From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 26 16:12:40 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: FreeBSD-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B4016A4E8; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:12:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cwt@networks.cwu.edu) Received: from nsc0.cwu.edu (nsc0.cwu.edu [198.104.69.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91F8213C468; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:12:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cwt@networks.cwu.edu) Received: from n.cwu.edu (n.cwu.edu [198.104.69.57]) by nsc0.cwu.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l6QGCcT0023027; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:12:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cwt@networks.cwu.edu) Received: from n.cwu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by n.cwu.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l6QGCcaT060680; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:12:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cwt@networks.cwu.edu) Received: from localhost (cwt@localhost) by n.cwu.edu (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id l6QGCcra060677; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:12:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cwt@networks.cwu.edu) X-Authentication-Warning: n.cwu.edu: cwt owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:12:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Timmons X-X-Sender: cwt@n.cwu.edu To: Adam McDougall In-Reply-To: <20070726150831.GQ44995@egr.msu.edu> Message-ID: <20070726091201.J59477@n.cwu.edu> References: <20070725140614.G47677@n.cwu.edu> <20070726150831.GQ44995@egr.msu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender DNS name whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (nsc0.cwu.edu [198.104.69.44]); Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Cc: krion@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: x11/xterm-227 does not like FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:12:40 -0000 Yes - all fixed now. Thanks krion! On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Adam McDougall wrote: > I noticed this too but it was followed by an upgrade to 228 which > seems to fix it >