From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 14 14:50:05 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C594106566B for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:50:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEB438FC16 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:50:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n0EEo4CG033140 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:50:04 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n0EEo4si033139; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:50:04 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:50:04 GMT Message-Id: <200901141450.n0EEo4si033139@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Stefan Walter Cc: Subject: Re: ports/128603: textproc/flex has too small capacity X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Stefan Walter List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:50:05 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/128603; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Stefan Walter To: Olaf Seibert Cc: GNATS , Bruce Cran Subject: Re: ports/128603: textproc/flex has too small capacity Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:40:28 +0100 Hi Olaf, Olaf Seibert, 12.01.09, 17:06h CET: > On Fri 09 Jan 2009 at 10:28:56 +0100, Stefan Walter wrote: > > were you able to resolve the problem by increasing the limit as Bruce > > mentioned? > > Yes, that seemed to work, after I increased the value from 31999 to > 99999. Is there a way that I can keep this patch locally, without it > being erased by portsnap? The porter's handbook paragraph 4.4 doesn't > mention anything like that. None that I know of, but I'd say it doesn't have to be local if you could prepare a patch for the port that adds an option to change the limit. (It should be off by default, though, I think.) Regards, Stefan