On 2014.11.25 08:56, Gary Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 08:35:12AM -0600, Andrew Berg wrote:
On 2014.11.25 08:26, Gary Palmer wrote:
Since I assume most of the packages that depend on the old
x264-0.136.2358_4
depend on the library rather than the CLI command, is there any harm
On 2014.09.01 20:51, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
And for the portsnap users?
In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
Sure about that?
I'm sure of it. Your issue is with the tree itself, not the tool used to fetch
it.
Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it,
On 2014.09.01 21:39, Julian Elischer wrote:
sigh.. when are we as a project, all going to learn that reality in
business is
that you often need to install stuff that is old. Its not always your
choice.
The custommers require it..
You should try arguing with someone like Bank of Americas
On 2014.09.01 21:27, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Actually it's an inconvenience for someone like me and you. Not for
many freebsd users, and certainly not for me 6 months ago if I hadn't
been writing my own ports oh and what was it, 1.3.6 - 1.3.7? broke
shit... (badly) ...
There were
On 2014.09.01 22:09, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
That's my point - there was a patch waiting to submit that knowingly
broke pkg_install at midnight on the day after the EOL... the EOL
shouldn't be an EOL - because it was really a 'portsnap after this date
before you upgrade and you're screwed it
On 2013.12.05 15:54, A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven wrote:
A short recap for those of you who are subscribed to freebsd-ports@ but
not freebsd-stable@: when I opened my inbox this morning I found a typical
WTF thread: the (hardly) offensive fortune cookies have been kicked out
of 10-BETA4. Since I
