Re: CVS update omitted a port in a trial run, HUH ?
From: Courtney Thomas (ccthomas_at_joimail.com)
Date: 04/13/05
- Next message: Conrad J. Sabatier: "Re: Packages and Ports wrapper"
- Previous message: Nigel: "Best option for SMTP limiting?"
- In reply to: Michel Talon: "Re: CVS update omitted a port in a trial run, HUH ?"
- Next in thread: Michel Talon: "Re: CVS update omitted a port in a trial run, HUH ?"
- Reply: Michel Talon: "Re: CVS update omitted a port in a trial run, HUH ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:15:57 -0500
To All Respondents:
Thank you for your effort on my behalf.
I assume everyone on all groups are of good will until they prove
otherwise.
As for "a conflict between the handbook and the opinion of experts", I
never said that there was such a conflict.
What I attempted to say and apparently failed to convey was that... based
on my reading, possibly misreading of course, of the handbook, my
understanding was that..... updating only some ports was proper.....and
that IF what I understood Kris to be saying which was..... that
updating only some ports was NOT proper, then unavoidably... the handbook
was wrong.
If I properly understood the handbook and Kris; AND since Kris was saying
(if I understood him) that what I was attempting was not possible,
i.e. updating part of ports, then, if the handbook was correct and since
section A.5.5 explicitly gives directions on updating only some ports, not
necessarily all, then perforce Kris must be wrong, if I understood his
meaning.
So, I relayed to Kris, as he asked, and as I assumed to be a sincere
request, the identifying handbook section containing [my understanding of]
how to update part of ports. However, I erred in saying A.5.4. It should
have been A.5.5.
But I must say... I assumed it unnecessary to be this explicit, perhaps
wrong, perhaps again.
>From the tone of subsequent posts, I gather that all involved somehow
misconstrue my meaning and thereby are offended, which I regret, but have
by this message done all I know how... to clarify and hope that goodwill
will be granted me.
Sincerely,
Courtney
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:05:05
+0000, Michel Talon wrote:
> Courtney Thomas <ccthomas@joimail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Same song. If you're right, the handbook's wrong.
>>
>
> Courtney,
>
> Kris certainly knows better than us all, because he is the main
> manager of the FreeBSD ports system. In general, the information in the
> handbook may be nice but is frequently inaccurate, as i have seen a large
> number of times. So in case of a clear conflict between the handbook
> and the opinion of experts (like Kris), and i don't know if there is a
> conflict in this case, i think you can mod down safely the handbook
> statements.
>
>> Thanks for your interest. I'm only here to learn.
>
> First thing to learn is that you may even encounter a FreeBSD developer
> on c.u.b.f.m. hence it is not wise to try to make fun of contradictors
> without at least checking for that :-) Unfortunately, very few of them
> show themselves here, perhaps because they don't appreciate contradiction
> very much.
>
> For your problem, note that you can always download individual ports on
> freebsd web site. Suppose for example i want allegro, i visit:
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/devel/allegro/
> and i note downwards:
> Download this directory in tarball
> Click here and you have the last version of the allegro port. Of course
> you then have to resolve dependencies manually.
>
>>
>> Cordially,
>>
>> Courtney
- Next message: Conrad J. Sabatier: "Re: Packages and Ports wrapper"
- Previous message: Nigel: "Best option for SMTP limiting?"
- In reply to: Michel Talon: "Re: CVS update omitted a port in a trial run, HUH ?"
- Next in thread: Michel Talon: "Re: CVS update omitted a port in a trial run, HUH ?"
- Reply: Michel Talon: "Re: CVS update omitted a port in a trial run, HUH ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
