-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 28.09.2011 21:32, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> floating like a dead man in the water. I suspect the
> conversters/libiconv broke something, since it claims it has
> installed libiconv.so.3, but there is never such a shared object
> installed!
Here's what
On 09/28/11 15:41, Hartmann, O. wrote:
On 09/28/11 22:18, Doug Barton wrote:
On 09/28/2011 12:39, Hartmann, O. wrote:
The mess started to happen when I tried to "repair" a non CLANG
compiling port math/gotoblas with portmaster -vf amth/gotoblas.
Since this build binutils and even gettext and li
On Sep 28, 2011, at 4:36 PM, Matt wrote:
> On 09/28/11 15:41, Hartmann, O. wrote:
>> On 09/28/11 22:18, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> On 09/28/2011 12:39, Hartmann, O. wrote:
The mess started to happen when I tried to "repair" a non CLANG
compiling port math/gotoblas with portmaster -vf amth/go
On 09/28/11 22:18, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 09/28/2011 12:39, Hartmann, O. wrote:
>> The mess started to happen when I tried to "repair" a non CLANG
>> compiling port math/gotoblas with portmaster -vf amth/gotoblas.
>> Since this build binutils and even gettext and libiconv, I guess they
>> got brok
Garrett Cooper writes:
>>
>> So if I change /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh to something like vers 9.9 I'm
>> not
>> going to shoot myself in the foot if I try and update? I would really like to
>> avoid downgrading this box.I've altready been bitten once today and had to
>> build packages on my ti
On Wednesday 28 September 2011 12:53:23 Beech Rintoul wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 September 2011 12:47:50 Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 09/28/2011 13:45, Beech Rintoul wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 28 September 2011 12:18:47 Doug Barton wrote:
> > >> On 09/28/2011 12:39, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> > >>> The mess s
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Beech Rintoul wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 September 2011 12:18:47 Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 09/28/2011 12:39, Hartmann, O. wrote:
>> > The mess started to happen when I tried to "repair" a non CLANG
>> > compiling port math/gotoblas with portmaster -vf amth/gotoblas.
>
On Wednesday 28 September 2011 12:47:50 Doug Barton wrote:
> On 09/28/2011 13:45, Beech Rintoul wrote:
> > On Wednesday 28 September 2011 12:18:47 Doug Barton wrote:
> >> On 09/28/2011 12:39, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> >>> The mess started to happen when I tried to "repair" a non CLANG
> >>> compiling p
On 09/28/2011 13:45, Beech Rintoul wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 September 2011 12:18:47 Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 09/28/2011 12:39, Hartmann, O. wrote:
>>> The mess started to happen when I tried to "repair" a non CLANG
>>> compiling port math/gotoblas with portmaster -vf amth/gotoblas.
>>> Since this b
On Wednesday 28 September 2011 12:18:47 Doug Barton wrote:
> On 09/28/2011 12:39, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> > The mess started to happen when I tried to "repair" a non CLANG
> > compiling port math/gotoblas with portmaster -vf amth/gotoblas.
> > Since this build binutils and even gettext and libiconv,
On 09/28/2011 12:39, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> The mess started to happen when I tried to "repair" a non CLANG
> compiling port math/gotoblas with portmaster -vf amth/gotoblas.
