Re: CFT: net-im/openfire 3.7.0
Hi all, openfire-3.7.0 is in ports. Best Regards, On 2011-Mar-14, 12:25, Pietro Cerutti wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a patch ready to upgrade net-im/openfire to 3.7.0, here: > http://people.freebsd.org/~gahr/openfire-3.7.0.diff > > I plan to commit this patch later this week and mark as IGNORE > the development port at net-im/openfire-devel, if nobody comes > with a very good reason not to do so. > > Thanks for testing! > > -- > Pietro Cerutti > The FreeBSD Project > g...@freebsd.org > > PGP Public Key: > http://gahr.ch/pgp -- Pietro Cerutti The FreeBSD Project g...@freebsd.org PGP Public Key: http://gahr.ch/pgp pgpGEOWjlEb3z.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Firefox 4 - Beta
22.03.2011 00:58, Heino Tiedemann пишет: Gritsuk Anton wrote: On 19.03.2011 02:47, Christian Weisgerber wrote: It calles itself not loger Release Candidate: Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0 RC1 doesn't call itself "release candidate" either: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0 My install finished without any problems (used Revision 524 and FreeBSD 8.2-Stable). shockwave flash running as usually. firefox 4 works fine. Where will firefox 4 be include to base ports tree near time? For sure not before it is oficialy released :) It is just released. -- Regards, Ruslan ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: xfce 4.8 upgrade errors
Thank very much! As I see ArchLinux has very good documentation. And what about access to smb shares via thunar? -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/xfce-4-8-upgrade-errors-tp3863482p4256954.html Sent from the freebsd-ports mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
graphics/mesa-demos fails to build
Hello, I'm seeing this when I try to build from ports: /var/tmp//ccNBgj1B.o(.text+0x1c5): In function `main': : undefined reference to `glXCreateGLXPixmapMESA' gmake[2]: *** [glxpixmap] Error 1 gmake[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/graphics/mesa-demos/work/Mesa-7.6.1/progs/xdemos' gmake[1]: *** [subdirs] Error 1 gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/graphics/mesa-demos/work/Mesa-7.6.1/progs' gmake: *** [default] Error 1 *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/mesa-demos. *** Error code 1 I'm on 8.2-STABLE, amd64. Also, I had to manually download MesaLib-7.6.1.tar.bz2 from the freedesktop.org site since there seems to be an MD5 and SHA256 checksum error with the mirror sites. The MesaDemos-7.6.1.tar.bz2 file seems to be fine, however. Any help here would greatly be appreciated! Thanks! Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports Infrastructure Changes
Henk van Oers píše v so 19. 03. 2011 v 23:29 +0100: > From: Pav Lucistnik > > Matthias Andree pí¹e v so 19. 03. 2011 v 09:52 +0100: > [...] > >> Where do you see the dividing line between web apps on one hand and on > >> the other hand "http servers ... everything related to apache"? IOW, > >> how do I decide if I put a new port into www-webapps or into > >> www-servers > >> for its primary category? > > > Basically, everything that serves network is "server" and everything > > that generates pages on these servers is "webapp". > > So: why is p5-Mojolicious in webapp, it serves network (main deployment). > And it's a client too... COMMENT=A high level MVC web framework written in Perl Screams "webapp" to me, but, I don't know every existing software in detail so maybe I'm wrong here. -- -- Pav Lucistnik In the beginning was the word, and the word was content-type: text/plain signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
KDE and GNOME release packages do not play well together
At work we have folks use FreeBSD desktops. To do this we install pre-package versions of both KDE and GNOME (and a few other window managers) onto our desktop build machine so that users can choose which environment they want. This would appear to no longer be a supported use case in for 8.2 packages (and if you believe posts on the forums, 8.1 was equally broken). Namely, some package the GNOME depends on wants to use unixODBC, and some other package that KDE depends on wants to use libiodbc. The simplest suggestion in the forums appears to be to change the gnome package (devel/ptlib26) to use libiodbc instead. Can we please fix the default so that the pre-built package set works in the future? This sort of thing is important if we want to still support desktops in lab or corporate environments where you have a lot of identically-installed machines. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: KDE and GNOME release packages do not play well together
