On Monday December 28 2015 17:35:52 Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> If you're going to make a statement about usability like that, it would be
> helpful if you referenced a study (or more clearly indicated that it's just
> your opinion instead of stating it as a fact).
If I were writing a scientific pu
On Dec 28, 2015, at 1:07 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Monday December 28 2015 15:42:46 Rainer Müller wrote:
>> I don't understand your argument at all. In a list of ports that all
>> have the same prefix it is as easy to find something alphabetically as
>> it is in a list without the prefix.
>
On Monday December 28 2015 15:42:46 Rainer Müller wrote:
>I don't understand your argument at all. In a list of ports that all
>have the same prefix it is as easy to find something alphabetically as
>it is in a list without the prefix.
No it isn't, unless you're a computer that isn't subject to t
On 2015-12-29 00:33 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> Somewhat off-topic: One problem that I'm often experiencing is that
> PortIndex doesn't *remove* the port from the index.
>
> Example: I created a new port under "sysutils" without checking
> whether such a port already existed in MacPorts. In fact tha
On 2015-12-28 11:06, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> No, port DIR names become arbitrary. From what I understand the only
> reason they are not supposed to be arbitrary right now is because of
> the portdir name = port name assumption that is currently still
> required to avoid reindexing. There is no ot
Somewhat off-topic: One problem that I'm often experiencing is that
PortIndex doesn't *remove* the port from the index.
Example: I created a new port under "sysutils" without checking
whether such a port already existed in MacPorts. In fact that port was
already under "lang" and I suddenly had two
On 28 December 2015 at 13:20, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2015-12-28 19:54 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder if there is any special reason for this weird packaging of
>> libffi (the include files in particular; does it conflicts with other
>> libraries?):
>>
>> Port libffi contains:
>> /
On Dec 28, 2015, at 02:54, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> I wonder if there is any special reason for this weird packaging of
> libffi (the include files in particular; does it conflicts with other
> libraries?):
>
> Port libffi contains:
> /opt/local/lib/libffi-3.2.1/include/ffi.h
> /opt/local/lib/
On 2015-12-28 19:54 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if there is any special reason for this weird packaging of
> libffi (the include files in particular; does it conflicts with other
> libraries?):
>
> Port libffi contains:
> /opt/local/lib/libffi-3.2.1/include/ffi.h
> /opt/local/l
On Monday December 28 2015 00:46:51 Clemens Lang wrote:
> This isn't redundant information,
Not for the port indexing system maybe, but for everything
>> If you agree with this that might actually make looking at improving
>> the index a bit more appealing to me :)
>
>I'm not sure whether I like
Hi,
I wonder if there is any special reason for this weird packaging of
libffi (the include files in particular; does it conflicts with other
libraries?):
Port libffi contains:
/opt/local/lib/libffi-3.2.1/include/ffi.h
/opt/local/lib/libffi-3.2.1/include/ffitarget.h
/opt/local/lib/libffi.6.
11 matches
Mail list logo
