On Oct 13, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Robert Broome wrote:
>
> :error:install org.macports.install for port coreutils returned: no destroot
> found at:
> /opt/local/var/macports/build/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_release_ports_sysutils_coreutils/coreutils/work/destroot
> :debug:ins
I am trying to perform a routine "update outdated" on my Mac 10.6.8
installation. I have done this many times in the past.
This time:
Error: org.macports.install for port coreutils returned: no destroot found at:
/opt/local/var/macports/build/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_rel
X11 goes back to way before Mac OS X, as well as long before Linux.
I first built X11 on SunOS (not Solaris) in 1989, on a workstation
that was running Sunview.
I still own a copy of Mac X (or some such) that ran on System 7.
I've never read the X11 spec but my understanding is that it only
defi
Hi,
please take your conversation off-list. We don't want to be on Lennart's
next list of hostile open source projects.
--
Clemens Lang
(I admit, I couldn't resist that one. But please, go arguing elsewhere.)
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-u
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:59 AM, René J.V. wrote:
> I'm going to stop this discussion here, and not even try to understand
> where this comes from.
> Take your own advice, and see if you can make any sense out of your own
> proclamations.
>
If you will stop parroting Linux propagandists almost
On Monday October 13 2014 11:27:26 Brandon Allbery wrote:
> So unix/hostname:display was somehow not Unix? You're just digging the hole
> deeper. Stop, think, consider --- or go back to Linux, since your purity is
> being corrupted by defective other operating systems that refuse to do
> things th
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:15 AM, René J.V. wrote:
> > view towards the way things are in Linux-land.
>
> Correction: Unix. X11 was around (long) before Linux, and no matter how
> you turn it, OS X *is* a Unix OS.
>
So unix/hostname:display was somehow not Unix? You're just digging the hole
deep
On Monday October 13 2014 15:27:18 Chris Jones wrote:
> Any scripts that make any assumptions on what $DISPLAY looks like are
> flawed by designed...
> Clearly its my opinion, as I stated it. Apologies if that was not obvious.
No, sorry, you phrased your opinion as an absolute truth. I
On Oct 13, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Wes James wrote:
>
> I did an update on my system but it is not changing from apache 2.2.27. When
> will macports have 2.2.29 available?
I did not realize 2.2.29 was available. Now that I know, I've updated the port.
Wait 30 minutes, then "sudo port selfupdate", a
I did an update on my system but it is not changing from apache 2.2.27. When
will macports have 2.2.29 available?
Thanks,
Wes
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macpor
On 13/10/14 15:09, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Monday October 13 2014 14:34:15 Chris Jones wrote:
Any scripts that make any assumptions on what $DISPLAY looks like are
flawed by designed...
My argument is not based on what some standard says about what DISPLAY
should or should look like, but
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:09 AM, René J.V. wrote:
> As long as there is documentation that's not contradicted/superseded by
> more recent/authoritative documents and that states that the 1st element of
> $DISPLAY refers to the X server host, using that information in code may
> not be the most f
On Monday October 13 2014 14:34:15 Chris Jones wrote:
> >> Any scripts that make any assumptions on what $DISPLAY looks like are
> >> flawed by designed...
> My argument is not based on what some standard says about what DISPLAY
> should or should look like, but the basic premise that extracting
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Chris Jones
wrote:
> My argument is not based on what some standard says about what DISPLAY
> should or should look like, but the basic premise that extracting
> information from $DISPLAY is just a bad idea and should be avoided.
Note that p5-x11-protocol has le
Hi,
Any scripts that make any assumptions on what $DISPLAY looks like are
flawed by designed...
I don't agree :
(and not being an English fully-native speaker myself I won't comment about
arguments with grammatical errors :P )
http://www.xfree86.org/4.0/X.7.html#toc4
http://www.x.org/archive
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM, René J.V. wrote:
> >The simple reason to why Linux does it one way and OS X another, however,
> >is that on Linux X11 is primary and gets "naming rights". on OS X, it is
> an
> >interloper and does not get to choose for itself how the system it's on
> >works or wh
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:50 AM, René J.V. wrote:
> Come to think of it, I can't (or maybe, refuse to) see a good, compelling
> reason why a local X11 server would have to use a non-human-readable
> $DISPLAY spec if it can be identified uniquely through :0 (or :1, :2 etc
> for subsequent instance
On 13/10/14 11:50, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
Come to think of it, I can't (or maybe, refuse to) see a good, compelling
reason why a local X11 server would have to use a non-human-readable $DISPLAY
spec if it can be identified uniquely through :0 (or :1, :2 etc for subsequent
instances). It's als
Come to think of it, I can't (or maybe, refuse to) see a good, compelling
reason why a local X11 server would have to use a non-human-readable $DISPLAY
spec if it can be identified uniquely through :0 (or :1, :2 etc for subsequent
instances). It's also how Linux manages things if additional user
On Monday October 13 2014 09:49:12 Chris Jones wrote:
> Your mode of operation is highly non-standard... Most people find the
> launchd approach very convenient. Why would you *want* to have to start
> it by hand all the time...
Because I always have a server running with a couple of xterms and
On 13/10/14 01:05, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Sunday October 12 2014 18:54:12 Brandon Allbery wrote:
No, it still uses launchd. And, such unusual DISPLAYs *do* exist outside of
Only if you leave the launchd plist in place. I prefer to launch my X11 server
by hand or not at all, so the plist
21 matches
Mail list logo
