- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Advanced Search
May 8 2018
May 3 2018
May 1 2018
Apr 30 2018
Apr 28 2018
Apr 27 2018
Apr 25 2018
Apr 24 2018
Apr 23 2018
Apr 22 2018
Apr 21 2018
Apr 20 2018
add new Patch for this Problem.
Apr 19 2018
Apr 17 2018
Apr 16 2018
Apr 15 2018
Apr 12 2018
Apr 9 2018
Apr 8 2018
How do you know it's BROKEN? I'm confused ....
Apr 7 2018
Apr 6 2018
Apr 5 2018
Apr 4 2018
Apr 3 2018
Mar 29 2018
Mar 28 2018
fix Problem with "pkg-static: Unable to access file"
Mar 27 2018
after some fixes, here are the finaly version
Final Version
Mar 25 2018
ping @mat
Mar 24 2018
Mar 20 2018
It is tedious to write a PR with every change since one of the ports does not belong. For this purpose, the NGINX is currently being revised: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14773
I ask her again: which RULES contradict here?
They only tell me their personal opinion. However, this is irrelevant. If you just call personal opinions here as arguments, this discussion is superfluous.
I see no problems to call this nginx. Or are there any rules that forbid it?
and a other Versionsnumber
In D14762#310393, @swills wrote:In D14762#310386, @joneum wrote:Ok, again for you:
rubygem-passenger and nginx-devel are both ports of osa. He updates it to his discretion.I have nginx and in the future nginx-passenger. I will maintain and update this after my assessment.
What is the goal of this new nginx-passenger port that rubygem-passenger doesn't already provide?
Ok, again for you:
rubygem-passenger and nginx-devel are both ports of osa. He updates it to his discretion.