Source code and pkg/dmgs for MacPorts 2.1.0-rc1 are now
available [1]. Testing of either of these install methods is helpful.
While there are no known regressions from 2.0.4 at this point, be
prepared to encounter bugs. As always, having a recent backup would be
wise. Please report any bugs that y
Done.
-Bill
On May 7, 2012, at 7:24 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> David, I've forwarded your request to the Mac OS Forge admin, who handles
> these issues.
>
> On May 7, 2012, at 09:18, David Baumgold wrote:
>
>> I've changed my primary email address, and I'm not sure how to redirect my
>> @ma
Titus von Boxberg wrote:
> Am 07.05.2012 um 19:43 schrieb Bjarne D Mathiesen:
>
>> at present we have :
>> postgresql7@7.4.24 databases/postgresql7
>> postgresql80 @8.0.26 databases/postgresql80
>> postgresql81 @8.1.23
Am 07.05.2012 um 19:43 schrieb Bjarne D Mathiesen:
> at present we have :
> postgresql7@7.4.24 databases/postgresql7
> postgresql80 @8.0.26 databases/postgresql80
> postgresql81 @8.1.23 databases/postgresql81
> postgre
On May 7, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>>
>> On May 7, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>>
>>> Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>>>
Looks like a missing dependency or a non-existent port.
>>>
>>> that was my theory too at first
>>>
>
> As far as I know things are working correctly the way they are today. What
> problem are you trying to solve? It sounds like you're saying MacPorts should
> compare the Portfile in the ports tree with the one in the archive, and if
> they differ, ignore the archive and build from source. If so
On May 7, 2012, at 10:58, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
>> No need, usually. The only reason why there's a Portfile in the package is
>> so that the port can define post-deactivate blocks. So if you're adding /
>> removing / changing a port's post-deactivate block, then yes, that would be
>> a reason
Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>
> On May 7, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>
>> Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Looks like a missing dependency or a non-existent port.
>>
>> that was my theory too at first
>>
>>> Maybe there is something here:
>>> http://theory.github.com/mytap/
>>
On May 7, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>> On May 7, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>>
>>> this seems to be a good basis, however, I get a build error :
>>> ld: library not found for -lmytap
>>
>> I did the same thing a few weeks ago with
at present we have :
postgresql7@7.4.24 databases/postgresql7
postgresql80 @8.0.26 databases/postgresql80
postgresql81 @8.1.23 databases/postgresql81
postgresql82 @8.2.23 databases/postgresql82
Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
> On May 7, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>
>> this seems to be a good basis, however, I get a build error :
>> ld: library not found for -lmytap
>
> I did the same thing a few weeks ago with similar results.
I'll put my work into the bitbucket
>
> Looks
On May 7, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> I noticed that mariadb presently is at @5.2.9
> according to http://downloads.mariadb.org/mariadb/ there are 4 stable
> releases in 4 brances : @5.1.62 , @5.2.12 , @5.3.7 , @5.5.23
> thus the port hasn't been kept up-to-date since 2011-12-05
I noticed that mariadb presently is at @5.2.9
according to http://downloads.mariadb.org/mariadb/ there are 4 stable
releases in 4 brances : @5.1.62 , @5.2.12 , @5.3.7 , @5.5.23
thus the port hasn't been kept up-to-date since 2011-12-05
now, what's the policy as to mariadb ?
do we keep older stable
> No need, usually. The only reason why there's a Portfile in the package is so
> that the port can define post-deactivate blocks. So if you're adding /
> removing / changing a port's post-deactivate block, then yes, that would be a
> reason to increase the revision to get the package rebuilt. B
On May 7, 2012, at 10:30, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
> In the past if a Portfile edit changed installed files we increased either
> version or revision.
That advice still holds.
> With the advent of binary packages that place a copy of the Portfile in the
> package should all Portfile commits
On May 7, 2012, at 10:46, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>
> On May 7, 2012, at 8:41 AM, ryandes...@macports.org wrote:
>
>> Revision
>> 92811
>> Author
>> ryandes...@macports.org
>> Date
>> 2012-05-07 08:41:02 -0700 (Mon, 07 May 2012)
>> Log Message
>>
>> dbus: use startup_root variable when setti
I do not recall this being discussed.
In the past if a Portfile edit changed installed files we increased either
version or revision.
With the advent of binary packages that place a copy of the Portfile in the
package should all Portfile commits increase version or revision?
Regards,
Bradley
David, I've forwarded your request to the Mac OS Forge admin, who handles these
issues.
On May 7, 2012, at 09:18, David Baumgold wrote:
> I've changed my primary email address, and I'm not sure how to redirect my
> @macports.org email to my new primary email address. I looked on Trac and
> did
I've changed my primary email address, and I'm not sure how to redirect my
@macports.org email to my new primary email address. I looked on Trac and
didn't see anything; can someone help me out? I'd singingwolf...@macports.org
to redirect to da...@davidbaumgold.com. Thanks!
-David
__
On May 7, 2012, at 05:42, Clemens Lang wrote:
> On May 6, 2012 11:54 PM, "Ryan Schmidt" wrote:
> > Are there multiple ports that could provide the md5sum and sha1sum
> > binaries? That's the usual reason for using a path:-style dependency, but I
> > don't think there are, since the md5sha1sum p
On 05/06/12 22:33, Daniel Ericsson wrote:
> hg-forest isn't even compatible with mercurial 2.x, without a
> maintainer or a replacing port can we just remove it? or do we need a
> grace period as the guide says?
If the port is broken already for the last 6 months after mercurial was
upgraded to 2.
On May 6, 2012 11:54 PM, "Ryan Schmidt" wrote:
> Are there multiple ports that could provide the md5sum and sha1sum
binaries? That's the usual reason for using a path:-style dependency, but I
don't think there are, since the md5sha1sum port doesn't declare a conflict
with any other port.
>
> tl;dr
22 matches
Mail list logo
