Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:59:19 -0700
From: Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org
Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
Skip Ford wrote:
Well, it wasn't immediately obvious to me that someone would ever want to
mark a port ignore and then want to upgrade it. So
Doug Barton wrote:
Skip Ford wrote:
So, basically, portmaster stopped and asked for input because it thought I
might've forgotten that I installed an +IGNOREME file 10 minutes prior.
I'd prefer to not have tools that try to think about what I'm doing.
It should do what I say it should
Doug Barton wrote:
Skip Ford wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
Second, without knowing what command line you used I couldn't tell you
for sure what happened of course, but assuming you used some
combination of '-af' what you saw was expected behavior. There is a
conflict (I think a fairly
Nenhum_de_Nos wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:54:54 -0700
Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
It sounds to me like what you're seeing is portmaster asking whether
or not you want to delete the distfiles after an upgrade. The easiest
way to deal with that is to use '-aD' and then when it's
Doug Barton wrote:
Skip Ford wrote:
Nenhum_de_Nos wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:54:54 -0700
Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
It sounds to me like what you're seeing is portmaster asking whether
or not you want to delete the distfiles after an upgrade. The easiest
way to deal
Ken Smith wrote:
With the 7.0 release I tried giving just the URL
of the primary site (ftp.freebsd.org) but that proved people don't just
want easy - they're lazy. For the most part they just clicked on that
and didn't look around for a mirror. Hence your observation about the
difference in
Greg Black wrote:
On 2008-06-10, Joe Kelsey wrote:
I have never managed to use burncd with any drive.
Just for the record, I've been using burncd successfully with a variety
of drives from the early days of FreeBSD through to at least 7.0-R, so I
doubt if the above means very much.
I
Gavin Spomer wrote:
I successfully did my first FreeBSD upgrade yesterday after looking at the
manual, and cross referencing with Googling and getting help from our network
engineer here at CWU. Before the upgrade, running df showed:
Filesystem 1K-blocksUsed Avail Capacity
Marko Lerota wrote:
In http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.0R/announce.html says
Updating Existing Systems
An upgrade of any existing system to FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE constitutes
a major version upgrade, so no matter which method you use to update
an older system you should reinstall any
Boris Samorodov wrote:
The system updated a couple of hours ago (RELENG_7), the kernel config
is GENERIC with options LOCK_PROFILING, default /etc/make.conf, i386
(I have this problem at current-amd64 as well):
-
bb% uname -a
FreeBSD bb.ipt.ru 7.0-BETA4 FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 #1: Mon Dec 10
Boris Samorodov wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:22:01 -0500 Skip Ford wrote:
Boris Samorodov wrote:
The system updated a couple of hours ago (RELENG_7), the kernel config
is GENERIC with options LOCK_PROFILING, default /etc/make.conf, i386
(I have this problem at current-amd64 as well
Jon Holstrom wrote:
I had 6.2 stable all setup
had gnome 2.18 all humming along 100%
java eclipse, tomcat, bah bah bah!
updated src rebuilt only to
find 6.2 is gone 6.3 prerelease!
( I think there should be a button
we need to push to get
software we DONT want! j/k)
with my
Robert Watson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper
for 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and
capable and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and
related
Doug Barton wrote:
In an effort to find some kind of balance (I won't even try to say
consensus) between those who hate the idea of slaving the root
zones, those who like the idea but don't want it to be the default,
and those who like the idea, I've made the following change:
1. Change the
Doug Barton wrote:
Skip Ford wrote:
Just like I'd think everyone should sync with stratum-1 servers if
those operators supported everyone doing that.
I've already pointed out that this is a silly analogy, as the two
things have nothing in common. At the most basic level:
Individual
Randy Bush wrote:
the undiscussed and unannounced change to the default dns config to
cause local transfer of the root and arpa zone files has raised major
discussing in the dns operational community. (see the mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]).
did i miss the discussion here?
No. There was
Doug Barton wrote:
If there is a consensus based on solid technical reasons (not emotion
or FUD) to back the root zone slaving change out,
If that's a shot at me, you're out of line. I specifically said I
didn't have an axe to grind with anyone, and I never piled on in
my comments.
The reason
Doug Barton wrote:
Skip Ford wrote:
The reason I provided *is* purely technical. The roots can decide
tomorrow to block AXFR requests from FreeBSD users who install
6.3-RELEASE or 7.0-RELEASE. They may. They may not. But they
can.
Here is where the problem lies. What you're
Mark Andrews wrote:
I don't think that all of the drama could have been avoided in any
case, there is too much emotion surrounding this issue.
I'll concur with Doug on this. I've been discussing doing
just this for the last 10+ years.
Why don't you update 2870 then to make
Mark Andrews wrote:
I don't think that all of the drama could have been avoided in any
case, there is too much emotion surrounding this issue.
I'll concur with Doug on this. I've been discussing doing
just this for the last 10+ years.
Why don't you update 2870 then to
20 matches
Mail list logo
