LibreOffice 3.5.4_1
Hi! I ran portmaster -a on FreeBSD 9.0 Release and it shows me to update LibreOffice 3.5.4 to 3.5.4_1 but also update Clang to 3.1_1. FreeBSD 9.0 Release has Clang 3.0 and I didn't have a problem to build LibreOffice 3.5.4. Do I need this update? Is it not possible anymore to use Clang 3.0? Thank you very much. Mitja http://jpgmag.com/people/lumiwa ___ 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: LibreOffice 3.5.4_1
On 2012-07-14 14:56, ajtiM wrote:> I ran portmaster -a on FreeBSD 9.0 Release and it shows me to update LibreOffice > 3.5.4 to 3.5.4_1 but also update Clang to 3.1_1. > FreeBSD 9.0 Release has Clang 3.0 and I didn't have a problem to build > LibreOffice 3.5.4. Do I need this update? Is it not possible anymore to use > Clang 3.0? Just set WITH_SYSTEM_CLANG=x for this port. This allows you to build it with the base clang. ___ 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"
maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters
can be maintainer timeout for port patch submissions implemented for people which are FREEBSD commiters? I see no reason why they should be exception from standard port processing. If they do not care about their ports, they should not have power to obstruct other people work. I have really long term bad experience with that (usually there are stuck for 6+ months). I know that it was discussed, but nothing constructive was done. currently i have in queue just these 2: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/166488 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/167289 ___ 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: maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters
On 14 July 2012 15:05, Radim Kolar wrote: > can be maintainer timeout for port patch submissions implemented for people > which are FREEBSD commiters? I see no reason why they should be exception > from standard port processing. If they do not care about their ports, they > should not have power to obstruct other people work. > > I have really long term bad experience with that (usually there are stuck > for 6+ months). I know that it was discussed, but nothing constructive was > done. > > currently i have in queue just these 2: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/166488 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/167289 No-one is exempt from timeouts on ports except secteam and portmgr. Have you reminded them by email recently? Apache@ is a team, so it's a little uncertain where timeouts and approval stands with them. 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: maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters
On 14 July 2012 07:51, Chris Rees wrote: > On 14 July 2012 15:05, Radim Kolar wrote: >> can be maintainer timeout for port patch submissions implemented for people >> which are FREEBSD commiters? I see no reason why they should be exception >> from standard port processing. If they do not care about their ports, they >> should not have power to obstruct other people work. >> >> I have really long term bad experience with that (usually there are stuck >> for 6+ months). I know that it was discussed, but nothing constructive was >> done. >> >> currently i have in queue just these 2: >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/166488 >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/167289 > > No-one is exempt from timeouts on ports except secteam and portmgr. > > Have you reminded them by email recently? Apache@ is a team, so it's > a little uncertain where timeouts and approval stands with them. Generally, teams can't timeout. Try poking them a bit and see what they say. :) -- Eitan Adler ___ 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: maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters
Chris Rees wrote: > No-one is exempt from timeouts on ports except secteam and portmgr. One problem (at least how it appears to me) is that when a PR gets automatically assigned to a maintainer who is also a committer, it is not automatically unassigned if the person is missing for a few months, and other committers ignore the PR because it is already assigned. This only happened once to me, but it took 6 months for another committer to notice it. And that was pretty fast, comparing to, say ports/154456 [1], which is open since 2011-02. Is automatic unassignment possible? [1] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/154456 ___ 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: maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters
On 14 July 2012 16:24, Vitaly Magerya wrote: > Chris Rees wrote: >> No-one is exempt from timeouts on ports except secteam and portmgr. > > One problem (at least how it appears to me) is that when a PR gets > automatically assigned to a maintainer who is also a committer, it is > not automatically unassigned if the person is missing for a few > months, and other committers ignore the PR because it is already > assigned. > > This only happened once to me, but it took 6 months for another > committer to notice it. And that was pretty fast, comparing to, say > ports/154456 [1], which is open since 2011-02. > > Is automatic unassignment possible? Technically yes, but it's highly undesirable. You can feel free to bring it up here if you think that's happened. 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: maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters
No-one is exempt from timeouts on ports except secteam and portmgr. can i get this http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/165939 unassigned from secteam and processed it as normal freebsd bug? Secteam does not seems to be interested enough and it is single line fix. ___ 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: maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters
