Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 20:35:51 -0800 (PST) From: patl@phoenix.volant.org To: Dan Moschuk <dm@globalserve.net> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GNOME Message-ID: <ML-3.3.921990951.3306.patl@asimov> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9903201955440.328-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Does anyone else experience a lot of coredumping (signal 6) with the > > latest build of gnome (from the ports)? I've actually found the 1.0.* versions to be much more stable than the 0.98/99.* versions. > That means an assertion failed. Really this should probably be reported > to the Gnome camp. Well, that and the "core" ports should be updated to > 1.0.4, and stuff. > > It seems like the Gnome ports are in a state of flux right now, as not > many have been updated to depend on gtk+/glib 1.2... and so incorrectly > look for 1.1d (?!?). There is one big problem with the way the ports builds work. When checking dependancies, it isn't always possible to tell when the installed version isn't really up to date. This can be a particular problem with a dependancy tree as deep, complex, and dynamic as the gnome suite. The safest way to handle this is, of course, to track down all of the dependancies of the gnome port (try something like "make clean | sort -u"); pkg_delete all of them; and re-build. But that's usually grossly inconvienient. So, if you don't mind the package database thinking you've got more than one version installed, the second-best approach is to manually check the dependancy tree for each port you want to install, and build them from the bottom up instead of relying on the ports Makefiles to do it for you. -Pat To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ML-3.3.921990951.3306.patl>