Re: Port review of pure-ftpd

On Oct 27, 2009, at 8:37 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Oct 27, 2009, at 21:58, Scott Haneda wrote: I do not really understand the conflicting variants issue, and seem to be unable to find a lot of documentation on the matter. In this case, I know I can not append more than one language to the

Re: Port review of pure-ftpd

On Oct 27, 2009, at 21:58, Scott Haneda wrote: I do not really understand the conflicting variants issue, and seem to be unable to find a lot of documentation on the matter. In this case, I know I can not append more than one language to the configure.args, and wanted to solve that. I su

Re: Port review of pure-ftpd

repeat with aVariant in variantList if aVariant starts with lang_ then counter++ if counter > 1 then abort with message end repeat That seems short and to the point to me. It would work. This would basically be reimplementing the conflicts mechanism yourself, but hiding that f

Re: Port review of pure-ftpd

On Oct 27, 2009, at 18:17, Scott Haneda wrote: I am seeing this on occasion when testing the pure-ftpd port I am working on: $sudo port install +mysql +tls Warning: Skipping upgrade since openssl 0.9.8k_0 >= openssl 0.9.8k_0, even though installed variants "" do not match "+darwin". Use

Re: Port review of pure-ftpd

I am seeing this on occasion when testing the pure-ftpd port I am working on: $sudo port install +mysql +tls Warning: Skipping upgrade since openssl 0.9.8k_0 >= openssl 0.9.8k_0, even though installed variants "" do not match "+darwin". Use 'upgrade --enforce-variants' to switch to the requ

Re: Port review of pure-ftpd

On Oct 27, 2009, at 18:00, Scott Haneda wrote: If one was to do this: port install +foo +bar +baz In any of the most initial of phases, which I am not sure that is, but before anything happens, how can I grab ahold of the variant names passed on the command line? I don't think you can do

Re: Port review of pure-ftpd

On Oct 27, 2009, at 1:03 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Oct 27, 2009, at 01:19, Scott Haneda wrote: All the ui_msg in the port-install, is that the right place? You might want the instructions to be post-activate. I will look into this. The software only allows one language to be compiled in,

Re: MacPorts 1.8.1 has been released

On 2009-10-28 08:27:15 +1100, Joshua Root wrote: > Yes, that's . Thanks. If it is not fixed in the next version, I think that the upgrade instructions should mention this bug. -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)

Re: MacPorts 1.8.1 has been released

On 2009-10-28 08:21, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2009-09-29 09:50:00 +1000, Joshua Root wrote: >> If you already have MacPorts installed, the preferred method for >> updating is to run: >> >> sudo port selfupdate > > On Tiger: > > [...] > ===> making install in src/programs > ===> making instal

Re: MacPorts 1.8.1 has been released

On 2009-09-29 09:50:00 +1000, Joshua Root wrote: > If you already have MacPorts installed, the preferred method for > updating is to run: > > sudo port selfupdate On Tiger: [...] ===> making install in src/programs ===> making install in src/programs/daemondo mkdir -p build /usr/bin/install -c

Re: Port review of pure-ftpd

On Oct 27, 2009, at 4:47 PM, Scott Haneda wrote: ... but any direct mode users won't see them then (and while there aren't many, I think there are still a few people who prefer it). What is "direct mode"? the way things worked prior to 'image mode' being made the default. (files are instal

Re: Port review of pure-ftpd

On Oct 27, 2009, at 7:56 AM, "Daniel J. Luke" wrote: On Oct 27, 2009, at 4:03 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: All the ui_msg in the port-install, is that the right place? You might want the instructions to be post-activate. ... but any direct mode users won't see them then (and while there are

Re: The opendarwin .com debacle

Sorry, this rather old email just went whooshing out when I woke a machine that had gone to sleep before sending. I see that everyone is already well-aware of the google ranking issues and have already taken some steps to address this - sorry to revive the discussion days after the fact!

Re: The opendarwin .com debacle

On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:37 AM, James Berry wrote: I've got to believe we have better incoming links to our site, so if we better structured our site to do cross linking between categories (and perhaps stoop to the subdomain tricks he does), we could presumably improve this situation immense

Re: The opendarwin .com debacle

On 2009-10-22 13:58:01 -0400, Jeremy Lavergne wrote: > Search for "pspp mac" and you'll find dp.com sitting at #4 or #5. > This demonstrates at least one way people are finding it: searching > for the open source project they want and "mac". In my example, > simply searching for "pspp" will not b

Re: The opendarwin .com debacle

Hi, (I've been quite busy these times and still am.) On 2009-10-14 20:14:54 -0600, Bryan Blackburn wrote: > Note that there really isn't any kind of actionable violation, as MacPorts > uses the BSD license, and the web page there looks to be his own creation... But is DarwinPorts a trademark? In

Re: [MacPorts] #22226: gEDA Port Submission

Yes, post a new portfile, you should be able to overwrite the old one on the ticket. Cheers! Frank On Oct 27, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Mark Anderson wrote: Ok, so I screwed this port file up a bit. I forgot to add the dependencies. Should I post a new Portfile, or a diff. Also, once I've done

Re: Port review of pure-ftpd

On Oct 27, 2009, at 4:03 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: All the ui_msg in the port-install, is that the right place? You might want the instructions to be post-activate. ... but any direct mode users won't see them then (and while there aren't many, I think there are still a few people who prefer

Re: [MacPorts] #22226: gEDA Port Submission

Ok, so I screwed this port file up a bit. I forgot to add the dependencies. Should I post a new Portfile, or a diff. Also, once I've done that can someone commit it? On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 4:52 PM, MacPorts wrote: > #6: gEDA Port Submission > ---+-

Re: [59915] trunk/www/install.php

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:20:43AM -0700, Toby Peterson said: > There's no reason for people to use old version of Xcode, why should > we even bother mentioning them? Not to mention, as you (Ryan) yourself found, 3.1 isn't always good enough: Bryan >

Re: Port review of pure-ftpd

On Oct 27, 2009, at 01:19, Scott Haneda wrote: I ran into an issue with a new configure arg that the devloper added, aside from that, things are going well, and wanted a review of my work if anyone has time. Is there any way, or any desire, to pretty up the long description? for example

Re: [59915] trunk/www/install.php

There's no reason for people to use old version of Xcode, why should we even bother mentioning them? - Toby On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 00:11, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On Oct 27, 2009, at 01:48, t...@macports.org wrote: > >> Revision: 59915 >>         http://trac.macports.org/changeset/59915 >> Autho

Re: [59915] trunk/www/install.php

On Oct 27, 2009, at 01:48, t...@macports.org wrote: Revision: 59915 http://trac.macports.org/changeset/59915 Author: t...@macports.org Date: 2009-10-26 23:48:43 -0700 (Mon, 26 Oct 2009) Log Message: --- update Xcode versions But we don't require 3.2.1 or 3.1.4; 3.2 or 3