On 01 Jun, 2007, at 17:03, Chris Pickel wrote:
Actually, this introduces another problem; asking launchctl to load
a disabled script (as many ports now do) won't cause it to run. To
fix this, the text will need to be edited in all such ports. It
should tell the user to edit the launchd scrip
On Jun 1, 2007, at 16:03, Chris Pickel wrote:
On 01 Jun, 2007, at 15:23, James Berry wrote:
or (b) Default the key to true, and leave the emitted text as it is.
Actually, this introduces another problem; asking launchctl to load
a disabled script (as many ports now do) won't cause it to ru
On 01 Jun, 2007, at 15:23, James Berry wrote:
or (b) Default the key to true, and leave the emitted text as it is.
Actually, this introduces another problem; asking launchctl to load a
disabled script (as many ports now do) won't cause it to run. To fix
this, the text will need to be edited
On Jun 1, 2007, at 14:45, David MacMahon wrote:
Sounds great! Will this automatically affect the gcc binary names
(i.e. gcc-dp-4.2 -> gcc-mp-4.2) or is a port specific change needed?
Changes will be needed to each port.
gcc42 already installs itself as gcc-mp-42 since 2007-04-27.
___
On Jun 1, 2007, at 3:45 PM, David MacMahon wrote:
Sounds great!
Thanks for the feedback! (even if it is only to tell me that things
look good overall ;-) Appreciated!
Will this automatically affect the gcc binary names (i.e. gcc-
dp-4.2 -> gcc-mp-4.2) or is a port specific change needed
On Jun 1, 2007, at 3:33 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On Jun 1, 2007, at 3:23 PM, James Berry wrote:
Which way should we change it?
(a) Change the emitted text to say that startup item will be
started at reboot or if the load command is given,
or (b) Default the key to true, and leave the em
On Jun 1, 2007, at 00:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could someone with more programming skills than I comment on this
ticket?
A user thinks there should be a global fix to the problem we have
with a
manually installed readline. I think this must be done on a case-
by-case
basis. Am I missi
Sounds great! Will this automatically affect the gcc binary names
(i.e. gcc-dp-4.2 -> gcc-mp-4.2) or is a port specific change needed?
Thanks,
Dave
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/l
On 01 Jun, 2007, at 14:43, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
Again, many reasons to move GSoC work to branches and very little
to have it happen right on trunk, in my opinion. I'll make the move
if no one presents a case against it, so please speak up if you
feel you have valid arguments against
James Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Friday, June 1, 2007 at 12:23 PM
-0800 wrote:
>> It has come to my attention that startupitems are not disabled by
>> default.
>> Yet they were intended to be as shown by the message:
>>
>>
>> ###
>> # A s
On Jun 1, 2007, at 3:23 PM, James Berry wrote:
Which way should we change it?
(a) Change the emitted text to say that startup item will be
started at reboot or if the load command is given,
or (b) Default the key to true, and leave the emitted text as it is.
Personally, I think (b) is bett
On Jun 1, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Anant Narayanan wrote:
James Berry wrote:
I'm strongly in favor of giving the GSoC students and their
mentors the
latitude to decide which components of their projects should be
commited
on a branch, and which to trunk. I believe that choice will depend
on a
nu
Hi Mark,
On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has come to my attention that startupitems are not disabled by
default.
Yet they were intended to be as shown by the message:
###
# A startup item has been generated th
It has come to my attention that startupitems are not disabled by default.
Yet they were intended to be as shown by the message:
###
# A startup item has been generated that will aid in
# starting with launchd. It is disabled
# by defa
James Berry wrote:
> I'm strongly in favor of giving the GSoC students and their mentors the
> latitude to decide which components of their projects should be commited
> on a branch, and which to trunk. I believe that choice will depend on a
> number of factors including the nature of the change, h
Hi Juan,
On Jun 1, 2007, at 11:43 AM, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
Afternoon all, again! Sfiera already started work on his GSoC2007
project, so big woot for that! However, he committed to trunk since
no decision was ever made on how GSoC work was to be coordinated. I
can't stress enough
(same mail as before, resent with a proper subject!)
Good afternoon everyone! At long last, I consider the work on my
dp2mp-move branch almost 100% done, 99.99% lets say ;-)
Here's a doc explaining all the implications moving to these sources
has:
http://trac.macports.org/projects/mac
Afternoon all, again! Sfiera already started work on his GSoC2007
project, so big woot for that! However, he committed to trunk since
no decision was ever made on how GSoC work was to be coordinated. I
can't stress enough how much I would prefer to see this go into a
branch for itself, r
Good afternoon everyone! At long last, I consider the work on my
dp2mp-move branch almost 100% done, 99.99% lets say ;-)
Here's a doc explaining all the implications moving to these sources
has:
http://trac.macports.org/projects/macports/wiki/MacPortsRenaming
I'd love to get as much f
19 matches
Mail list logo
