1
0
mirror of https://git.FreeBSD.org/ports.git synced 2024-11-20 00:21:35 +00:00
Commit Graph

20 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Kris Kennaway
0b25b3084b New INDEX-5 for 5.x, with 10559 ports 2004-03-15 23:20:56 +00:00
Joe Marcus Clarke
ca5261eda2 Yakety, yak, slip that tag...
Once more for 5.2.1-RELEASE.
2004-02-14 07:18:34 +00:00
Joe Marcus Clarke
74393c19f9 Update the 5.2.1 INDEX with the recent XFree86-Server fixes. 2004-02-11 19:33:58 +00:00
Joe Marcus Clarke
e3b0edbfd6 Fixing kuser
Don't delete the root account
The tag has been slipped

This is the 5.2.1-RELEASE INDEX file (now with 9723 ports).

Haiku by:	kris (lyrics printed with permission of Obsecurity Records)
2004-01-27 02:59:53 +00:00
Joe Marcus Clarke
2f11d16f22 This is the 5.2-RELEASE INDEX-5 file. As I was looking back on the days
leading up to the src and ports freeze, one thing stood out.  My
freebsd-current mail folder had was larger than a Slashdot thread on
Microsoft acquiring RedHat.  Was all of this patches to fix the 5.2-RELEASE
TODO items?  Nope.  But it was part of FreeBSD none-the-less.  So, in
honor of those countless messages, I proudly present "Bikeshed," a song
sung to the tune of Devo's classic, "Whip it."

Paint that shed
Restart the same old thread
Flame that list
Now everyone is pissed

When 5.2-RELEASE comes along
You must bikeshed
We need a new commit song
Call it "Bikeshed"
The developer is wrong
You must bikeshed!

Dynamically link /sbin
You must bikeshed
Do the same to /bin
You must bikeshed
No one gets their way
When they bikeshed

I say bikeshed!
Paint it blue

This INDEX-5 file contains 9724 ports (no, it's not prime).
2003-12-05 06:48:15 +00:00
Kris Kennaway
011ee119b6 New INDEX for 5.x, with 9722 ports. 2003-11-24 00:31:00 +00:00
Kris Kennaway
3af81579e3 New INDEX for 5.x, with 9513 ports. 2003-10-19 07:17:46 +00:00
Kris Kennaway
219dd6fe54 New INDEX for 5.x, with 9036 ports (37 fewer than last time due to
the recent reaping spree)
2003-08-16 01:56:43 +00:00
Kris Kennaway
4de77f9889 New INDEX for 5.x, with 9073 ports. 2003-08-04 10:54:02 +00:00
Kris Kennaway
7800f33460 New INDEX for 5.x, with 8866 ports. 2003-06-22 12:55:16 +00:00
Kris Kennaway
81d654ea08 Regenerate INDEX for the usual last-minute tag slippage. 2003-06-01 23:49:17 +00:00
Kris Kennaway
0e6d03dfe9 _Bughunter_
(with apologies to Front 242)
Dedicated to Alan L. Cox.

o/~
  Freeze! Send SIGKILL or die!

  This page is unclaimed, it's alone and anonymous,
  But written in the code it's got the marks of a genius.
  I'm locking down this RAM, to share it with other RAM,
  To share it with other RAM, on 10 CPUs at least.
  I'm locking down this RAM, I know the rules of the game.
  I'm able to rewrite them to realize our aim:
  I'm locking down this RAM to make us rich and famous!

  One: you lock the mutex,
  Two: you cache some files,
  Three: you download from the net,
  and Four: you crash VM!

  You crash VM!
o/~

This is the INDEX for 5.1, with 8691 ports.
2003-05-31 23:43:49 +00:00
Kris Kennaway
e1d6b3a193 New INDEX for 5.1, with 8632 ports 2003-05-17 12:02:34 +00:00
Kris Kennaway
429892463e New INDEX for 5.0, with 8507 ports. 2003-04-18 22:05:43 +00:00
Kris Kennaway
50a5a594de New INDEX for 5.0, with 8332 ports. 2003-03-16 09:18:20 +00:00
Kris Kennaway
3ebc7b69e2 New INDEX for 5.x, with 8212 ports 2003-02-09 06:31:58 +00:00
Kris Kennaway
369c3ae5ff Last-minute update to include new isc-dhcp3 in RELEASE_5_0_0 index. 2003-01-16 05:08:56 +00:00
Kris Kennaway
1e4e9118f0 Patch up INDEX for RELEASE_5_0_0 to include last-minute postgresql and
gdm2 changes.
2003-01-12 12:24:36 +00:00
Kris Kennaway
61f1991e6e Should auld releases be forgot,
And never brought to mind?
Should auld releases be forgot,
And ports of auld lang syne?
And ports of auld lang syne, my dear,
And ports of auld lang syne.
Should auld releases be forgot,
And ports of auld lang syne?

This is the INDEX for 5.0-RELEASE (barring last-minute changes), with 7883
ports.  7883 is a prime number!
2003-01-01 12:19:06 +00:00
Kris Kennaway
d72a393926 Add a separate INDEX file for 5.0 systems. This is necessary because
ports built on 4.x and 5.0 have substantially different dependency lists
(mostly due to various system components being moved out of the base
system and into the ports tree, such as perl).
2002-12-05 22:14:52 +00:00