Thanks Miroslav,
Cyrus is marked as automatic and I don't understand why that is. But
I've removed it as I only needed its libraries for Dovecot and, as you
pointed out, that isn't necessary any more.
All working!
Thanks for your reply,
Graham
On 06/10/2016 11:23, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
>
On 05/10/2016 23:29, Graham Menhennitt wrote:
> When I run it, it tells me that it's going to remove my cyrus-SASL port.
> I installed that (via its port) so that I can use SSL/TLS authentication
> on my Dovecot server (installed via the dovecot2 port). So Cyrus is not
> a build dependency of anyth
Graham Menhennitt wrote on 2016/10/06 01:49:
Sorry, I just read that UPDATING entry again. Cyrus is only provided to
Dovecot if Postfix is present. I do not have Postfix present. So, I
think that I do need to install Cyrus explicitly.
So, back to my original question, why does "pkg autoremove" w
Sorry, I just read that UPDATING entry again. Cyrus is only provided to
Dovecot if Postfix is present. I do not have Postfix present. So, I
think that I do need to install Cyrus explicitly.
So, back to my original question, why does "pkg autoremove" want to
uninstall Cyrus when I explicitly in
Thanks for that, olli.
I didn't understand how I'd missed the fact that Dovecot now included
Cyrus. So I had a look at /usr/ports/UPDATING. Searching for Dovecot
shows a mention of it in the entry at 20160228. However, that's entitled
"AFFECTS: users of mail/postfix", and I don't use Postfix.
On 6/10/2016 8:20 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 05/10/2016 à 22:04, Julian Elischer a écrit :
Another thing that might be good woudl be a way to tell ports "remove
all the ports that were just build dependencies".
pkg autoremove
Thanks for that Mathieu - I didn't know about that one.
However
On 5/10/2016 2:20 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 05/10/2016 à 22:04, Julian Elischer a écrit :
Another thing that might be good woudl be a way to tell ports "remove
all the ports that were just build dependencies".
pkg autoremove
hmm I didn't know that would remove build deps for packages that ar
Le 05/10/2016 à 22:04, Julian Elischer a écrit :
> Another thing that might be good woudl be a way to tell ports "remove
> all the ports that were just build dependencies".
pkg autoremove
--
Mathieu Arnold
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 5/10/2016 1:39 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote on 10/05/2016 22:04:
On 4/10/2016 11:38 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 05/10/2016 à 05:18, Julian Elischer a écrit :
On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :
There is a need
Julian Elischer wrote on 10/05/2016 22:04:
On 4/10/2016 11:38 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 05/10/2016 à 05:18, Julian Elischer a écrit :
On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :
There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages.
On 4/10/2016 11:38 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 05/10/2016 à 05:18, Julian Elischer a écrit :
On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :
There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages.
Some dependencies are often optional, and ca
On 10/04/16 23:18, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>> [...]
>> The bare minimum will never be the default. The default is what will
>> fit most people, so that they can use our packages out of the box.
>>
> I didn't say it should be the default, I said it shoul
Le 05/10/2016 à 05:18, Julian Elischer a écrit :
> On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>> Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :
>>> There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages.
>> Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unchecked by running
>> make confi
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:21:30AM +1100, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> Is there a way to display these dependencies in a tree structure?
http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portdependencytree.py?category=x11&portname=kde4
It's slow because I do not store dependencies in the database, so it
recalculates i
On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :
There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages.
Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unchecked by running
make config.
Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default
Hi!
> > The problem is to add code to allow variants is complex and needs
> > engineering power.
> But regarding the
> changes that would be required to only allow other variants, why do you
> say it would be complex? Wouldn't that be only a change in pkg so that
> it can handle dependencies p
On 04/10/2016 05:09, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
Right now, we build packages for
[9,10,11,12]x[amd64,i386]x[head,quarterly], that's 16 different sets,
and we mostly manage to build them over and over again, every two days.
Imagine how long it would take to build 320 sets.
You are trying to take t
Hi!
