On Jul 3, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Jeffrey Williams wrote:
Ok,
I have a few of 6.2 servers (including two running in jails) that
do not have full X installed, but they do have a number packages
that depended on the various X libraries, fonts, and clients; and
so these components of X are instal
Hello,
There were a couple of debates already concerning /usr/X11R6 as prefix for X11
ports and a bunch of other ports that currently by default install there.
Quite some people were, when creating a new port that depends on X11,
wandering whether to put it in X11BASE or LOCALBASE. More than on
On Thursday 13 July 2006 01:20, michael johnson wrote:
> I agree we should move a lot of software out of X11BASE but there
> will need to be a lot of work (esp. for gnome). I'm curious of the
> time frame in which xorg 7 will be committed to the tree? I'm not
> speaking for the entire freebsd gnome
On Thursday 13 July 2006 02:25, michael johnson wrote:
> On 7/13/06, Dejan Lesjak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 July 2006 01:20, michael johnson wrote:
> > > I agree we should move a lot of software out of X11BASE but there
> > > will need to be a
On Friday 14 July 2006 08:58, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> What's the gain?
I believe I mentioned some of gains in first mail. There is also the benefit
of less divergence to upstreams as ./configure scripts of various ports
use /usr/local as default prefix, but more importantly as modular X.org is
On Friday 14 July 2006 01:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi;
>
> Just here mumbling...
>
> It would be interesting to set
>
> X11BASE=/usr/X11 when using XFree86 and
> X11BASE=${LOCALBASE} when using XOrg.
>
> Not only due to historical consistency (/usr/X11 is the path recommended in
> XFree86
On Friday 14 July 2006 21:33, Doug Barton wrote:
> Dejan Lesjak wrote:
> > On Friday 14 July 2006 08:58, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> >> What's the gain?
> >
> > I believe I mentioned some of gains in first mail. There is also the
> > benefit of less divergen
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 19:01, Andrey Chernov wrote:
> X server can't load any module (undefined symbols) because modules are not
> linked properly (due to objformat check). Does somebody work on this?
ports/109091 (imake.c patch) shoul fix that. I'll hopefully have time to test
and commit
On Monday 14 of May 2007, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> Some good news and some bad news:
>
> Good news:
>
> Upgrade seems OK on my 6.2-STABLE/amd64 system butI needed multiple
> "portupgrade -a" iterations before it upgraded everything. I think
> this is a side-effect of using ports-mgmt/portupgrade rath
On Friday 18 May 2007 23:16:48 Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 05:11:25PM -0400, Andrew Partan wrote:
> > I had no problems on my build server; I managed to build all of the
> > packages just fine. I even rebuilt all of the packages (portupgrade
> > -afp) and that worked just fine a
On Friday 18 May 2007 23:11:25 Andrew Partan wrote:
> I had no problems on my build server; I managed to build all of the
> packages just fine. I even rebuilt all of the packages (portupgrade
> -afp) and that worked just fine as well.
[snip]
> It looks to me like some of the BUILD_DEPENDS for xorg
Etienne Robillard wrote:
>
> Nice. Which GCC version did you used for compiling
> all theses ports ?
>
> I don't get anymore a segfault but still gets that
> fatal error message about the missing font 'fixed'...
>
> It looks like the /usr/local/lib/X11/fonts/misc path
> gets ignored by the fc-c
On Sunday 03 June 2007 19:43:56 martinko wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> I've installed new X.org 7.2 on clean 6.2-STABLE system and everything
> went fine except for the following package:
>
> pkg_version: font-adobe-utopia-type1-1.0.1 does not appear to be a valid
> package!
>
> I tried to reinstall it but t
13 matches
Mail list logo
