FreeBSD Port: grub-0.97_1
Hey, Do you plan on adding GRUB 2 to the ports collection? GRUB Legacy is not actively developed anymore, as you may have noticed. Btw, GRUB 2 added support for UFS and loaders for *BSD kernels recently. -- Robert Millan I know my rights; I want my phone call! What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Portmaster and added dependencies
I've been using portmaster for a couple of weeks and like what I've seen. However, I'm a bit confused on how dependencies changes are to be handled. Here's a scenario: Events: 2008.02.17 01:50:08 UTC devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: update to 0.22 2008.02.17 11:00:00 UTC update ports and devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder was updated 2008.02.19 05:33:50 UTC devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: Add missing deps ports/120802 (textproc/p5-Text-ParseWords was added as a build/run dependency) I have been running the command in my daily port updates: portmaster -d -w -m DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=yes -a but it never picked up the added dependency since it is already up to date. The man page seems to indicate that the dependency check will be skipped if the port is up-to-date. Running: portmaster --check-depends didn't seem do do anything (because all ports were up-to-date?). I decided to just update p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.22 and it did catch the added dependency of p5-Text-ParseWords. Checking what depends on p5-Text-ParseWords: # pkg_info -R p5-Text-ParseWords-\* Information for p5-Text-ParseWords-3.1: Required by: p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.22 On this system I have 3 ports which depend on p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: # pkg_info -R p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.22 Information for p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.22: Required by: p5-ExtUtils-ParseXS-2.19 p5-Module-Build-0.28.08 txt2html-2.50 Finally, I just did a recursive update of p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: portmaster -r p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.22 and that gave me what I expected to see: # pkg_info -R p5-Text-ParseWords-\* Information for p5-Text-ParseWords-3.1: Required by: p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.22 p5-ExtUtils-ParseXS-2.19 p5-Module-Build-0.28.08 txt2html-2.50 I got to where I think I should be but obviously, I'm not doing exactly the right thing for the portmaster command to always pick up these added and/or removed dependencies. I tried to use the '-t' but it didn't seem to make any difference. I've reread the man page but I still don't seem to see what I need to do so that I don't have to chase down these little things. Suggestions? Thanks, Randy ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portmaster and added dependencies
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:26:53 -0500 Wesley Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:59:11PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote: > > I've been using portmaster for a couple of weeks and like what I've > > seen. However, I'm a bit confused on how dependencies changes are to > > be handled. Here's a scenario: > > > > Events: > > > > 2008.02.17 01:50:08 UTC devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: update to 0.22 > > > > 2008.02.17 11:00:00 UTC update ports and devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder > > was updated > > > > 2008.02.19 05:33:50 UTC devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: Add missing deps > > ports/120802 (textproc/p5-Text-ParseWords was > > added as a build/run dependency) > > Snipped the rest because I think this could have all been avoided by > bumping PORTREVISION when the dependency to p5-Text-ParseWords was > added. Ideally the dependency information should have been recorded > with the update to 0.22 (like is in ports/120802). I'm CC'ing leeym@ > who made the last commit. It would have been far easier that way of course but this isn't the first time a dependency change has been made to some port without bumping PORTREVISION and probably won't be the last. This situation only existed for a couple of days and affected only those who updated during the interim. What I'm really looking for is the portmaster equivalent of portupgrade's "pkgdb -L" to look for lost dependencies so I can check all the installed ports dependency chains. Thanks, Randy -- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portmaster and added dependencies
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:59:11PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote: > I've been using portmaster for a couple of weeks and like what I've > seen. However, I'm a bit confused on how dependencies changes are to > be handled. Here's a scenario: > > Events: > > 2008.02.17 01:50:08 UTC devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: update to 0.22 > > 2008.02.17 11:00:00 UTC update ports and devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder > was updated > > 2008.02.19 05:33:50 UTC devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: Add missing deps > ports/120802 (textproc/p5-Text-ParseWords was > added as a build/run dependency) Snipped the rest because I think this could have all been avoided by bumping PORTREVISION when the dependency to p5-Text-ParseWords was added. Ideally the dependency information should have been recorded with the update to 0.22 (like is in ports/120802). I'm CC'ing leeym@ who made the last commit. I'll leave the rest up to Doug. :) -- WXS ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portmaster and added dependencies
