Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:27:42 -0800 From: Paul Beard <paulbeard@gmail.com> To: Jeremy Messenger <mezz.freebsd@gmail.com> Cc: gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: eggdbus calls xsltproc with -nonet: how is that supposed to work? Message-ID: <D04B2854-C242-4CB1-BA48-CE613F38967C@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinVd773oCr0ZvDdwXTzt2F3YOjpz50m%2BB1jpmhZ@mail.gmail.com> References: <C25A1319-8947-42A5-97CB-436E721E7142@gmail.com> <AANLkTinVd773oCr0ZvDdwXTzt2F3YOjpz50m%2BB1jpmhZ@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Dec 29, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Jeremy Messenger wrote: > I can't reproduce it. It ran perfect fine here, so to our tinderboxes > and pointyhat. How could xsltproc -nonet possibly work? It makes a request for a networked resource with the network explicitly disabled. If this command is specified as part of the build, it shouldn't work anywhere: "WORKSFORME" would never apply. If it isn't in the build process everywhere, what are the criteria that turn it on or off? Your example doesn't show if/how the file being used as the stylesheet is made available. Again, if it's not present on the local filesystem and it cannot be fetched, how can it work? If you have it on the local filesystem, as I did when I re-ran the build after I saw why it was failing, of course it worked. As for the suggestion that my network is somehow too slow for GNOME to work, I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or just obnoxious. I'm not actually using GNOME, just trying to build one of the myriad dependencies it has. How long before GNOME itself is a dependency for the kernel? Obviously (?) I have network access, 3Mbits of it, as best the local telco can cobble together, or csup wouldn't work. This is a headless box that lives in a closet in my basement. It doesn't need GNOME as a UI. I don't have xorg installed, just two pkgs that lots of other pkgs depend on. Seriously, most of the port mgmt issues I run into stem from GNOME ports. Maybe I miss stuff in UPDATING but this telepathy-glib fustercluck was just another example of something somewhere not being validated/verified. As many reports as there were of gobject and friends balking on a header file, blaming it on pilot error seems hard to defend. The MacPorts project on OS X has similar issues where WORKSFORME is the default response from developers/porters whose systems never seem to have the same problems as the people who actually use the stuff. Enough. I'll just use send-pr from now on. -- Paul Beard Are you trying to win an argument or solve a problem?help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D04B2854-C242-4CB1-BA48-CE613F38967C>