From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 7 22:48:53 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00116FA4 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 22:48:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-current@m.gmane.org) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D9D18FA for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 22:48:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ul5Se-0004OI-VU for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 00:48:44 +0200 Received: from cpc3-walt15-2-0-cust148.13-2.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.21.186.149]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 00:48:44 +0200 Received: from walterhurry by cpc3-walt15-2-0-cust148.13-2.cable.virginmedia.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 00:48:44 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: Walter Hurry Subject: Re: Can't compile lxpanel Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 22:48:25 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <1370533030688-5818153.post@n5.nabble.com> <1370638730225-5818453.post@n5.nabble.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cpc3-walt15-2-0-cust148.13-2.cable.virginmedia.com User-Agent: Pan/0.139 (Sexual Chocolate; GIT bf56508 git://git.gnome.org/pan2) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 22:48:53 -0000 On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:58:50 -0700, Jakub Lach wrote: > Sorry for being so sparse, but I was just talking about general > impression from few tries I gave it. > > /proc wasn't main problem, usually I didn;t have any use for it. > > Basically it wasn't for me what it aimed to be- a frugal replacement for > DE. Half of things didn't work, other half worked erratically. Starting > from bare panel/openbox looked more viable. > OK, fair enough. All I can say is that LXDE works perfectly for me in 9.1- RELEASE. I just had the problem of compiling lxpanel in 10-CURRENT, which was worked around using asomers' suggestion to try gcc instead of clang for that port. Thanks for the reply.