2009/9/24 Siju George :
> Hi,
> ...
> Should I do
>
> #rm -rf /usr/pkgsrc
> # make pkgsrc-checkout
>
> to get a git repository instead of a cvs one?
Yes. And you only need to do this once.
Could we handle it with 'make upgrade' or it would be too intrusive
for the user?
Cheers,
Stathis
Hi,
I usually update /usr/pkgsrc with " cd /usr && make update pkgsrc-update"
It usually updates through cvs with.
-
dfly-bkpsrv# make pkgsrc-update
cd /usr; cvs -d anon...@anoncvs.netbsd.org:/cvs
Hi,
On my second disk I get the following error while compiling /usr/src
---
sh /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/cc44/cc_tools/tools/..//../../../../contrib/gcc-4.4/move
-if-change insn-attrtab.c.tmp insn-attrtab.c
mv: re
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 07:24:39PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I don't see any major problem keeping as much as 2-years worth of
> packages around. Security issues do crop up but from the point
> of view of someone having to make the choice between spending
> 5 minutes adding an
Hi,
I was updating the system after a "git pull" in /usr/src with
dfly-bkpsrv# make buildworld && make buildkernel KERNCONF=GENERIC &&
make installkernel KERNCONF=GENERIC && make installworld && make
upgrade
but I got this error.
Oh Sorry it was already mounted the system was not switched off since
the last mount :-)
--Siju
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Siju George wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been trying to
>
> dfly-bkpsrv# mount_null /dev /mnt/2ndDisk/dev
>
> So that I can update the system on my second disk.
> I was abl
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Matthew Dillon
wrote:
>
> It controls how pruning works. You basically told it to throw away
> all history over 1 minute old. This might or might not be responsible
> for undo -i reporting virtually no history for the file, depending on
> when the ha
Hi,
I have been trying to
dfly-bkpsrv# mount_null /dev /mnt/2ndDisk/dev
So that I can update the system on my second disk.
I was able to mount /dev on /mnt/2ndDisk/dev successfully till a few days back.
But now I get this error.
dfly-bkpsrv# mount_null /dev /mnt/2ndDisk/dev
mount_null: Operatio
I don't see any major problem keeping as much as 2-years worth of
packages around. Security issues do crop up but from the point
of view of someone having to make the choice between spending
5 minutes adding an older version of a package verses potentially
a day upgrading the e
On Wed, September 23, 2009 6:26 am, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> It is really bad to keep around packages we don't build anymore, because
> they get outdated and accumulate security problems. And we don't have
> the resources to keep building packages.
>
> I think we should keep around what
Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
It is really bad to keep around packages we don't build anymore, because
they get outdated and accumulate security problems. And we don't have
the resources to keep building packages.
I think we should keep around what we can build for at the moment, and
not
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:26:31PM +0200, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> Vincent Stemen wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:05:40 -0400 (EDT), Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
>>> Since 2.4 is out, and we'll have binary pkgsrc packages for it soon, the
>>> 2.0 packages are due to be removed. If this wil
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:26:31PM +0200, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
>
> It is really bad to keep around packages we don't build anymore,
> because they get outdated and accumulate security problems. And we
> don't have the resources to keep building packages.
>
> I think we should keep ar
Vincent Stemen wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:05:40 -0400 (EDT), Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
Since 2.4 is out, and we'll have binary pkgsrc packages for it soon, the
2.0 packages are due to be removed. If this will cause you trouble,
please speak up.
The plan is to keep packages for the current r
14 matches
Mail list logo
