> Sure, just like an *nix or whatever; but you don't know why it's that way,
> and you don't know if that's correct.
In UNIX a typical package involves having files in 10 different obscurely
named directories, with names like "/usr/sbin" that are STILL the subject
of active debate over whetehr som
> I've since come to the conclusion that FreeBSD's ports system is apparently
> great for those people who like to do everything manually, but it's like
> kryptonite for anyone trying to automate.
Have you looked at doing "make package" instead of "make install"?
Have you looked at "portupgrade"?
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Peter da Silva wrote:
> In OSX you know the ownership and purpose of any file because that
> information is built into the file system. You don't have to look it
> up, it's right there in the name and owner and type.
Sure, just like an *nix or whatever; but you don't know why
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> Apt was released with Debian 2.1 in 1999.
And kicks so much ass over ports that it's not even funny. It's certainly
possible that ports was freaking awesome in 1988 or whenever, but it needs
to take some hints from Apt.
Of course, I think Apt needs
On Sat, 20 May 2006, Peter da Silva wrote:
> They pulled this with the Intel Mac mini too, I've already beaten this
> hate into submission.
>
> But then hating Apple hardware is something I've been embarrassing
> Apple fans with for years now. Their last real desktop, for example,
> was the Beige
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Bill Page wrote:
> maybe you shouldn't be a unix faggot, you dickhead*
>
> *may have been written at 4:44 am on sunday morning
> will rely on others to fix this problem without one noticing
I understand it might have been late, but, um... Vitriol is on topic, and
potty mouth
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> Is hating the hardware allowed here? Because, in a short while you
> surely will, assuming that you don't mean the Pro version here:
>
> > So I picked up a MacBook yesterday, for various reasons but mostly because
> > my 12" powerbook feels really slow
Oh great... I recently had an issue with the Apache runtime not
working with the latest version of Sleepycat (i.e. Berkeley DB) but
which was required for svn (or was it mySQL?, I forget now). In a
nutshell, there was a recursive package dependancy conflict. If you
updated the webserver with al
On May 21, 2006, at 6:19 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:43:22PM -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
As for OSX packaging... it's not a "package system" like the BSD ports
system, but then neither is RPM, and neither were Debian packages for
many years. I have been told Debian
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:43:22PM -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
> As for OSX packaging... it's not a "package system" like the BSD ports
> system, but then neither is RPM, and neither were Debian packages for
> many years. I have been told Debian packages have gotten to the point
> where you can
Intel GMA 950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM
shared with main memory
Thanks Apple, for investing so much in using the GPU to provide
advanced
video display effects ... then dumping the GPU for a half-assed shared
memory system with very little hardware acceleration in your c
Luke Kanies writes:
Is hating the hardware allowed here? Because, in a short while you
surely will, assuming that you don't mean the Pro version here:
> So I picked up a MacBook yesterday, for various reasons but mostly because
> my 12" powerbook feels really slow these days.
[...]
> And, o
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 16:16 -0400, Michael Leuchtenburg wrote:
> I would be more specific in my subject header, but I really hate
> everything about Basic18. Basic18 is a compiler for Basic for the PIC18.
You could always try the PIC C compiler. It's been a while since I last
had cause to hate it
13 matches
Mail list logo