> > Right now, we build packages for
> > [9,10,11,12]x[amd64,i386]x[head,quarterly], that's 16 different sets,
> > and we mostly manage to build them over and over again, every two days.
> > Imagine how long it would take to build 320 sets.
> You are trying to take that into extreme to ridicu
On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :
There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages.
Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unchecked by running
make config.
but you can never really know the effect.
there should b
Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote on 10/04/2016 01:21:
[...]
Chromium? Opera? Emacs? Both OpenOffice and LibreOffice?
I don't know if this always happens, but there's an issue here. I
have a few unfinished thoughts about how it could occur, but so far
all I can confirm is that there is an issue.
On Monday, 3 October 2016 at 20:41:08 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>
> On 10/03/16 19:21, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>> On Monday, 3 October 2016 at 14:14:13 +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>>> Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :
Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default
On 10/03/16 19:21, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
On Monday, 3 October 2016 at 14:14:13 +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :
Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default when coming
in as a dependency, as there is an increasing tendency to con
On Monday, 3 October 2016 at 14:14:13 +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :
>> Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default when coming
>> in as a dependency, as there is an increasing tendency to configure
>> things with all the bells and whi
Miroslav Lachman wrote on 10/03/2016 15:29:
Grzegorz Junka wrote on 10/03/2016 15:11:
On 03/10/2016 12:14, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :
There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages.
Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unc
On 03/10/2016 14:48, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 03/10/2016 à 16:29, Grzegorz Junka a écrit :
On 03/10/2016 14:11, Mike Clarke wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:11:43 +
Grzegorz Junka wrote:
Shouldn't all packages default to noX dependencies? If I am not
mistaken
FreeBSD is predominantly a serv
Le 03/10/2016 à 16:57, Matthieu Volat a écrit :
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:29:27 +
> Grzegorz Junka wrote:
>
>> On 03/10/2016 14:11, Mike Clarke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:11:43 +
>>> Grzegorz Junka wrote:
>>>
Shouldn't all packages default to noX dependencies? If I am not mistake
On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:29:27 +
Grzegorz Junka wrote:
> On 03/10/2016 14:11, Mike Clarke wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:11:43 +
> > Grzegorz Junka wrote:
> >
> >> Shouldn't all packages default to noX dependencies? If I am not mistaken
> >> FreeBSD is predominantly a server-side system,
Le 03/10/2016 à 16:29, Grzegorz Junka a écrit :
>
> On 03/10/2016 14:11, Mike Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:11:43 +
>> Grzegorz Junka wrote:
>>
>>> Shouldn't all packages default to noX dependencies? If I am not
>>> mistaken
>>> FreeBSD is predominantly a server-side system, with X ru
On 03/10/2016 14:11, Mike Clarke wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:11:43 +
Grzegorz Junka wrote:
Shouldn't all packages default to noX dependencies? If I am not mistaken
FreeBSD is predominantly a server-side system, with X running only
occasionally
I'd disagree with that. I don't know whethe
On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:11:43 +
Grzegorz Junka wrote:
> Shouldn't all packages default to noX dependencies? If I am not mistaken
> FreeBSD is predominantly a server-side system, with X running only
> occasionally
I'd disagree with that. I don't know whether or not the majority of
FreeBSD ins
Grzegorz Junka wrote on 10/03/2016 15:11:
On 03/10/2016 12:14, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :
There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages.
Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unchecked by running
make config.
Such a 'mini
On 03/10/2016 12:14, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :
There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages.
Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unchecked by running
make config.
Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default
Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit :
> There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages.
Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unchecked by running
make config.
> Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default when coming in
> as a dependency, as
> ther
Julian Elischer wrote on 10/01/2016 04:35:
Hi ports people.
It seems to me that there has been an explosion in ports dependencies
recently.
Things that used to need a few dependencies are now pulling in things
one would never imagine.
We just had to add the openjdk7 port to something and the num
Hi ports people.
It seems to me that there has been an explosion in ports dependencies
recently.
Things that used to need a few dependencies are now pulling in things
one would never imagine.
We just had to add the openjdk7 port to something and the number of
dependencies is at 120 and rising
35 matches
Mail list logo
