Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:15:56 -0400 From: Nicolas Blais <nb_root@videotron.ca> To: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org, rotkap@gmx.de Subject: Re: Why there is a newer OOo port than the binary? Message-ID: <200609181516.05432.nb_root@videotron.ca> In-Reply-To: <i473u3-2c1.ln1@news.t-online.com> References: <p2b0u3-ui41.ln1@news.t-online.com> <200609171720.59091.nb_root@videotron.ca> <i473u3-2c1.ln1@news.t-online.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] > Okay, I Understand. > > But, it is not good, to put rel-candidates into the stable tree. > Maybe another port subtree is the solution? At least your explanation > sounds like.. > > Maybe > > editors/openoffice.org-2.0-rc OR > editors/openoffice.org-2.0-milestones > > Please anderstand also my point of view: I never can do "portupgrade > -a", because of the "outdated" OOo-Port (I do not like to kompile > OOo. It takes to much time, and several times it has failed). > > Heino I don't like compiling OO either :) Have you tried the -x option ? You can portupgrade everything but exclude openoffice like so: portupgrade -avx openoffice Nicolas. -- FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT #0: Sun Sep 17 10:21:02 EDT 2006 nicblais@clk01a:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/CLK01A PGP? : http://www.clkroot.net/security/nb_root.asc [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBFDvB14wTBlvcsbJURAoODAJ4lcqxg1zRiqLTnBo9Yb6vDb8wT1ACdFQpV JnlnKmpZeHhZPGE5U4hGZ7c= =81TG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200609181516.05432.nb_root>