--On April 10, 2009 4:51:40 PM -0500 David Booth
wrote:
Perhaps I have found a bug. Each time I run this it reinstalls
perl5.10 again - successfully (supposedly).
Try a little different syntax:
portupgrade -fr -x '>=perl' perl
Also, you can use the -n switch (noexecute) to test what will
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009, Frank Steinborn wrote:
I want to propose that net-mgmt/nrpe2 gets net-mgmt/nrpe, and that the
actual net-mgmt/nrpe port gets removed. I strongly doubt that there are
still users of nrpe 1.
I have already had both net-mgmt/nagios12 and net-mgmt/nrpe marked for
deletion, bo
Hi,
I want to propose that net-mgmt/nrpe2 gets net-mgmt/nrpe, and that the
actual net-mgmt/nrpe port gets removed. I strongly doubt that there
are still users of nrpe 1.
In the current situation, there are a lot of confusions: If you get
nrpe from source, (version 2.12), it'll install check_nrpe
On Friday 10 April 2009, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Friday, April 10, 2009 15:47:16 -0500 RW
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:45:22 +
> >
> > Paul Schmehl wrote:
> >> > Have portupgrade exclude the ports built after perl.
> >> >
> >> > portupgrade -fr perl -x '>=perl'
> >>
> >> This im
The description in the PR is referring to print/foo2zjs
On 4/10/09, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 03:22:31PM +1000, Tom Mende wrote:
>> sorry > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=133558
>
> yes, that's the PR number, but what port supplies foo2zjs?
>
> mcl
>
--On Friday, April 10, 2009 15:47:16 -0500 RW
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:45:22 +
Paul Schmehl wrote:
> Have portupgrade exclude the ports built after perl.
>
> portupgrade -fr perl -x '>=perl'
This immediately started upgrade perl again, so I halted it.
Then either you've found a
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 03:22:31PM +1000, Tom Mende wrote:
> sorry > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=133558
yes, that's the PR number, but what port supplies foo2zjs?
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mai
--On Friday, April 10, 2009 15:47:16 -0500 RW
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:45:22 +
Paul Schmehl wrote:
> Have portupgrade exclude the ports built after perl.
>
> portupgrade -fr perl -x '>=perl'
This immediately started upgrade perl again, so I halted it.
Then either you've found a
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:45:22 +
Paul Schmehl wrote:
> > Have portupgrade exclude the ports built after perl.
> >
> > portupgrade -fr perl -x '>=perl'
>
> This immediately started upgrade perl again, so I halted it.
Then either you've found a portupgrade bug, or the original build
failed befo
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Friday, April 10, 2009 11:17:00 -0500 Paul Schmehl
wrote:
According to /usr/ports/UPDATING, if you want to upgrade to perl5.10,
you do
the following:
Portupgrade users:
0) Fix pkgdb.db (for safety):
pkgdb -Ff
1) Reinstall perl with new 5.10:
--On Friday, April 10, 2009 12:55:53 -0500 RW
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:17:00 +
Paul Schmehl wrote:
According to /usr/ports/UPDATING, if you want to upgrade to perl5.10,
you do the following:
Portupgrade users:
0) Fix pkgdb.db (for safety):
pkgdb -Ff
1) Reinstall
Oliver Lehmann wrote:
Philipp Ost wrote:
I can't confirm this here. I just build lang/gcc43 on my dual Athlon MP
system running a recent CURRENT. There were no such error as in your
case; both CPUs were used just fine.
Yeah maybe your system is just fast enough to keep up?
That may well
--On Friday, April 10, 2009 13:05:04 -0500 Dmitry Marakasov
wrote:
* Brian Whalen (br...@brianwhalen.net) wrote:
> According to /usr/ports/UPDATING, if you want to upgrade to perl5.10,
> you do the following:
>
> Portupgrade users:
>0) Fix pkgdb.db (for safety):
>pkgdb -Ff
>
>
--On Friday, April 10, 2009 11:17:00 -0500 Paul Schmehl
wrote:
According to /usr/ports/UPDATING, if you want to upgrade to perl5.10, you do
the following:
Portupgrade users:
0) Fix pkgdb.db (for safety):
pkgdb -Ff
1) Reinstall perl with new 5.10:
portupgrade -o lang/
On Friday 10 April 2009 06:03:54 am Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:57 PM, wrote:
> > What was the last working version? It would be simpler for this
> > Ruby simpleton to generate a patch than to debug through the
> > stack trace.
