From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 19 11:13:09 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7903516A421 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:13:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from blaster.systems.pipex.net (blaster.systems.pipex.net [62.241.163.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43EDC13C468 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:13:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from [192.168.23.2] (62-31-10-181.cable.ubr05.edin.blueyonder.co.uk [62.31.10.181]) by blaster.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA989E0002E7; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:13:07 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4677BA40.9080309@dial.pipex.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:13:04 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20061205 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Falanga References: <340a29540706150835k27bc59f0wdfc326a08958410e@mail.gmail.com> <4672B61F.2080603@dial.pipex.com> <340a29540706181140xc38d64fp8956f85351045334@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <340a29540706181140xc38d64fp8956f85351045334@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions Subject: Re: Upgrading x.org to 7.2 (to make other ports happy) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:13:09 -0000 Andrew Falanga wrote: > I just read my reply to this from the weekend. Wow, it sounds like > I'm a complete idiot. Ok, what I meant to say (had other things on my > mind this weekend) was that being unfamiliar with 'script' I thought > it was some sort of interpreter through which I had to run this > "xorg-upgrade" script mentioned in the UPDATING file. As you can see, > my lack of understanding for script lead to a bad assumption. The big clue is in the text description where it refers to script(1) i.e. a command with a manual page in section 1 of the manual! It's always worth a quick man or apropos if you come across something you don't recognise. --Alex