On Monday 23 January 2012 17:08:44 you wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2012 15:31, "t...@diogunix.com" wrote:
> > > Hm, well the page at [1] claims that 5+ should be supported, and it's
> > > from the 5.5 docs.
> > >
> > > I would try asking the mailing list at
> > > http://lists.mysql.com/internals .
> >
On 28 Jan 2012 18:13, "Matthew Seaman"
wrote:
>
>
> Hmmm... Something is definitely wrong here. Ports are either referring
> to the same distfile, but the sha256 and size data are not the same in
> both distinfo files, or they are downloading distinct files with an
> unfortunate conflict of name
When I try to follow the instructions in UPDATING for upgrading
xcb-util, using portmaster it fails very early in the process:
% portmaster -bDw -R -r xcb-util-0
===>>> Working on:
xcb-util-0.3.6,1
===>>> Port directory: /usr/ports/x11/xcb-util
===>>> Launching 'make checksum' for x11/
Hmmm... Something is definitely wrong here. Ports are either referring
to the same distfile, but the sha256 and size data are not the same in
both distinfo files, or they are downloading distinct files with an
unfortunate conflict of names and not using DIST_SUBDIR to prevent
themselves stomping
Matthew Seaman said
The big problem with performance in all this INDEX and README.html
building is that it takes quite a long time relatively to run make(1)
within any port or category directory. make(1) has to read in a lot of
other files and stat(2) many more[*] -- all of which involves a lot of
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
> I've been thinking for a long time that we need a better way to do
> "make readmes", one that would be properly integrated into our
> ports Mk infrastructure, to take advantage of make's ability to
> recognize which files are up
On 28/01/2012 16:28, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
> Am I understanding you correctly? Are you
> saying you built 20,000+ port READMEs in only 9 seconds?! How is that
> possible? Or do you mean 9 seconds for each one?
9 seconds sounds quite reasonable for generating 23000 or so files.
>> > Selec
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:37:34 +
RW wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:03:25 -0600
> Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
>
> > I've been thinking for a long time that we need a better way to do
> > "make readmes", one that would be properly integrated into our
> > ports Mk infrastructure, to take advantage
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:03:25 -0600
Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
> I've been thinking for a long time that we need a better way to do
> "make readmes", one that would be properly integrated into our
> ports Mk infrastructure, to take advantage of make's ability to
> recognize which files are up-to-dat
