Hi again,
I am pretty sure that Adam is right about the version mismatch. I
used sysinstall to update the ports tree and had to change options from
8.0-RELEASE-p3 to 8.0-RELEASE. Cvsup deleted the ports tree. Don't know
if I have to change the RELENG_8 to something else.
# $FreeBSD: sr
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Nathan Maier wrote:
> Hi again,
>I am pretty sure that Adam is right about the version mismatch. I used
> sysinstall to update the ports tree and had to change options from
> 8.0-RELEASE-p3 to 8.0-RELEASE. Cvsup deleted the ports tree. Don't know if
> I have
Okay,
THe mouse is working well enough. I changed my label in
ports-supfile to tag=. which I found in documentation as
applicable to ports supfiles. Is this different from source
supfiles where "." means CURRENT release.
Anyhow, after portupgrade -a, I tried xdm with 'Allo
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:54:41AM -0500, Nathan Peet Maier wrote:
> I changed my label in ports-supfile to tag=. which I found in
> documentation as applicable to ports supfiles. Is this different
> from source supfiles where "." means CURRENT release.
Correct. The tag= line for
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Adam Vande More wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Nathan Maier wrote:
>
>> Hi again,
>> I am pretty sure that Adam is right about the version mismatch. I used
>> sysinstall to update the ports tree and had to change options from
>> 8.0-RELEASE-p3 to 8.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
On 2010/06/22 19:58, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am getting more than 4 thousand of the following messages a day:
>
> WARNING pid 24509 (python2.6): ioctl sign-extension ioctl 8004667e
[...]
I think we may
On Wednesday 23 June 2010 02:12 pm, Xin LI wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2010/06/22 19:58, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am getting more than 4 thousand of the following messages a
> > day:
> >
> > WARNING pid 24509 (python2.6): ioctl sign-extension ioctl
> > 8004667e
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2010/06/23 11:37, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 June 2010 02:12 pm, Xin LI wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2010/06/22 19:58, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am getting more than 4 thousand of the following messages a
>>>
On Wednesday 23 June 2010 02:41 pm, Xin LI wrote:
> On 2010/06/23 11:37, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 June 2010 02:12 pm, Xin LI wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 2010/06/22 19:58, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I am getting more than 4 thousand of the following
On Wednesday 23 June 2010 03:01 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 June 2010 02:41 pm, Xin LI wrote:
> > On 2010/06/23 11:37, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 23 June 2010 02:12 pm, Xin LI wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> On 2010/06/22 19:58, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote:
> > >>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2010/06/23 12:10, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> It is still a kludge and it won't be fixed. :-(
Another thought - what about just hiding the printf under #ifdef
DIAGNOSTIC... I don't really see any reason why we must print it out if
we truncate it every
On Wednesday 23 June 2010 03:16 pm, Xin LI wrote:
> On 2010/06/23 12:10, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > It is still a kludge and it won't be fixed. :-(
>
> Another thought - what about just hiding the printf under #ifdef
> DIAGNOSTIC... I don't really see any reason why we must print it
> out if we trunca
On Wednesday 23 June 2010 03:10 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 June 2010 03:01 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 June 2010 02:41 pm, Xin LI wrote:
> > > On 2010/06/23 11:37, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 23 June 2010 02:12 pm, Xin LI wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >
On Wednesday 23 June 2010 03:38 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 June 2010 03:10 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 June 2010 03:01 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 23 June 2010 02:41 pm, Xin LI wrote:
> > > > On 2010/06/23 11:37, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday 2
14 matches
Mail list logo
