On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:32:14AM +0100, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote:
> I am well aware that very probably I might be starting a rant thread,
> however, I am genuinely interested in opinions from the community.
>
> Since version 24, Emacs, the very good operating system missing only a
> decent edit
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:26:32AM +0100, Jean-Sébastien Pédron wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Before updating xf86-video-ati to 7.5.0, we would like some people to
> try it out. The reason is that 7.4.0 was crashing for several users, so
> we want to be sure it's fixed in 7.5.0.
>
> Here's patch:
> https://pe
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 11:54:06PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > You found a nice bug.
> >
> > The options file is read the thing is that the UNIQUENAME is changed is
> > py-py-stl when the optionsfile is read and it is py27-py-stl when it is
> > written.
> >
> > I don't know why yet, I'l
[Please cc me, since I'm not subscribed to this list. I originally asked this
on questions@.]
Hi,
With the release of the new options framework for ports, I've run into a
problem trying to convert one of my ports.
The nature of the problem is that the port seems to ignore the setting stored
in /
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 01:05:34PM +0200, Olivier Smedts wrote:
> > Just got a notebook, build with the old gcc 4.2 of the system FreeBSD
> > 9.0/amd64 -r224579: portsnap works as expected.
> >
> > I will build a most recent system on that box (with systems's outdated gcc
> > 4.2) and I'll report i
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 09:51:41AM +0200, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> On 08/13/11 09:26, Roland Smith wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:43:52AM +0200, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> >> On 08/12/11 22:54, Roland Smith wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 08:44:07PM +0200, Hart
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:43:52AM +0200, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> On 08/12/11 22:54, Roland Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 08:44:07PM +0200, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> >>>> files/dd7c394c9c9ddf4b97f1b14c676f370adc259b2c7a4b8346eba0788a431db398.gz
Does this file actua
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 08:44:07PM +0200, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> >> files/dd7c394c9c9ddf4b97f1b14c676f370adc259b2c7a4b8346eba0788a431db398.gz
> > This file is relatively recent; When I used portsnap yesterday, it wasn't
> > there, and now it is.
> I do a postrmaster on a nearly daily basis. This occ
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:38:06PM +0200, Olivier Smedts wrote:
> 2011/8/12 Roland Smith :
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:46:37PM +0200, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> >> Since today, I can not update my ports tree due to this error as follows.
> >> This happens on all boxes runn
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:46:37PM +0200, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> Since today, I can not update my ports tree due to this error as follows.
> This happens on all boxes running FreeBSD, the version of the OS (FBSD
> 8.2/9.0) doesn't
> matter. What's up with the ports collection?
Probably nothing.
>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 03:11:48AM +0800, Martin Wilke wrote:
> just for the record, i manage to get xorg-server 1.9.3 and 1.10.0 to work,
> also drm, and dri works very well,
>
> screens and logs gives here:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~miwi/xorg76/
Seems like you got transparancy to work. :-) A
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 11:42:37PM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> >> Something I'm missing here? A fix would be nice, I should be used to it
> >> though- ImageMagick _always_ has issues for me. I just thought it'd be
> >> nice to get it updated for once- it looked so close :)
> >>
> > I'm
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 05:36:38PM -0500, Robert Noland wrote:
> I just rolled up a new patchset. This has not been through tinderbox
> yet, so you have been warned... This update should pretty much have us
> current with all released xorg bits.
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~rnoland/xorg-update
The following reply was made to PR amd64/121951; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Roland Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Bill Squire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: amd64/121951: Javascript bug in _amd64_ version of
Mozilla-Firefox
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 06:21:40PM -0400, Indigo 23 wrote:
> Does anyone think that its worth the hassle? If you do manage to get
> it up and running, will you see any noticeable advantages or is it
> better to just stick with i386? The only caveat that I can see is a
> recompilation of all the
15 matches
Mail list logo