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 04:50:16PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote: > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:26:53 -0500 > Wesley Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:59:11PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote: > > > I've been using portmaster for a couple of weeks and like what I've > > > seen. However, I'm a bit confused on how dependencies changes are to > > > be handled. Here's a scenario: > > > > > > Events: > > > > > > 2008.02.17 01:50:08 UTC devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: update to 0.22 > > > > > > 2008.02.17 11:00:00 UTC update ports and devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder > > > was updated > > > > > > 2008.02.19 05:33:50 UTC devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: Add missing deps > > > ports/120802 (textproc/p5-Text-ParseWords was > > > added as a build/run dependency) > > > > Snipped the rest because I think this could have all been avoided by > > bumping PORTREVISION when the dependency to p5-Text-ParseWords was > > added. Ideally the dependency information should have been recorded > > with the update to 0.22 (like is in ports/120802). I'm CC'ing leeym@ > > who made the last commit. > > It would have been far easier that way of course but this isn't the > first time a dependency change has been made to some port without > bumping PORTREVISION and probably won't be the last. This situation > only existed for a couple of days and affected only those who updated > during the interim. Right, I was just pointing out that it is not necessarily a problem with portmaster since PORTREVISION should have been bumped. :) Thank you for brining this up, however, since it is a mistake in the port and may be a nice addition to portmaster (if such a thing does not already exist). > What I'm really looking for is the portmaster equivalent of > portupgrade's "pkgdb -L" to look for lost dependencies so I can > check all the installed ports dependency chains. That I will leave up to Doug to answer. -- WXS ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: net-im/psi update plans?
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:57:06PM -0600, Kelly Hays wrote: > > I was wondering what plans were in the works for net-im/psi version > 0.11 and/or development snapshots of 0.12? > I'll be updating the port to 0.12 shortly. I have some additional testing to do. I currently have no plans to do do anything with the development snapshots, though. Shaun -- Shaun Amott // PGP: 0x6B387A9A "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portmaster and added dependencies
[cc to the submitter of ports/120802 and [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008/2/23, Wesley Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 04:50:16PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:26:53 -0500 > > Wesley Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:59:11PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote: > > > > I've been using portmaster for a couple of weeks and like what I've > > > > seen. However, I'm a bit confused on how dependencies changes are > to > > > > be handled. Here's a scenario: > > > > > > > > Events: > > > > > > > > 2008.02.17 01:50:08 UTC devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: update to 0.22 > > > > > > > > 2008.02.17 11:00:00 UTC update ports and devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder > > > > was updated > > > > > > > > 2008.02.19 05:33:50 UTC devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: Add missing > deps > > > > ports/120802 (textproc/p5-Text-ParseWords > was > > > > added as a build/run dependency) > > > > > > Snipped the rest because I think this could have all been avoided by > > > bumping PORTREVISION when the dependency to p5-Text-ParseWords was > > > added. Ideally the dependency information should have been recorded > > > with the update to 0.22 (like is in ports/120802). I'm CC'ing leeym@ > > > who made the last commit. > > > > It would have been far easier that way of course but this isn't the > > first time a dependency change has been made to some port without > > bumping PORTREVISION and probably won't be the last. This situation > > only existed for a couple of days and affected only those who updated > > during the interim. > > Right, I was just pointing out that it is not necessarily a problem with > portmaster since PORTREVISION should have been bumped. :) Thank you > for brining this up, however, since it is a mistake in the port and may > be a nice addition to portmaster (if such a thing does not already > exist). > The fact behinds this commit is that Text::ParseWords and File::Spec are both in the core list of PERL, so ExtUtils::CBuilder will work no matter these "dependencies" installed or not. See http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=120802 for details. And, two problems in this case: 1. Do we need to add some modules into dependency if they are already in the core list of PERL itself. I myself prefer to remove them and keep the dependency tree as simple as possible, however submitter prefer to use the latest version, so I follow his way. Maybe you have different opinions? 2. What does it mean to bump the PORTREVISION? I heard two meanings, one is "you'd better reinstall it otherwise it won't work", and the other is "something updated and it will change the package". If it means the former one, it's not the case of ExtUtils::CBuilder. If it means the latter one, then it's my fault, I should bump PORTREVISION anyway. -- Yen-Ming Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portmaster and added dependencies
