From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 9 14:09:22 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B5F106564A; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 14:09:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adams-freebsd@ateamsystems.com) Received: from fss.sandiego.ateamservers.com (fss.sandiego.ateamservers.com [69.55.229.149]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 912D48FC16; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 14:09:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.15.220] (unknown [118.175.84.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fss.sandiego.ateamservers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2596DB9F22; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 10:09:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FD35905.9080500@ateamsystems.com> Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 21:09:09 +0700 From: Adam Strohl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "O. Hartmann" References: <20120604110339.GA9426@equilibrium.bsdes.net> <4FD2D4CC.3080109@ateamsystems.com> <4FD3003C.4080109@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4FD352FF.9090101@ateamsystems.com> <4FD357F2.9090901@zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <4FD357F2.9090901@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Steve Franks , Current FreeBSD , freebsd-stable Subject: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 14:09:22 -0000 On 6/9/2012 21:04, O. Hartmann wrote: > Well, this is a good question. Unfortunately, I did an update of the > ports tree and PNG update rushed in. The information in UPDATING came a > in bit later, but since then several ports have been updated already - > and rendered some applications unuseable. > > The question "why" isn't applicable here. Sometimes ports need updates > or a port that is installed reels in another or even an update and this > triggers the avalnche of messes. > Fair enough, I just feel like people reporting "48 hours of not using their computer" are doing something extraordinarily weird and I'm just at a loss as to what they're doing and why. I get the feeling people are updating their ports tree and then recompiling/reinstalling everything "just because" and then are complaining when one thing breaks (its the only thing I can think of). -- Adam Strohl http://www.ateamsystems.com/