On 14 July 2012 17:07, Radim Kolar wrote: > >>> No-one is exempt from timeouts on ports except secteam and portmgr. > > can i get this http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/165939 > unassigned from secteam and processed it as normal freebsd bug? Secteam does > not seems to be interested enough and it is single line fix. I've reassigned it to ipfw mailing list-- it's more appropriate for there. 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: maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters
Chris Rees wrote: >> Is automatic unassignment possible? > > Technically yes, but it's highly undesirable. Why? > You can feel free to > bring it up here if you think that's happened. I will, if it'll happen to me. In the mean while here's an incomplete list of PRs that where (auto)assigned to committers in June and didn't see any progress in at least 2 weeks: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168564 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168571 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168629 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168667 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168840 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168850 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168870 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168917 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168957 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169076 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169271 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169287 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169305 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169369 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169370 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169388 (previous one is misassigned; the submitter *is* the maintainer) http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169458 (I did not expect there to be this many of them). In some of these cases I think that work may continue behind the scenes, but it's hard to tell. ___ 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: maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters
On 14 July 2012 17:34, Vitaly Magerya wrote: > Chris Rees wrote: >>> Is automatic unassignment possible? >> >> Technically yes, but it's highly undesirable. > > Why? > >> You can feel free to >> bring it up here if you think that's happened. > > I will, if it'll happen to me. In the mean while here's an > incomplete list of PRs that where (auto)assigned to committers > in June and didn't see any progress in at least 2 weeks: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168564 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168571 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168629 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168667 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168840 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168850 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168870 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168917 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/168957 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169076 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169271 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169287 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169305 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169369 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169370 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169388 > (previous one is misassigned; the submitter *is* the maintainer) > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169458 Normally a ping to the maintainer reveals the delay-- I've taken ports/169388 because the autoassigner looked at the Synopsis which was written wrongly. If you want to check progress, send a followup to the PR. > > In some of these cases I think that work may continue behind the > scenes, but it's hard to tell. Usually, but people should generally reply to acknowledge the PR. 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: LibreOffice 3.5.4_1
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Dimitry Andric wrote: On 2012-07-14 14:56, ajtiM wrote:> I ran portmaster -a on FreeBSD 9.0 Release and it shows me to update LibreOffice 3.5.4 to 3.5.4_1 but also update Clang to 3.1_1. FreeBSD 9.0 Release has Clang 3.0 and I didn't have a problem to build LibreOffice 3.5.4. Do I need this update? Is it not possible anymore to use Clang 3.0? Just set WITH_SYSTEM_CLANG=x for this port. This allows you to build it with the base clang. But it needs the SemaDeclCXX.cpp patch to clang also. Don't know if that will apply to 9.0-RELEASE. ___ 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: maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 03:51:23PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: > On 14 July 2012 15:05, Radim Kolar wrote: > > can be maintainer timeout for port patch submissions implemented for people > > which are FREEBSD commiters? I see no reason why they should be exception > > from standard port processing. If they do not care about their ports, they > > should not have power to obstruct other people work. > > > > I have really long term bad experience with that (usually there are stuck > > for 6+ months). I know that it was discussed, but nothing constructive was > > done. > > > > currently i have in queue just these 2: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/166488 > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/167289 > > No-one is exempt from timeouts on ports except secteam and portmgr. Oh yeah! Holy secteam@ proves to have ~5 years timeout. I watched if it can grows more, but someone recently commits exact the changes I purpose (apparently without their notice) so bigger timeouts are not proved yet. But I think secteam@ have very good potential in timeouts growing and overcome its own achievement some day. -- http://ache.vniz.net/ ___ 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: maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters
Oh yeah! Holy secteam@ proves to have ~5 years timeout. 5 years is nothing special man. I got one too! http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=conf/109272 ___ 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: LibreOffice 3.5.4_1
On Saturday 14 July 2012 14:18:42 Warren Block wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > On 2012-07-14 14:56, ajtiM wrote:> I ran portmaster -a on FreeBSD 9.0 > > Release and it shows me to update LibreOffice > > > >> 3.5.4 to 3.5.4_1 but also update Clang to 3.1_1. > >> FreeBSD 9.0 Release has Clang 3.0 and I didn't have a problem to build > >> LibreOffice 3.5.4. Do I need this update? Is it not possible anymore to > >> use Clang 3.0? > > > > Just set WITH_SYSTEM_CLANG=x for this port. This allows you to build it > > with the base clang. > > But it needs the SemaDeclCXX.cpp patch to clang also. Don't know if > that will apply to 9.0-RELEASE. I did as Dimitry wrote... I don't use Calc which suppose has a problem... It is building with Clang 3.0 now. I will see tomorrow... Mitja http://jpgmag.com/people/lumiwa ___ 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: maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters
On 14 July 2012 12:42, Radim Kolar wrote: > >> Oh yeah! Holy secteam@ proves to have ~5 years timeout. > > > 5 years is nothing special man. I got one too! none of you beat http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/1375. sometimes PRs are hard, and sometimes PRs slip through the cracks. We *are* making progress in cutting through the backlog though. Take a look at http://www.oook.cz/bsd/prstats/arriverates.html and http://www.oook.cz/bsd/prstats/closerates.html -- Eitan Adler ___ 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: LibreOffice 3.5.4_1
On 2012-07-14 21:18, Warren Block wrote:> On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> On 2012-07-14 14:56, ajtiM wrote: > I ran portmaster -a on FreeBSD 9.0 Release and it shows me to update > LibreOffice >>> 3.5.4 to 3.5.4_1 but also update Clang to 3.1_1. >>> FreeBSD 9.0 Release has Clang 3.0 and I didn't have a problem to build >>> LibreOffice 3.5.4. Do I need this update? Is it not possible anymore to use >>> Clang 3.0? >> Just set WITH_SYSTEM_CLANG=x for this port. This allows you to build it >> with the base clang. > But it needs the SemaDeclCXX.cpp patch to clang also. Don't know if > that will apply to 9.0-RELEASE. No, clang 3.0 (which is in 9.0 release) does not have the problem that causes an assertion during LibreOffice build. It would be nice if Mitja can confirm that clang 3.0 can fully build LO. Even nicer if it runs without immediately crashing. :) ___ 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"
For those that want to test vdr 1.7.29...
..I've put a shar here: http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/tmp/vdr-ports-1.7.29-001.shar Unshar in /usr/ports , stop vdr, then run: portmaster vdr-plugins If that succeeded (which it should, this update was rather painless) you can restart vdr. Enjoy, :) Juergen PS: If all goes well I'll probably commit this next weekend. ___ 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 & CFT] pkg 1.0rc1 and schedule
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Fbsd8 wrote: > > What I want to know is this new pkg system going to remove the > requirement > > of having the complete ports tree on my system? > > > > What I am looking for in an port system, is to install a port and any > files > > needed for the parent port and its dependents to automatically be > > downloaded. So in the end my system ports tree only contain the files > used > > to install the ports I use and their dependents. > > That is precisely what pkgng is for. > > At the risk of over-simplifying: > * Generally eliminate the need for having /usr/ports installed for end > user consumers of freebsd if you have no desire to compile ports with > custom options. > * Generally eliminate the need for layers over the top of pkg* like > portupgrade/portmaster/portmanager for those people. > * Play nicely with people who *are* building some (or all) of their > packages from /usr/ports. > * Provide enough look and feel compatibility with the old pkg_* tools > so people will feel enough at home. > * Assimilate an existing pkg_* machine. > * Store complete metadata so that going foward we have much better > support for package sets - eg: package repositories with custom > options that play nicely with official packages. > * Be extensible so that we can add to it as we go forward. > > In the new world order, things like portupgrade and portmanager tend > to be used to manage interactions between personally build ports from > /usr/ports and external binary packages. If you continue to build > from /usr/ports, the only thing that changes is bsd.port.mk uses a > different command to register a package and you still use > portupgrade/portmaster/whatever to orchestrate your personal package > rebuilding. (Well, portmaster does if you apply the simple patch to > it). > > pkg-1.0 is primarily an infrastructure change. Instead of metadata > being stored in discrete +FOO and +BAR files in a .tgz file, it is > stored in a structured, extensible file. Instead of an incomplete set > of metadata being stored in /var/db/pkg/* and having to be augmented > by reaching over to /usr/ports/*, a full set of data is stored in a > .sqlite file. Instead of version numbers being baked into the package > name as an ascii string, the package system uses version numbers as > first class metadata. > > In reality, not much will change at the switch throwing, except that > of having good reason to be afraid of "pkg_add -r", you'll be able to > reasonably expect it's replacement (pkg install) to work. And a bunch > of people who have a /usr/ports tree will suddenly wonder why they > even have it there at all. It becomes incredibly convenient and fast > to use packages. > > -- > Peter Wemm - pe...