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:27:07PM -0800, Yen-Ming Lee wrote: > [cc to the submitter of ports/120802 and [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 2008/2/23, Wesley Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 04:50:16PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote: > > > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:26:53 -0500 > > > Wesley Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:59:11PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote: > > > > > I've been using portmaster for a couple of weeks and like what I've > > > > > seen. However, I'm a bit confused on how dependencies changes are > > to > > > > > be handled. Here's a scenario: > > > > > > > > > > Events: > > > > > > > > > > 2008.02.17 01:50:08 UTC devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: update to 0.22 > > > > > > > > > > 2008.02.17 11:00:00 UTC update ports and devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder > > > > > was updated > > > > > > > > > > 2008.02.19 05:33:50 UTC devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: Add missing > > deps > > > > > ports/120802 (textproc/p5-Text-ParseWords > > was > > > > > added as a build/run dependency) > > > > > > > > Snipped the rest because I think this could have all been avoided by > > > > bumping PORTREVISION when the dependency to p5-Text-ParseWords was > > > > added. Ideally the dependency information should have been recorded > > > > with the update to 0.22 (like is in ports/120802). I'm CC'ing leeym@ > > > > who made the last commit. > > > > > > It would have been far easier that way of course but this isn't the > > > first time a dependency change has been made to some port without > > > bumping PORTREVISION and probably won't be the last. This situation > > > only existed for a couple of days and affected only those who updated > > > during the interim. > > > > Right, I was just pointing out that it is not necessarily a problem with > > portmaster since PORTREVISION should have been bumped. :) Thank you > > for brining this up, however, since it is a mistake in the port and may > > be a nice addition to portmaster (if such a thing does not already > > exist). > > > > The fact behinds this commit is that Text::ParseWords and File::Spec are > both in the core list of PERL, so ExtUtils::CBuilder will work no matter > these "dependencies" installed or not. > See http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=120802 for details. > > And, two problems in this case: > > 1. Do we need to add some modules into dependency if they are already in the > core list of PERL itself. I myself prefer to remove them and keep the > dependency tree as simple as possible, however submitter prefer to use the > latest version, so I follow his way. Maybe you have different opinions? I understand both viewpoints and don't feel strongly either way. > 2. What does it mean to bump the PORTREVISION? I heard two meanings, one is > "you'd better reinstall it otherwise it won't work", and the other is > "something updated and it will change the package". If it means the former > one, it's not the case of ExtUtils::CBuilder. If it means the latter one, > then it's my fault, I should bump PORTREVISION anyway. Personally, the saying I use is "if it affects the package in a significant way, bump PORTREVISION." In this case I would have bumped PORTREVISION, but since it's covered in perl itself, I can understand why you didn't. -- WXS ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portmaster and added dependencies
Wesley Shields wrote: On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:27:07PM -0800, Yen-Ming Lee wrote: [cc to the submitter of ports/120802 and [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008/2/23, Wesley Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 04:50:16PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote: On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:26:53 -0500 Wesley Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:59:11PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote: I've been using portmaster for a couple of weeks and like what I've seen. However, I'm a bit confused on how dependencies changes are to be handled. Here's a scenario: Events: 2008.02.17 01:50:08 UTC devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: update to 0.22 2008.02.17 11:00:00 UTC update ports and devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder was updated 2008.02.19 05:33:50 UTC devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: Add missing deps ports/120802 (textproc/p5-Text-ParseWords was added as a build/run dependency) Snipped the rest because I think this could have all been avoided by bumping PORTREVISION when the dependency to