> Since this build binutils and even gettext and libiconv, I guess they
> got broken. Last I saw was a successful installation
On 09/28/11 21:30, Matt wrote:
> On 09/28/11 12:16, Hartmann, O. wrote:
>> On 09/28/11 20:56, Hartmann, O. wrote:
>>> On 09/28/11 20:41, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> On 09/28/11 20:20, h h wrote:
>> "Hartmann, O." writes:
>>
>>
On 09/28/11 21:16, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> On 09/28/11 20:56, Hartmann, O. wrote:
>> On 09/28/11 20:41, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Hartmann, O. wrote:
>>>
On 09/28/11 20:20, h h wrote:
> "Hartmann, O." writes:
>
>> On 09/28/11 09:26, Hartmann, O. wrote:
On 09/28/11 20:56, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> On 09/28/11 20:41, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Hartmann, O. wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/28/11 20:20, h h wrote:
"Hartmann, O." writes:
> On 09/28/11 09:26, Hartmann, O. wrote:
>
>> On 09/28/11 15:47, per...@pluto.rai
On 09/28/11 20:41, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Hartmann, O. wrote:
>
>> On 09/28/11 20:20, h h wrote:
>>> "Hartmann, O." writes:
>>>
On 09/28/11 09:26, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> On 09/28/11 15:47, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
>> Eitan Adler wrote:
>>
>>
On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> On 09/28/11 20:20, h h wrote:
>> "Hartmann, O." writes:
>>
>>> On 09/28/11 09:26, Hartmann, O. wrote:
>>>
On 09/28/11 15:47, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> Eitan Adler wrote:
>
>> 2011/9/27 O. Hartmann :
>>> Now I unders
On 09/28/11 20:20, h h wrote:
> "Hartmann, O." writes:
>
>> On 09/28/11 09:26, Hartmann, O. wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/28/11 15:47, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Eitan Adler wrote:
> 2011/9/27 O. Hartmann :
>> Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin
>> 10 'X' for
"Hartmann, O." writes:
> On 09/28/11 09:26, Hartmann, O. wrote:
>
>> On 09/28/11 15:47, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
>>> Eitan Adler wrote:
>>>
2011/9/27 O. Hartmann :
> Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin
> 10 'X' for their tenth version of their operating s
On Sep 28, 2011, at 10:29 AM, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> On 09/28/11 09:26, Hartmann, O. wrote:
>> On 09/28/11 15:47, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
>>> Eitan Adler wrote:
>>>
2011/9/27 O. Hartmann :
> Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin
> 10 'X' for their tenth ver
On 09/28/11 09:26, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> On 09/28/11 15:47, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
>> Eitan Adler wrote:
>>
>>> 2011/9/27 O. Hartmann :
Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin
10 'X' for their tenth version of their operating system ...
>>> FreeBSD XP anyone?
>>
On 09/28/11 15:47, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> Eitan Adler wrote:
>
>> 2011/9/27 O. Hartmann :
>>> Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin
>>> 10 'X' for their tenth version of their operating system ...
>> FreeBSD XP anyone?
> Are you sure there's a sufficient window of opp
Eitan Adler wrote:
> 2011/9/27 O. Hartmann :
> > Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin
> > 10 'X' for their tenth version of their operating system ...
>
> FreeBSD XP anyone?
Are you sure there's a sufficient window of opportunity? :)
___
Hi--
On Sep 27, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Gleb Kurtsou wrote:
> It's more exciting than that. FreeBSD >= 10 is already seized by Apple :)
>
> http://www.google.com/codesearch#search/&q=__FreeBSD__%5CW%2B10&type=cs
MacOS X doesn't define __FreeBSD__ either in CPP macros or the system headers:
% touch f
On Sep 27, 2011, at 8:50 PM, Gleb Kurtsou wrote:
> On (26/09/2011 23:03), Ade Lovett wrote:
>> With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
>> expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
>>
>> The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose someth
On (26/09/2011 23:03), Ade Lovett wrote:
> With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
> expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
>
> The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completely
> at random) assuming that FreeBSD would
On Sep 27, 2011 10:04 AM, "Chris Rees" wrote:
>
> On 27 September 2011 10:18, Anton Shterenlikht
wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:28:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
> >> On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
> >> >Kevin Oberman writes:
> >> >
> >> >>On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett wrote
On 27 September 2011 10:18, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:28:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
>> >Kevin Oberman writes:
>> >
>> >>On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10
On 09/27/11 16:27, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 09:36:17AM -0400 I heard the voice of
> Robert Huff, and lo! it spake thus:
>> Adrian Chadd writes:
>>> Our children will be dealing with Y2038. :-)
>> Statistically, some of us will.
