[QAT] r340881: 4x leftovers

[Ports-QAT]

- update to 4.23
- convert USE_DOS2UNIX to USES equivalent
- covert to using autogenerated packing list
- support staging
-

  Build ID:  20140124090200-62734
  Job owner: r...@freebsd.org
  Buildtime: 5 minutes
  Enddate:   Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:06:38 GMT

  Revision:  r340881
  Repository:
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=340881

-

Port:devel/py-pyro 4.23

  Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/amd64
  Buildstatus:   LEFTOVERS
  Log: 
https://qat.redports.org//~r...@freebsd.org/20140124090200-62734-260688/py27-pyro-4.23.log

  Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/i386
  Buildstatus:   LEFTOVERS
  Log: 
https://qat.redports.org//~r...@freebsd.org/20140124090200-62734-260689/py27-pyro-4.23.log

  Buildgroup: 9.2-QAT/amd64
  Buildstatus:   LEFTOVERS
  Log: 
https://qat.redports.org//~r...@freebsd.org/20140124090200-62734-260690/py27-pyro-4.23.log

  Buildgroup: 9.2-QAT/i386
  Buildstatus:   LEFTOVERS
  Log: 
https://qat.redports.org//~r...@freebsd.org/20140124090200-62734-260691/py27-pyro-4.23.log


--
Buildarchive URL: 
redports 
___
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"

[QAT] r340882: 4x leftovers

[Ports-QAT]

- enclose docs and examples installation command with parenthesis

Submitted by:   mat
-

  Build ID:  20140124091000-2538
  Job owner: r...@freebsd.org
  Buildtime: 7 minutes
  Enddate:   Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:16:46 GMT

  Revision:  r340882
  Repository:
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=340882

-

Port:devel/py-pyro 4.23

  Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/amd64
  Buildstatus:   LEFTOVERS
  Log: 
https://qat.redports.org//~r...@freebsd.org/20140124091000-2538-260692/py27-pyro-4.23.log

  Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/i386
  Buildstatus:   LEFTOVERS
  Log: 
https://qat.redports.org//~r...@freebsd.org/20140124091000-2538-260693/py27-pyro-4.23.log

  Buildgroup: 9.2-QAT/amd64
  Buildstatus:   LEFTOVERS
  Log: 
https://qat.redports.org//~r...@freebsd.org/20140124091000-2538-260694/py27-pyro-4.23.log

  Buildgroup: 9.2-QAT/i386
  Buildstatus:   LEFTOVERS
  Log: 
https://qat.redports.org//~r...@freebsd.org/20140124091000-2538-260695/py27-pyro-4.23.log


--
Buildarchive URL: 
redports 
___
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FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date

[portscout]

Dear port maintainer,

The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your
ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check
each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate,
submit/commit an update. If any ports have already been updated, you can
safely ignore the entry.

You will not be e-mailed again for any of the port/version combinations
below.

Full details can be found at the following URL:
http://portscout.freebsd.org/po...@freebsd.org.html


Port| Current version | New version
+-+
devel/liblogging| 0.7.1   | 1.0.0
+-+
games/doomsday  | 1.12.2  | 
1.14.0-build1119
+-+
www/groupoffice | 3.7.24  | 5.0.35
+-+


If any of the above results are invalid, please check the following page
for details on how to improve portscout's detection and selection of
distfiles on a per-port basis:

http://portscout.freebsd.org/info/portscout-portconfig.txt

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"

freebsd port: zabbix2-server-2.0.10

[Raynaud Alexandre]

Hi,

i have just a little question : actually i am using zabbix 2.0.10 port and i
wanted to upgrade to 2.2.1. As zabbix2 is different from zabbix22 port it's
actually not possible. Are there plan to merge the two ports and allow
upgrade from 2.0 to 2.2?

If not, the migration process should be handled manually?

 

Thanks

 

Best regards,

 

 

 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: remmina-plugin-rdp seems to be broken after last update

[Marko Cupa?]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:39:01 -0500
Richard Kuhns  wrote:

> I've just used portmaster to update freerdp & the remmina ports on my
> 9.2-STABLE r260910 system, and I can no longer make RDP connections
> to Windows boxes.
> 
> If I run remmina from the command line & then try to make a
> connection, it dies with:
> 
> /usr/local/lib/remmina/plugins/remmina-plugin-rdp.so: Undefined symbol
> "gdk_pixbuf_get_from_surface"

+1 on 10.0-RELEASE #0 r260789 amd64
-- 
Marko Cupa? 
___
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: Is it Ok to write files into ${STAGEDIR}/${PREFIX} on "build" stage?