@wemm.org; pe...@freebsd.org; pe...@yahoo-inc.com; > KI6FJV > "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 > "If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete > themselves upon execution." -- Robert Sewell > > I am by no means speaking for the pkgng direction, goal or for portmgr, but I thought that this thread message spoke to the goal pretty clearly for me. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2012-June/076395.html If this is in fact the case, I don't know if this is documented anywhere. -jgh -- Jason Helfman | FreeBSD Committer j...@freebsd.org | http://people.freebsd.org/~jgh ___ 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"
FreeBSD Port: mailgraph-1.14_5
I think when I did a make reinstall the port wrote over my database. Could you check to ensure it doesn't do that for future updates I may run. Thanks. ___ 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: gam_server (gamin-0.1.10_4) consumes 100% CPU (one core) with libinotify (libinotify-20110829)
Lev Serebryakov writes: > Hello, Ports. > > I've installed "darktable" port, which brings up "gamin" (configured > with libinotify), and now when I run darktable gam_Server consumes > 100% of my CPU (one core). > > ktrace shows that it spins in tight loop with kevent() call, which > always failed: > > 71730 gam_server 0.000175 CALL > kevent(0x3,0x8043bc000,0xb5,0x7fbfdf90,0x1,0) > 71730 gam_server 0.000239 GIO fd 3 wrote 4096 bytes > 71730 gam_server 0.000252 RET kevent -1 errno 9 Bad file descriptor > 71730 gam_server 0.000255 CALL > kevent(0x3,0x8043bc000,0xb5,0x7fbfdf90,0x1,0) > 71730 gam_server 0.000312 GIO fd 3 wrote 4096 bytes > 71730 gam_server 0.000323 RET kevent -1 errno 9 Bad file descriptor > 71730 gam_server 0.000325 CALL > kevent(0x3,0x8043bc000,0xb5,0x7fbfdf90,0x1,0) > 71730 gam_server 0.000382 GIO fd 3 wrote 4096 bytes > 71730 gam_server 0.000392 RET kevent -1 errno 9 Bad file descriptor > >and so on... > > I'm using > > FreeBSD blob.home.serebryakov.spb.ru 9.0-STABLE FreeBSD 9.0-STABLE #32: Fri > Jun 1 00:49:11 MSK 2012 > r...@blob.home.serebryakov.spb.ru:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/BLOB amd64 > > FS is UFS2. Same here: 10.0-CURRENT, ZFS, gamin from marcuscom repo. It doesn't happen with pkgsrc patches, though. ___ 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: FreeBSD Port: mailgraph-1.14_5
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Jonah Meissner wrote:
> I think when I did a make reinstall the port wrote over my database. Could
> you check to ensure it doesn't do that for future updates I may run.
> Thanks.
>
What do you mean by "wrote over your database"? Did it write over this
entry in the database, or your entire database?
Make reinstall forces a package to re-register, by doing the following:
${MAKE} -DFORCE_PKG_REGISTER install
-jgh
___
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: Problems with new boost
On 07/13/2012 13:22, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: > Doug Barton wrote on 27.05.2012 13:33: >> Howdy, >> >> I maintain net-p2p/libtorrent-rasterbar*, and net-p2p/qbittorrent29. >> Ever since the update I've noticed that my libtorrent-rasterbar >> applications have problems with the new boost version. Rebuilding the >> library against boost 1.45 solves it. >> >> I don't know exactly what the problem is, but the symptom is that the >> application gets "slow," and eventually just freezes up altogether. It >> starts with the UI being slow to respond, with increasing pauses between >> responses. The network transfers also get slower and slower as time goes >> by. Eventually as I said above the whole thing just freezes. No response >> on the UI, no network traffic, no ktrace activity, nothing. >> >> If you can give me suggestions on how to diagnose this I'd be glad to >> help. >> >> Doug > > Should be ok now. But net-p2p/libtorrent-rasterbar* need to be rebuilt. I can confirm that this works as expected now, so thank you thank you thank you thank you! :) I was pulling my hair out trying to find a combination of things I could use to diagnose where the problem was. Has anyone sent this upstream? > Would you please bump portrevision for this ports? I will definitely do that when the tree is unfrozen, just one issue. The (perfectly reasonable) change you made in common.mk did not actually result in PORTREVISION being bumped, although it's not clear to me why. It looks like in the past adding PORTREVISION to boost-libs/Makefile is how this was done, and testing that theory just now makes PKGNAME do the right thing. I've got a libtorrent-rasterbar-16 update ready to go, so if you haven't gotten to the PORTREVISION problem before I do when the tree is unfrozen, I plan to make that change. Once again, thank you for working on this, I'm really excited to have this fixed, and my users will be too. :) Doug -- If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough ___ 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: make failed for editors/libreoffice
On 07/13/2012 03:39, Warren Block wrote: > With the patch and base clang/llvm on two amd64 systems here, > 'libreoffice --calc' shows the startup screen, then exits with status > 139. No core dump or anything, it just quits. Other modules all seem > to work. I previously had this problem, but can now confirm that the latest version of the port works as expected. Doug -- Change is hard. ___ 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"
