Re: Heimdal 1.5.2 problem
Am 11.05.2012 04:42, schrieb Robert Simmons: > And, this is the version of BerkeleyDB that it compiles and installs > to satisfy the BDB backend that I enabled during config: > db41-4.1.25_4 Try with the newest BDB that builds. Chances are versions 4.4 and beyond are better-behaved, chances are that they aren't. db41 is very old. > Has anyone else successfully installed Heimdal 1.5.2 from ports on > FreeBSD 9.0? What did you do differently than me? I'm using the base system Kerberos where needed (i. e. fetchmail as a GSSAPI client). ___ 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: PHP 5.4.0 : lang/php54
2012/4/19 Alex Dupre : >> FreeBSD 8.3 is done, please commit update lang/php5 to PHP 5.4 to >> portstree. Thank you in advance. > > I'm just waiting for final release of suhosin (both patch and extension) > to commit the update. > Do you know the release date of suhosin for this version? Stefan Esser did not make any changes in git repo https://github.com/stefanesser/suhosin more than a month and did not answer to email. Maybe should do without it? -- Svyatoslav ___ 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: PHP 5.4.0 : lang/php54
On 5/11/12 2:12 PM, Svyatoslav Lempert wrote: 2012/4/19 Alex Dupre: FreeBSD 8.3 is done, please commit update lang/php5 to PHP 5.4 to portstree. Thank you in advance. I'm just waiting for final release of suhosin (both patch and extension) to commit the update. Do you know the release date of suhosin for this version? Stefan Esser did not make any changes in git repo https://github.com/stefanesser/suhosin more than a month and did not answer to email. Maybe should do without it? I would almost say, fine, sure, but send it out at php54 and not php5. I would not recommend making the default something that comes out of the box, less secure than the old version. -- Michael Scheidell, CTO >*| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation d: +1.561.948.2259 w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell ___ 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: [CFT] Xfce 4.10
Tested using xfcemerge; Thunar untested. Great one-man-show! 2 tiny problems: 1. In bsd.xfce.mk, -L is a LDFLAGS, not CPPFLAGS. I saw too many clang 'unused option' warnings during the compilation; 2. The xfcemerge does not delete files. the files/ dir under xfce4-systemload is removed, right? On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: > On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Olivier Duchateau > wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> I've updated the xfce-4.10 tarball [1] (it contains only the latest >> versions of Xfce4 core). >> Changes : >> - Delete thunarvfs in bsd.xfce.mk, because this library now, is >> obsolete, even if it always used by archiver/squeeze (no update since >> 4 years). > > How are we supposed to get squeeze to install now? > It fails: > ===> xfce-4.10 depends on executable: squeeze - not found > ===> Verifying install for squeeze in /usr/ports/archivers/squeeze > ===> squeeze-0.2.3_2 cannot install: Unknown component thunarvfs. > *** Error code 1 > > Stop in /usr/ports/archivers/squeeze. > *** Error code 1 > > Stop in /usr/ports/x11-wm/xfce4. > *** Error code 1 > > Stop in /usr/ports/x11-wm/xfce4. > > > > > -- > Regards, > Torfinn Ingolfsen > ___ > 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" -- Zhihao Yuan, nickname lichray The best way to predict the future is to invent it. ___ 4BSD -- http://4bsd.biz/ ___ 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"
[HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
Hi, portmgr has been working for long on a new option framework for the ports to improve some of the deficiencies in the current framework. The new framework not only streamlines the current inconsistencies, but also adds new paradigms like exclusive options, one-of-many, many-of-many, and more. All the details has been documented and written down on the wiki: http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/Options/OptionsNG Documentation on how to use it available here http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/rendered/porters-optionsng.html#MAKEFILE-OPTIONS patch here: http://people.freebsd.org/~portmgr/optionsng.diff The two only ports that are known broken ghostscript8 and ghostscript9: patch available here: http://people.freebsd.org/~portmgr/ghostscript-optionsng.patch I'd like to specially thanks crees for help on documentation. regards, Bapt___ 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"
Please test geodns.portsnap.freebsd.org
