> Michael,
>
>> I should have replied.. After making sure all patches were installed,
>> it didn't happen again.
>
> Good. So it could have been the known and fixed thing.
>
>> 5.8.10 in ports now? Crap.
>
> 5.10.0, not 5.8.10
Bigger crap! Means that the site_perl5 directory location will chan
> Am/On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:00:01 -0400 schrieb/wrote Michael Scheidell:
>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> It would be a patch chunk '@@ -21931,7 +21936,8 @@' in FreeBSD ports.
>>>
>>
>> I should have replied.. After making sure all patches were installed, it
>> didn't happen again. 5.8.10 in ports now? C
Am/On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:00:01 -0400 schrieb/wrote Michael Scheidell:
>> Michael,
>>
>> It would be a patch chunk '@@ -21931,7 +21936,8 @@' in FreeBSD ports.
>>
>
>I should have replied.. After making sure all patches were installed, it
>didn't happen again. 5.8.10 in ports now? Crap.
>
>I don'
Michael,
> I should have replied.. After making sure all patches were installed,
> it didn't happen again.
Good. So it could have been the known and fixed thing.
> 5.8.10 in ports now? Crap.
5.10.0, not 5.8.10
Mark
---
> Michael,
>
> It would be a patch chunk '@@ -21931,7 +21936,8 @@' in FreeBSD ports.
>
I should have replied.. After making sure all patches were installed, it
didn't happen again. 5.8.10 in ports now? Crap.
I don't know anything I hate more then the freebsd perl ports upgrade.
--
Michael Sc
Michael,
> more perl 5.8.9 issues? Or did I miss a patch in between testing updates
> and patching?
>
> Mar 22 23:00:27 mx1 amavis[34688]: (34688-15) (!)Decoding of p002 (Zip
> archive data, at least v2.0 to extract) failed, leaving it unpacked:
> Insecure dependency in sysopen while running with
more perl 5.8.9 issues? Or did I miss a patch in between testing updates
and patching?
Mar 22 23:00:27 mx1 amavis[34688]: (34688-15) (!)Decoding of p002 (Zip
archive data, at least v2.0 to extract) failed, leaving it unpacked:
Insecure dependency in sysopen while running with -T switch at
/usr
