Hi,
how did you manage to get an answer from Google that fast?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gK2BT8m9EhMCL0gI-yqyut3UOz-A?docId=CNG.8da7524161341a630734bbb6cf9ce6e4.231
Erich
On Thursday 08 September 2011 11:53:28 Stefan Schaeckeler wrote:
Hi all, please don't take this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 09/07/11 23:26, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
On Thursday 08 September 2011 11:53:28 Stefan Schaeckeler wrote:
Hi all, please don't take this posting too serious. I was just
curious ...
your are talking about a serious problem.
Using
Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 08.09.2011 13:52, schrieb Matt Burke:
I want machines, tools, to do as *I* say not the other way round, whether
it's good for me or not. If I wanted nannying and interference, I'd install
Ubuntu.
No, you'd use a managed installation. Nobody stands there
Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.:
Having a poor port of an obscure
piece of software is better, than no port at all.
A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the first
place).
Wrong.
A `poor' port is is still a port else it would be
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 03:01:09AM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.:
Having a poor port of an obscure
piece of software is better, than no port at all.
A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the
Hi there,
On Thursday 08 September 2011 11:53:28 Stefan Schaeckeler wrote:
Hi all, please don't take this posting too serious. I was just curious ...
your are talking about a serious problem.
Absolutely. Billions are spend on Green Computing and even PhD theses are
written on it.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:54:36PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 08.09.2011 13:52, schrieb Matt Burke:
Changing to a hypothetical example, why would an Apache vulnerability in
mod_rewrite in the least bit bother a person who doesn't have the module
enabled, which I believe is the
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:36:46PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.:
Having a poor port of an obscure
piece of software is better, than no port at all.
A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the first
place).
Highly debatable.
On 8 Sep 2011 02:29, Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote:
Hi,
Reference:
From: Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:45:51 -0700
Message-id: 4e67f41f.70...@freebsd.org
Doug Barton wrote:
On 9/7/2011 10:02 AM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Doug
Hi,
On Thursday 08 September 2011 11:53:28 Stefan Schaeckeler wrote:
Hi all, please don't take this posting too serious. I was just curious ...
your are talking about a serious problem.
Using source based ports is with almost 5 US cents 6.19 times (case 1 vs case
2a) or 1.73 times (case 1
On 08.09.2011 02:16, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
Hi Gecko team,
The update from Thunderbird 6.0 to 6.0.1 has stopped the Lightning
1.0b5pre plugin from working - it claims to be incompatible with the new
version of Thunderbird and can't be enabled. Lightning 1.0b5 seems to
work fine with
Good day,
can please anybody commit this: http://bugs.freebsd.org/159978
It's quite simple upstream patch (committed into not yet released 2.4.1
version), that solves OP problem. And maintainer timeout 2weeks+. Thanks.
--
Regards,
Ruslan
Tinderboxing kills... the drives.
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:15:04PM -0400, Mikhail T. wrote:
On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Doug Barton wrote:
Non sequitur. The large number of ports that we support IS a feature.
However, it's also a pretty big maintenance burden. Especially when you
consider the number of those ports that are
Hi,
Reference:
From: Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 07:20:27 +0100
Message-id:
CADLo83-4Hbq+Ce5ADJvEQP7167wJt48C8aOfCW8RV=w96st...@mail.gmail.com
Chris Rees wrote:
--00151774047892f1af04ac680e7e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 8
lini...@freebsd.org wrote on 07.09.2011 10:33:
portname: databases/postgresql-plpython
description:A module for using Python to write SQL functions
maintainer: po...@freebsd.org
deprecated because: (error in parsing Makefile)
expiration date:2011-04-02
build
Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote on 08.09.2011 14:04:
lini...@freebsd.org wrote on 07.09.2011 10:33:
portname: databases/postgresql-plpython
description: A module for using Python to write SQL functions
maintainer: po...@freebsd.org
deprecated because: (error in parsing Makefile)
expiration date:
Hi, for me it's too many time has passed for maintainer timeout. Please
commit this anybody, until this port wasn't removed because it doesn't
builds with some NOTEXISTENT PostgreSQL version.
Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote on 31.08.2011 11:11:
So... two weeks are now passed and i still see no
Hi
XBMC seems to depend on sqlite3 (it won't compile without) but it's not on
the dependencies list.
kind regards
Emil Vanherp
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 00:04:14 +0200, olli hauer wrote:
No, you don't hit the limitation. It seems you really found a bug in
the Framework!