p5-Text-ParseWords was added. Ideally the dependency information should have been recorded with the update to 0.22 (like is in ports/120802). I'm CC'ing leeym@ who made the last commit. It would have been far easier that way of course but this isn't the first time a dependency change has been made to some port without bumping PORTREVISION and probably won't be the last. This situation only existed for a couple of days and affected only those who updated during the interim. Right, I was just pointing out that it is not necessarily a problem with portmaster since PORTREVISION should have been bumped. :) Thank you for brining this up, however, since it is a mistake in the port and may be a nice addition to portmaster (if such a thing does not already exist). The fact behinds this commit is that Text::ParseWords and File::Spec are both in the core list of PERL, so ExtUtils::CBuilder will work no matter these "dependencies" installed or not. See http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=120802 for details. And, two problems in this case: 1. Do we need to add some modules into dependency if they are already in the core list of PERL itself. I myself prefer to remove them and keep the dependency tree as simple as possible, however submitter prefer to use the latest version, so I follow his way. Maybe you have different opinions? I understand both viewpoints and don't feel strongly either way. 2. What does it mean to bump the PORTREVISION? I heard two meanings, one is "you'd better reinstall it otherwise it won't work", and the other is "something updated and it will change the package". If it means the former one, it's not the case of ExtUtils::CBuilder. If it means the latter one, then it's my fault, I should bump PORTREVISION anyway. Personally, the saying I use is "if it affects the package in a significant way, bump PORTREVISION." In this case I would have bumped PORTREVISION, but since it's covered in perl itself, I can understand why you didn't. -- WXS Well ... I like normal user, I always get much the lastest version of the software to use. But I as a developer, with the minimal version required (core-mod or no) is ok. Now ... thinking better, if i as maintainer of some p5-* ports, if i always use the version of core-mod, i'll in some way, "force" the user to almost always be a newer version of perl (usually even 5.8.0 or 5.6.0). So we still think that the version setting minimum dependence, it would be the best way for all. Because then can be any version of perl, but with a module later (if needed). Thanks a lot! :) -- Regards, Felippe de Meirelles Motta [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: net-im/psi update plans?
Shaun Amott wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:57:06PM -0600, Kelly Hays wrote: >> I was wondering what plans were in the works for net-im/psi version >> 0.11 and/or development snapshots of 0.12? >> > > I'll be updating the port to 0.12 shortly. I have some additional > testing to do. I currently have no plans to do do anything with the > development snapshots, though. It would be nice if the FreeBSD port could include 0.10 default icon set available at http://jabber.limanowa.net/psi-iconsets/stellar2.jisp --Marcin ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
New Port - usual time for response/commit
Hi, I'm new to the package maintenance thing. I have a few questions. What you package a port properly (with the shell archive and such) what is the usual response time you get until a comitter sees it and commits it? Also - beyond the 'send-pr' what else has to be done on the maintainers part? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portmaster and added dependencies
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote Felippe de Meirelles Motta thusly... > ... > Well ... I like normal user, I always get much the lastest version > of the software to use. But I as a developer, with the minimal > version required (core-mod or no) is ok. Interesting, as I would have thought the opposite. > Now ... thinking better, if i as maintainer of some p5-* ports, if > i always use the version of core-mod, i'll in some way, "force" > the user to almost always be a newer version of perl (usually even > 5.8.0 or 5.6.0). So we still think that the version setting > minimum dependence, it would be the best way for all. Because > then can be any version of perl, but with a module later (if > needed). I would say to always specify the dependency on the module if present in ports. If the minimum version of module is already available either as part of Perl installation or module itself, fine. Otherwise, install the module of course. Perhaps that is what you had already written. BTW, new stable version of Perl is 5.10. - Parv -- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: New Port - usual time for response/commit
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:17:04PM -0800, comperr wrote: > What you package a port properly (with the shell archive and such) > what is the usual response time you get until a comitter sees it and > commits it? There isn't a "usual" response time. It can run from a few days to a number of months. We generally have around 100 pending new-port PRs out of around 1000 ports PRs. > Also - beyond the 'send-pr' what else has to be done on the > maintainers part? Nothing. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