Hi all, Please test: # portsnap fetch -s geodns.portsnap.freebsd.org If you experience any problems, please let me know where you are, which mirror was selected, and what address `host -t a $mirror` returns for it. (As the name suggests, different people should will get different mirrors.) -- Colin Percival Security Officer, FreeBSD | freebsd.org | The power to serve Founder / author, Tarsnap | tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid ___ 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: Please test geodns.portsnap.freebsd.org
There is no A record @8.8.8.8 or @8.8.4.4 or at the root servers. or here: dig +short @72.52.71.1 geodns.portsnap.freebsd.org A dig +short @38.103.2.1 geodns.portsnap.freebsd.org A dig +short @63.243.194.1 geodns.portsnap.freebsd.org A Maybe this hasnt propogated yet ? or is it @ 127.0.0.1 ;) On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 08:54:17PM -0700, Colin Percival wrote: > Hi all, > > Please test: > # portsnap fetch -s geodns.portsnap.freebsd.org > > If you experience any problems, please let me know where you are, which mirror > was selected, and what address `host -t a $mirror` returns for it. (As the > name suggests, different people should will get different mirrors.) > > -- > Colin Percival > Security Officer, FreeBSD | freebsd.org | The power to serve > Founder / author, Tarsnap | tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly > paranoid > ___ > 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" -- - (2^(N-1)) pgpWOASpXYM1J.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Please test geodns.portsnap.freebsd.org
On 05/11/12 21:54, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > There is no A record @8.8.8.8 or @8.8.4.4 or at the root servers. There's not supposed to be an A record. Portsnap should work anyway... it uses SRV. :-) -- Colin Percival Security Officer, FreeBSD | freebsd.org | The power to serve Founder / author, Tarsnap | tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid ___ 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: Please test geodns.portsnap.freebsd.org
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:55:13PM -0700, Colin Percival wrote: > On 05/11/12 21:54, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > > There is no A record @8.8.8.8 or @8.8.4.4 or at the root servers. > > There's not supposed to be an A record. Portsnap should work > anyway... it uses SRV. :-) Aaah! you got me there. Confused with the request of "host -t a $mirror" As that will always return: Console> host -t a geodns.portsnap.freebsd.org Host geodns.portsnap.freebsd.org not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) Anyway... coming from: portsnap fetch -s geodns.portsnap.freebsd.org [...] Fetching snapshot tag from geodns-1.portsnap.freebsd.org... done. [...] traceroute -a geodns-1.portsnap.freebsd.org [...Hop 1 & 2 Removed...] 3 [AS65534] 10.179.128.1 (10.179.128.1) 29.264 ms 17.160 ms 19.436 ms 4 [AS20115] dtr01hlldmi-gbe-1-15.hlld.mi.charter.com (96.34.36.6) 19.179 ms 26.340 ms 20.013 ms 5 * [AS20115] crr02aldlmi-tge-0-2-0-2.aldl.mi.charter.com (96.34.32.76) 20.143 ms 16.769 ms 6 [AS20115] bbr01aldlmi-tge-0-1-0-3.aldl.mi.charter.com (96.34.2.216) 19.888 ms 17.378 ms 29.909 ms 7 [AS20115] bbr01chcgil-tge-0-2-0-6.chcg.il.charter.com (96.34.0.99) 29.639 ms 17.517 ms 30.024 ms 8 [AS20115] prr01chcgil-tge-0-1-0-1.chcg.il.charter.com (96.34.3.200) 19.815 ms 27.360 ms 19.918 ms 9 [AS6939] v201.core1.chi1.he.net (216.66.73.241) 29.967 ms 37.066 ms 29.795 ms 10 [AS6939] 64.71.148.238 (64.71.148.238) 19.928 ms 27.328 ms 29.942 ms 11 [AS26943] update5.freebsd.org (204.9.55.80) 19.831 ms 27.494 ms 19.926 ms Hope this helps. > > -- > Colin Percival > Security Officer, FreeBSD | freebsd.org | The power to serve > Founder / author, Tarsnap | tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly > paranoid -- - (2^(N-1)) pgp2Rfr5FtBbF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Please test geodns.portsnap.freebsd.org
On 5/12/2012 1:13 AM, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:55:13PM -0700, Colin Percival wrote: >> > On 05/11/12 21:54, Jason Hellenthal wrote: >>> > > There is no A record @8.8.8.8 or @8.8.4.4 or at the root servers. >> > >> > There's not supposed to be an A record. Portsnap should work >> > anyway... it uses SRV. :-) > Aaah! you got me there. Confused with the request of "host -t a $mirror" You're not the only one! Happened to me too. Bryan ___ 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: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
Erwin Lansing ha scritto: portmgr has been working for long on a new option framework for the ports to improve some of the deficiencies in the current framework. Great work! Looking quickly at the documentation I have a doubt: while I think most ports handle NOPORTDOCS, I think WITHOUT_NLS is handled only by a small percentage, so, if I have understood correctly, many ports should include OPTIONS_EXCLUDE=NLS. Is it correct? -- 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"