[Boris Samorodov]

20.01.2014 00:04, Lev Serebryakov пишет:
> Hello, Ports.
> 
>   I'm writing port, which has complex, multi-stage build. In the middle ofg
>  build some files should be installed into some directory with exactly same
>  structure, as final result -- some ${TEMPROOT}/${PREFIX}. I could create
>  special place for files, and in "do-install" simple do "tar -cf - -C
>  ${TEMPROOT} . | tar -xf - -C ${STAGEDIR}" -- it will be correct install to
>  stage dir for this port. But it looks strange -- to have two copies of all
>  final files.
> 
>Now I'm using ${STAGEDIR}/${PREFIX} instead of ${TEMPROOT}/${PREFIX} and
>   it works nicely -- do-install: becomes no-op, everything is in-place and
>   port doesn't spent another 250MiB of disk place.
> 
>But, maybe, I don't something significant flaw in this approach and it is
>   bad idea?

This is a bad idea in general. And if you try to test the port then at
stage time you should get an error like "the the file system touched
before the stage phase".

Those stages are:
1. fetch, ...;
2. build;
3. stage (install to a STAGEDIR);
4. actual install (to PREFIX).

Our staging allows having a full install at STAGEDIR but doing
a partially install to PREFIX. I.e. DOCS, EXAMPLES, NLS, etc. may be
installed to real filesystem (PREFIX) only if an appropriate option is
checked up. In the future this allows us to get different binary
packages (libs-*, bin-*, what_you_like-*) from one source (STAGEDIR).

And yes, this system has a drawback. If you write an application only
for FreeBSD, it is a monolith one (no docs, examples, etc.) and you
use only ports system (no packages) then you'll get your application
duplicate disk consumption (at stage/install phase).

-- 
WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam)
FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
___
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"

Port for OpenERP v7.0

[Jose Gonzalez]

Hi there,

I posted this thread on the forum too, but then I saw this email address
checking into the ports version for OpenERP. Here's the thing.

My company wants to start looking into OpenERP v7.0. I have seen some
deployments in different flavors. I absolutely want to do it on FreeBSD.
Does anyone know if port for OpenERP v7.0 is on its way to the port
repository?

I really appreciate any heads up on this.

Thanks,

jgonzalez




Jose Gonzalez
IT Support
Zabatt, Inc
jose.gonza...@zabatt.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"

Re: Port for OpenERP v7.0

[John Marino]

On 1/24/2014 18:52, Jose Gonzalez wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> I posted this thread on the forum too, but then I saw this email address
> checking into the ports version for OpenERP. Here's the thing.
> 
> My company wants to start looking into OpenERP v7.0. I have seen some
> deployments in different flavors. I absolutely want to do it on FreeBSD.
> Does anyone know if port for OpenERP v7.0 is on its way to the port
> repository?
> 
> I really appreciate any heads up on this.
> 

Somebody opened a PR on this 10 days ago:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/185844

That's a good sign (assuming it's the server you want)
John
___
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"

newsbeuter/stfl error

[Zsolt Udvari]

Hi list!

I'm using www/newsbeuter to read my rss-feeds but after upgrade 9.2 to
10.0 it doesn't start.

Starting newsbeuter 2.8...
Loading configuration...done.
Opening cache...done.
Loading URLs from /home/zsolt/.config/newsbeuter/urls...done.
Loading articles from cache...done.
STFL Parser Error near ''.
zsh: abort (core dumped)


In gdb:
#0 0x00080283026a in thr_kill () from /lib/libc.so.7
#1 0x0008028f7ac9 in abort () from /lib/libc.so.7
#2 0x000801c740de in stfl_parser () from /usr/local/lib/libstfl.so
#3 0x000801c718b7 in stfl_create () from /usr/local/lib/libstfl.so
#4 0x004d6c1f in form (this=0x8053dfec0, text=@0x7fffcdf0)
at basic_string.h:235
#5 0x00469456 in formaction (this=0x805102880, vv=, formstr=
{static npos = , _M_dataplus = {> = {<__gnu_cxx::new_allocator> = {},
}, _M_p = 0x7fffcdf0 "\030F\005\005\b"}}) at src/formaction.cpp:59
#6 0x004766fd in feedlist_formaction (this=0x805102880,
vv=0x7fffd7a0, formstr=) at src/feedlist_formaction.cpp:442
#7 0x00432119 in newsbeuter::view::run (this=0x7fffd7a0)
at src/view.cpp:288
#8 0x0043fd67 in newsbeuter::controller::run (this=Unhandled
dwarf expression opcode 0x9f ) at src/controller.cpp:76
#9 0x7fffd578 in ?? ()
#10 0x7fffd540 in ?? ()
#11 0x0008050b8300 in ?? ()
#12 0x in ?? ()

