Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 00:04:14 +0200, olli hauer wrote:
No, you don't hit the limitation. It seems you really found a bug in
the Framework!
From the Framework code in bsd.port.mk existing groups should honored.
Along those lines, what about using
On Sep 8, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Miroslav Lachman 000.f...@quip.cz wrote:
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 00:04:14 +0200, olli hauer wrote:
No, you don't hit the limitation. It seems you really found a bug in
the Framework!
From the Framework code in
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 01:19:26PM -0400, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Sep 8, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Miroslav Lachman 000.f...@quip.cz wrote:
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 00:04:14 +0200, olli hauer wrote:
No, you don't hit the limitation. It seems you really
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 00:05:16 -0400, Sahil Tandon wrote:
[ adding portmgr@ to the chain since we're in bpmk territory]
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 15:09:49 +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 00:04:14 +0200, olli hauer wrote:
No, you don't hit the
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:01 PM, Sahil Tandon sa...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 00:04:14 +0200, olli hauer wrote:
No, you don't hit the limitation. It seems you really found a bug in
the Framework!
From the Framework code in bsd.port.mk existing groups should honored.
Along
Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 00:04:14 +0200, olli hauer wrote:
No, you don't hit the limitation. It seems you really found a bug in
the Framework!
From the Framework code in bsd.port.mk existing groups should honored.
Along those lines, what about using groupmod instead of