John Baldwin ha scritto: This would appear to no longer be a supported use case in for 8.2 packages (and if you believe posts on the forums, 8.1 was equally broken). Namely, some package the GNOME depends on wants to use unixODBC, and some other package that KDE depends on wants to use libiodbc. The simplest suggestion in the forums appears to be to change the gnome package (devel/ptlib26) to use libiodbc instead. Even if it could be simpler (is it?), I think unixODBC is a more common choice these days, so changing the KDE ports could be better. A few stats: - ports supporting both unixODBC and iODBC: 17 - ports supporting only unixODBC: 29 - ports supporting only iODBC: 8 I don't have personal experience, but the two ports should be completely interchangeable, so we could add support for USE_ODBC in bsd.databases.mk and allow the user to choose the odbc implementation (with one [unixODBC?] as default to create consistent packages). -- Alex Dupre ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: KDE and GNOME release packages do not play well together
On Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:20:06 pm Alex Dupre wrote: > John Baldwin ha scritto: > > This would appear to no longer be a supported use case in for 8.2 packages > > (and if you believe posts on the forums, 8.1 was equally broken). Namely, > > some package the GNOME depends on wants to use unixODBC, and some other > > package that KDE depends on wants to use libiodbc. The simplest suggestion > > in > > the forums appears to be to change the gnome package (devel/ptlib26) to use > > libiodbc instead. > > Even if it could be simpler (is it?), I think unixODBC is a more common > choice these days, so changing the KDE ports could be better. > > A few stats: > - ports supporting both unixODBC and iODBC: 17 > - ports supporting only unixODBC: 29 > - ports supporting only iODBC: 8 > > I don't have personal experience, but the two ports should be completely > interchangeable, so we could add support for USE_ODBC in > bsd.databases.mk and allow the user to choose the odbc implementation > (with one [unixODBC?] as default to create consistent packages). I'll defer judgement as to which approach is best. I'll just be happy so long as it is fixed in some fashion. A USE_ODBC= knob sounds sensible to me. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: KDE and GNOME release packages do not play well together
John Baldwin writes: > On Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:20:06 pm Alex Dupre wrote: >> Even if it could be simpler (is it?), I think unixODBC is a more common >> choice these days, so changing the KDE ports could be better. >> >> A few stats: >> - ports supporting both unixODBC and iODBC: 17 >> - ports supporting only unixODBC: 29 >> - ports supporting only iODBC: 8 >> >> I don't have personal experience, but the two ports should be completely >> interchangeable, so we could add support for USE_ODBC in >> bsd.databases.mk and allow the user to choose the odbc implementation >> (with one [unixODBC?] as default to create consistent packages). > > I'll defer judgement as to which approach is best. I'll just be happy so > long as it is fixed in some fashion. A USE_ODBC= knob sounds sensible to me. On the KDE side, it looks like databases/virtuoso and textproc/soprano depending on libiodbc. In both cases, this seems to be an upstream issue (ie. virtuoso only accepts --with-iodbc, and soprano looks only for iodbc because it uses it to enable virtuoso support). ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: KDE and GNOME release packages do not play well together
Hi! > John Baldwin ha scritto: > > This would appear to no longer be a supported use case in for 8.2 packages > > (and if you believe posts on the forums, 8.1 was equally broken). Namely, > > some package the GNOME depends on wants to use unixODBC, and some other > > package that KDE depends on wants to use libiodbc. The simplest suggestion > > in > > the forums appears to be to change the gnome package (devel/ptlib26) to use > > libiodbc instead. > > Even if it could be simpler (is it?), I think unixODBC is a more common > choice these days, so changing the KDE ports could be better. Both ports CONFLICT right now, only because both install /usr/local/include/sql.h Otherwise, they could be installed in parallel and there would be no problem. The contents of include/sql.h is very similar, because it contains the interface definitions of ODBC (mostly 'defines'). > I don't have personal experience, but the two ports should be completely > interchangeable, so we could add support for USE_ODBC in > bsd.databases.mk and allow the user to choose the odbc implementation > (with one [unixODBC?] as default to create consistent packages). As far as I heard from some ppl, they are not 100% interchangeable. Maybe some clever construct of ifdef in a generic sql.h and two install-locations for the two sql.h files would help to resolv the CONFLICT ? -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 9 years to go ! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