The newsbeuter 2.7 worked well in FreeBSD 9.2 so I've downgraded to
2.7 but same error. Maybe it's possible it's a user error (pebkac) but
what's wrong? Or it's newsbeuter/stfl bug or freebsd-incompatibility?
What can I do to solve these problem?

Thanks,
  Zsolt
___
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: Port for OpenERP v7.0

[John Marino]

On 1/24/2014 19:10, John Marino wrote:
> On 1/24/2014 18:52, Jose Gonzalez wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I posted this thread on the forum too, but then I saw this email address
>> checking into the ports version for OpenERP. Here's the thing.
>>
>> My company wants to start looking into OpenERP v7.0. I have seen some
>> deployments in different flavors. I absolutely want to do it on FreeBSD.
>> Does anyone know if port for OpenERP v7.0 is on its way to the port
>> repository?
>>
>> I really appreciate any heads up on this.
>>
> 
> Somebody opened a PR on this 10 days ago:
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/185844
> 
> That's a good sign (assuming it's the server you want)


I'm trying to figure out the history of this openerp port.  It looks
like a lot was truncated when CVS was converted to SVN.

It seems there used to be a finance/openerp v6.0.3.  This was deleted as
part of an abandoned repocopy of finanance/openerp-server.  It may be
related to the abandoned PR ports/167731 (9 May 2012) owned by
w...@freebsd.org

There is PR to upgrade that port to version 6.1.1 (ports/167698, 7 May
2012).  That never happened, nor was it renamed to finance/openerp.
w...@freebsd.org took the PR but never did anything with it.

ports/175359 tried to update finance/openerp-server to version 6.0.4 on
16 Jan 2013.  Maintainer ignored it.  On 9 Sep 2013, the maintainer
resigned, but the PRs were never put back on the heap.

And now we have the PR to update it to version 7.0.

I'm going to close all the PRs except the last one to clear up some of
this confusion.

John
___
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: newsbeuter/stfl error

[Tijl Coosemans]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 19:50:38 +0100 Zsolt Udvari wrote:
> Hi list!
> 
> I'm using www/newsbeuter to read my rss-feeds but after upgrade 9.2 to
> 10.0 it doesn't start.
> 
> Starting newsbeuter 2.8...
> Loading configuration...done.
> Opening cache...done.
> Loading URLs from /home/zsolt/.config/newsbeuter/urls...done.
> Loading articles from cache...done.
> STFL Parser Error near ''.
> zsh: abort (core dumped)
> 
> 
> In gdb:
> #0 0x00080283026a in thr_kill () from /lib/libc.so.7
> #1 0x0008028f7ac9 in abort () from /lib/libc.so.7
> #2 0x000801c740de in stfl_parser () from /usr/local/lib/libstfl.so
> #3 0x000801c718b7 in stfl_create () from /usr/local/lib/libstfl.so
> #4 0x004d6c1f in form (this=0x8053dfec0, text=@0x7fffcdf0)
> at basic_string.h:235
> #5 0x00469456 in formaction (this=0x805102880, vv=, formstr=
> {static npos = , _M_dataplus = {> = {<__gnu_cxx::new_allocator> = {},
> }, _M_p = 0x7fffcdf0 "\030F\005\005\b"}}) at src/formaction.cpp:59
> #6 0x004766fd in feedlist_formaction (this=0x805102880,
> vv=0x7fffd7a0, formstr=) at src/feedlist_formaction.cpp:442
> #7 0x00432119 in newsbeuter::view::run (this=0x7fffd7a0)
> at src/view.cpp:288
> #8 0x0043fd67 in newsbeuter::controller::run (this=Unhandled
> dwarf expression opcode 0x9f ) at src/controller.cpp:76
> #9 0x7fffd578 in ?? ()
> #10 0x7fffd540 in ?? ()
> #11 0x0008050b8300 in ?? ()
> #12 0x in ?? ()
> 
> The newsbeuter 2.7 worked well in FreeBSD 9.2 so I've downgraded to
> 2.7 but same error. Maybe it's possible it's a user error (pebkac) but
> what's wrong? Or it's newsbeuter/stfl bug or freebsd-incompatibility?
> What can I do to solve these problem?

