Re: xchm on OpenBSD 3.8
do u guys have any other chm viewer or u don't use chm files at all? On 1/17/06, Joachim Schipper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:36:30PM -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 07:32:38PM -0600, edgar mortiz wrote: I'll try to cvs the ports -current and see if i can build xchm as well as firefox 1.5 nonono. you don't want the whole -current ports tree on -stable. definitely do _not_ do that. read again what Joachim wrote. you _may_ have luck pulling _individual_ ports from -current, but this is not likely to work out of the box, and you probably won't get much, if any, help doing that either. Yes, don't expect any help. And I wouldn't try Firefox - it's a bitch to build at the best of times, and it requires lots of dependencies. Better to stick to what works. xchm might do it. I am running one -current package, dovecot, because it has some features I really liked and I had faith in its stability. Otherwise, stick to -stable. And don't try -current if you're not willing to have some fun with glue after the thing falls apart yet again. Joachim
xchm on OpenBSD 3.8
anyone ? why is it that on the OpenBSD 3.8 ports tree xchm isn't present? is there a way for me to build xchm on 3.8 release ? instead of jumping into 3.8 -current? any help would be gladly appreciated. ed
Re: xchm on OpenBSD 3.8
On 2006/01/16 07:07, edgar mortiz wrote: why is it that on the OpenBSD 3.8 ports tree xchm isn't present? Because it wasn't added until after 3.8 was released. Development takes place on -current, changes are only backported in exceptional circumstances. is there a way for me to build xchm on 3.8 release ? You can probably build it yourself from the source distribution without too much difficulty.
Re: xchm on OpenBSD 3.8
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 07:32:38PM -0600, edgar mortiz wrote: I'll try to cvs the ports -current and see if i can build xchm as well as firefox 1.5 nonono. you don't want the whole -current ports tree on -stable. definitely do _not_ do that. read again what Joachim wrote. you _may_ have luck pulling _individual_ ports from -current, but this is not likely to work out of the box, and you probably won't get much, if any, help doing that either. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