>
> FWIW, my current workaround for
* Brian Whalen (br...@brianwhalen.net) wrote:
> > According to /usr/ports/UPDATING, if you want to upgrade to perl5.10,
> > you do the following:
> >
> > Portupgrade users:
> >0) Fix pkgdb.db (for safety):
> >pkgdb -Ff
> >
> >1) Reinstall perl with new 5.10:
> >portupgrade
RW wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:17:00 +
Paul Schmehl wrote:
According to /usr/ports/UPDATING, if you want to upgrade to perl5.10,
you do the following:
Portupgrade users:
0) Fix pkgdb.db (for safety):
pkgdb -Ff
1) Reinstall perl with new 5.10:
portupgrade -o l
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:17:00 +
Paul Schmehl wrote:
> According to /usr/ports/UPDATING, if you want to upgrade to perl5.10,
> you do the following:
>
> Portupgrade users:
> 0) Fix pkgdb.db (for safety):
> pkgdb -Ff
>
> 1) Reinstall perl with new 5.10:
> portupgrade -o
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:55:30 -0700
Brian Whalen wrote:
>Paul Schmehl wrote:
>> According to /usr/ports/UPDATING, if you want to upgrade to
>> perl5.10, you do the following:
>>
>> Portupgrade users:
>>0) Fix pkgdb.db (for safety):
>>pkgdb -Ff
>>
>>1) Reinstall perl with new 5.10:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
According to /usr/ports/UPDATING, if you want to upgrade to perl5.10,
you do the following:
Portupgrade users:
0) Fix pkgdb.db (for safety):
pkgdb -Ff
1) Reinstall perl with new 5.10:
portupgrade -o lang/perl5.10 -f perl-5.8.\*
2) Reinstall everythin
According to /usr/ports/UPDATING, if you want to upgrade to perl5.10, you do
the following:
Portupgrade users:
0) Fix pkgdb.db (for safety):
pkgdb -Ff
1) Reinstall perl with new 5.10:
portupgrade -o lang/perl5.10 -f perl-5.8.\*
2) Reinstall everything that depends on Per
Torfinn Ingolfsen writes:
> > What was the last working version? It would be simpler for this
> > Ruby simpleton to generate a patch than to debug through the
> > stack trace.
>
> FWIW, my current workaround for thi problem is to portdowngrade to the
> latest portupgrade 2.4.3
> portupgra
Hello,
2009/3/30 Bernhard Fröhlich :
> Yeah i can reproduce that too. It's because it takes libavcodec from the
> system path which is wrong. Attached patch fixes that problem but then I
> get another compile error with Intel XvMC in mythtranscode. That one
> probably needs further investigation b
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:57 PM, wrote:
> What was the last working version? It would be simpler for this
> Ruby simpleton to generate a patch than to debug through the
> stack trace.
FWIW, my current workaround for thi problem is to portdowngrade to the
latest portupgrade 2.4.3
portupgrad
in message ,
wrote Chris Rees thusly...
>
> 2009/4/9 Parv :
> > in message ,
> > wrote Chris Rees thusly...
> >>
> >> I recall from
> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2008-March/047319.html
> >> that there was a bug in portupgrade last year, causing it to break
> >> when a port
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Parv wrote:
> Does this Perl (5.8 & onwards) program ...
>
> http://www103.pair.com/parv/comp/src/perl/check-portupgrade-00
>
>
> ... produces anything when run *without any arguments*?
FWIW, I tried it on two machines, no it does not produce any output.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Howdy,
If someone want to play with firefox 3.1 beta3 here, is a patch for marcuscom
portstree:
http://miwi.homeunix.com/patches/firefox31_b3.diff
and here a tarball :)
http://miwi.homeunix.com/firefox3-devel.tgz
Happy Testing.
- - Martin
- --
27 matches
Mail list logo