From the Framework code in bsd.port.mk existing groups should honored.
Along those lines, what about using
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 13:02:56 +0200, emil vanherp wrote:
Hi
XBMC seems to depend on sqlite3 (it won't compile without) but it's not on
the dependencies list.
Don't know why you think it's missing but that's plain wrong. It's
there at the bottom of the LIB_DEPENDS.
ok i had to restart the fast-cgi demon
# /usr/local/etc/rc.d/php.cgi.sh stop
# /usr/local/etc/rc.d/php.cgi.sh start
Starting php-cgi...
spawn-fcgi: child spawned successfully: PID: 51122
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Norman Khine nor...@khine.net wrote:
hello,
i just did a #portmanager -u
hello,
i just did a #portmanager -u -l on my freebsd8.1 system, which runs nginx
# php /usr/local/www/nginx-dist/test/php.php
phpinfo()
PHP Version = 5.3.8
System = FreeBSD arawak.local 8.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE #0: Mon
Jul 19 02:36:49 UTC 2010
On 09/07/11 17:04, Chris Rees wrote:
The /new/ policy of removing ports for much lighter offenses, such as
having vulnerabilities, has already caused so many objections, that it is
time to abolish it.
I consider the argument here dead; portmgr is reviewing the policy as Erwin
has said.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 02:04:16PM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
lini...@freebsd.org wrote on 07.09.2011 10:33:
portname: databases/postgresql-plpython
description:A module for using Python to write SQL functions
maintainer: po...@freebsd.org
deprecated
Baptiste Daroussin wrote on 08.09.2011 17:13:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 02:04:16PM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
lini...@freebsd.org wrote on 07.09.2011 10:33:
portname: databases/postgresql-plpython
description:A module for using Python to write SQL functions
maintainer:
Hi Florian,
On 09/08/11 17:51, Florian Smeets wrote:
On 08.09.2011 02:16, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
Hi Gecko team,
The update from Thunderbird 6.0 to 6.0.1 has stopped the Lightning
1.0b5pre plugin from working - it claims to be incompatible with the new
version of Thunderbird and can't be
On 08.09.2011 04:42, Greg Byshenk wrote:
For many people, what THERE IS A PORT OF IT actually -means- is
that the user can go to ports and install a -working- version of
the software, not merley that there is something called 'IT'
somewhere in the ports tree that may or may not work.
Some
Mikhail T. wrote:
Having to deal with RedHat's yum at work, I got to say, I'd rather be
building from source, than installing from consistent packages, that
somebody else built *to their* tastes.
Fedora crap is a very bad example. The canonical example of a binary
distribution which *works* is
Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.:
Having a poor port of an obscure
piece of software is better, than no port at all.
A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the first
place).
An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in
the first place).
Am 07.09.2011 17:53, schrieb Mikhail T.:
The policy -- up until fairly recently -- was to remove ports, that
*fail to build* for a while. This made sense -- if the port remains
unbuildable long enough, then, certainly, it is no longer in use.
The /new/ policy of removing ports for much
Am 08.09.2011 13:52, schrieb Matt Burke:
Changing to a hypothetical example, why would an Apache vulnerability in
mod_rewrite in the least bit bother a person who doesn't have the module
enabled, which I believe is the standard configuration? Would you prefer
Apache be deleted from ports if
On Sep 8, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Miroslav Lachman 000.f...@quip.cz wrote:
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 00:04:14 +0200, olli hauer wrote:
No, you don't hit the limitation. It seems you really found a bug in
the Framework!
From the Framework code in
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 01:19:26PM -0400, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Sep 8, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Miroslav Lachman 000.f...@quip.cz wrote:
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 00:04:14 +0200, olli hauer wrote:
No, you don't hit the limitation. It seems you really
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:36:46PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.:
An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in
the first place).
Wait -- what? Why should something not be ported if it's not popular?
--
Chad Perrin [
Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 07.09.2011 17:53, schrieb Mikhail T.:
The policy -- up until fairly recently -- was to remove ports, that
*fail to build* for a while. This made sense -- if the port remains
unbuildable long enough, then, certainly, it is no longer in use.
The /new/ policy
35 matches
Mail list logo
