X11R6
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:51:04PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Will Maier wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:30:36PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: > > > Depends on tcl-8.4.7p6, .. maybe, .. but what does X have to do > > > with git?? > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tk_%28framework%29 > > > > > Can't install tk-8.4.7p1: lib not found X11.11.1 > > > > > > Is this a broken dependency > > > > No. > > > > > or . . . ? Seems like git installed cleanly on 4.2. > > > > Are you going to send a mail to misc@ every time a package depends > > on X? > > > No, I'm sending an email to misc when a package depends on X that should > **NOT** depend on X. That's what's broken, obviously, that's your opinion which unfortunately is not based on any kind of fact. these dependencies on X are ultimately from upstream. in the cases you've mentioned, the upstream package has dependencies on code which has dependencies on X related packages. webalizer uses gd, a graphics library. makes sense to me that a graphics library would need elements from X. git uses tk, another graphics toolkit. if you want to keep bitching about these kinds of dependencies, please go bitch at upstream. if you want to be nice and reasonable, you could ask on ports@ if it's possible to separate the dependencies. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Will Maier wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:30:36PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: > > Depends on tcl-8.4.7p6, .. maybe, .. but what does X have to do > > with git?? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tk_%28framework%29 > > > Can't install tk-8.4.7p1: lib not found X11.11.1 > > > > Is this a broken dependency > > No. > > > or . . . ? Seems like git installed cleanly on 4.2. > > Are you going to send a mail to misc@ every time a package depends > on X? > No, I'm sending an email to misc when a package depends on X that should **NOT** depend on X. That's what's broken, obviously, if you're saying I should be installing X on a production server. NOT. Lee
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 04:52:16PM -0400, Nick Guenther wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Will Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:30:36PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: > >> Depends on tcl-8.4.7p6, .. maybe, .. but what does X have to do > >> with git?? > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tk_%28framework%29 > > > >> Can't install tk-8.4.7p1: lib not found X11.11.1 > >> > >> Is this a broken dependency > > > > No. > > > > It's because of gitk which is a repository browser (or so > http://git.or.cz/course/svn.html tells me). Annoying that there's no > git-no_x11 but them's the breaks. Makes no sense. It's clearly a multi-package situation, not flavor.
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On 2008-07-15, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Depends on tcl-8.4.7p6, .. maybe, .. but what does X have to do with git?? ports@, dammit. > Can't install tk-8.4.7p1: lib not found X11.11.1 > > Is this a broken dependency or . . . ? Seems like git installed cleanly on > 4.2. And check the commit log for -current.
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Will Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:30:36PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: >> Depends on tcl-8.4.7p6, .. maybe, .. but what does X have to do >> with git?? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tk_%28framework%29 > >> Can't install tk-8.4.7p1: lib not found X11.11.1 >> >> Is this a broken dependency > > No. > It's because of gitk which is a repository browser (or so http://git.or.cz/course/svn.html tells me). Annoying that there's no git-no_x11 but them's the breaks.
Re: 'Nother broken package - git-1.5.4.2
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:30:36PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote:
> Depends on tcl-8.4.7p6, .. maybe, .. but what does X have to do
> with git??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tk_%28framework%29
> Can't install tk-8.4.7p1: lib not found X11.11.1
>
> Is this a broken dependency
No.
> or . . . ? Seems like git installed cleanly on 4.2.
Are you going to send a mail to misc@ every time a package depends
on X?
--
o--{ Will Maier }--o
| web:...http://www.lfod.us/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
*-[ BSD: Live Free or Die ]*