> Actually, I had to deal with it just last
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 09:36:17AM -0400 I heard the voice of
Robert Huff, and lo! it spake thus:
> Adrian Chadd writes:
> > Our children will be dealing with Y2038. :-)
>
> Statistically, some of us will.
Actually, I had to deal with it just last week...
--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | f
Adrian Chadd writes:
> >> we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
> >
> > Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?
>
> Our children will be dealing with Y2038. :-)
Statistically, some of us will.
R
On 27 September 2011 13:57, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 27 September 2011 20:22, Robert Huff wrote:
> >
> > krad writes:
> >> we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
> >
> >Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?
>
> Our children will be dealing with Y20
On 27 September 2011 20:22, Robert Huff wrote:
>
> krad writes:
>> we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
>
> Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?
Our children will be dealing with Y2038. :-)
Adrian
___
2011/9/27 O. Hartmann :
> Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for their
> tenth version of their operating system ...
FreeBSD XP anyone?
> ___
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/lis
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 08:22:54AM -0400, Robert Huff wrote:
>
> krad writes:
> > we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
>
> Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?
Not quite. There they mostly said "No way that this program will still
be in use when
krad writes:
> we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?
Robert Huff
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://
Eduardo Morras writes:
> At 11:18 27/09/2011, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
>
>> > Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for
>> > their tenth version of their operating system ...
>>
>>At least there will be a long rest after
>>the move to 10 is complete.. until FreeBSD 1
On 27 September 2011 10:18, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:28:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
> > >Kevin Oberman writes:
> > >
> > >>On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>With the advent of the conversion of HEA
On 09/27/11 16:46, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Ade Lovett wrote:
The undeniable fact is that configure scripts in general have
chosen to do things a certain way. Unfortunately for us (us
being FreeBSD), we have now broken these conceptions by moving
to a dual-digit major release.
I don't s
At 11:18 27/09/2011, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for
> their tenth version of their operating system ...
At least there will be a long rest after
the move to 10 is complete.. until FreeBSD 100.
Or move to hexadecimal
$ export
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:28:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
> >Kevin Oberman writes:
> >
> >>On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett wrote:
> >>
> >>>With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
> >>>expected, ports/ is going to be e
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, h h wrote:
Kevin Oberman writes:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett wrote:
With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
The issue stems from configure scripts (to cho
On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
Kevin Oberman writes:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett wrote:
With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose
Ade Lovett wrote:
> The undeniable fact is that configure scripts in general have
> chosen to do things a certain way. Unfortunately for us (us
> being FreeBSD), we have now broken these conceptions by moving
> to a dual-digit major release.
I don't suppose
REVISION="A.1"
i.e. using a sing
On 27/09/2011, at 13:33, Ade Lovett wrote:
> That is to say, until 9.0-R happens, and for some considerable period
> afterwards, ya'll can pretty much expect ports/ to be non-functional on
> HEAD. PRs mentioning this will be gleefully closed referencing this
> message.
I imagine you can work aro
Kevin Oberman writes:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett wrote:
>
>> With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
>> expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
>>
>> The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completel
> It just means that folks didn't plan ahead and didn't think up
> proper contingency plans.
First off, apologies to Garrett, I'm not picking on you directly, but I
kinda knew this would come up.
The undeniable fact is that configure scripts in general have chosen to
do things a certain way. Un
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett wrote:
>> With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
>> expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
>>
>> The issue stems from configure scripts (
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> It's not the FreeBSD dev's fault. Unfortunately the autotools folks
>> were microoptimizing and didn't consider that the future would come
>> sooner than it actually did.
>
> First,
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> It's not the FreeBSD dev's fault. Unfortunately the autotools folks
> were microoptimizing and didn't consider that the future would come
> sooner than it actually did.
Garrett,
First, I'm not complaining or criticizing any of the develop
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett wrote:
> With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
> expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
>
> The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completely
> at random) assuming that Fre
With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completely
at random) assuming that FreeBSD would never jump to a double-digit
major version number,
51 matches
Mail list logo