A patch for this is waiting for review/approval.
___
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"

mrxvt-devel does not show non-ascii character before end of line

[José García Juanino]

Hello,

after upgrade from 9.2 to 10.0 and rebuild the ports, mrxvt multi tab
terminal shows a strange issue: when you type an non-ascii character, it is
hidden from terminal unless you type another new character just behind.
Indeed, the exact bug is that mrxvt will not show any non-ascii character
before end of line. To reproduce this issue, you can type the following in
mrxt terminal, built from ports with the default options:

$ echo "añ"  > myfile
$ cat myfile
a
### ñ is not shown

(substitute spanish ñ by any other non-ascii character and you will get the
same issue).

mrxvt is rather ancient and not mantained by upstream, but actually is the
best multi tab terminal. But with this annoyed bug, I think it should be
definitively deprecated. Any idea to fix this bug, or some proposal on a
good multi tab terminal? (ignoring  kde or gnome related terminals, as they
need huge and complex dependencies).

Regards
___
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: Port for OpenERP v7.0

[John Marino]

On 1/24/2014 19:10, John Marino wrote:
> On 1/24/2014 18:52, Jose Gonzalez wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I posted this thread on the forum too, but then I saw this email address
>> checking into the ports version for OpenERP. Here's the thing.
>>
>> My company wants to start looking into OpenERP v7.0. I have seen some
>> deployments in different flavors. I absolutely want to do it on FreeBSD.
>> Does anyone know if port for OpenERP v7.0 is on its way to the port
>> repository?
>>
>> I really appreciate any heads up on this.
>>
> 
> Somebody opened a PR on this 10 days ago:
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/185844
> 
> That's a good sign (assuming it's the server you want)


That PR needed a lot of work, but I made the changes and now
finances/openerp-server is at version 7.0 (LTS).

Hopefully that fits your company's needs.
Regards,
John
___
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"

What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

[Big Lebowski]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to ask about the growing time of reaction to ports PR's - what is
the problem? It seems to me, as a ports contributor, that this time is only
growing, not shrinking, and there's no formal/automated procedures that
would help in managing the issue.

Today I found myself fighting with ezjail only to discover it has issues
working on FreeBSD 10.0-R. Great, I thought, there must be something else,
so I went to make the research. It appears there isnt much more, and the
alternatives are qjail that seems to be quite dated and zjails, that's not
in ports. Not long after looking into zjails, what seems to be a great
tool, I found its port submission sits there since... September 2013. Now,
given the fact the Docker is on mouth of everyone, and containers are
getting a lot of attention, FreeBSD looks really bad with no tools to
manage such great technology like Jails, especially when ezjail, unofficial
industry standard to manage jails, is now broken and zjails waits to be
accepted (or even rejected) for so much time.

What is the problem? Isnt there enought commiters? Isnt there a automated
PR handling procedure reminding commiters with relevant access about such
submissions? Can we help? I hope to spark some discussion.

Kind regards,
B.
___
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: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

[John Marino]

On 1/25/2014 00:30, Big Lebowski wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I wanted to ask about the growing time of reaction to ports PR's - what is
> the problem? It seems to me, as a ports contributor, that this time is only
> growing, not shrinking, and there's no formal/automated procedures that
> would help in managing the issue.
> 
> What is the problem? 

Seriously?  You did all that research and didn't notice this?
query all open ports PRS: 1705 problems total.

Short answer: Sheer number of PRs.

> Isnt there enought commiters?

Well, at least there are more PRs than people closing PRs.  Not all
committers deal with PRs.  Getting a commit bit does not obligate you to
process PRs.  If there's a PR already on a port a committer has interest
in fixing, then he/she will probably process the PR while they are there.

>  Isnt there a automated
> PR handling procedure reminding commiters with relevant access about such
> submissions? Can we help? I hope to spark some discussion.

Of course there is.  People get reminded about assigned PRs constantly.
 You think a computer message will make somebody work faster if they
didn't forget about it (iow they are aware and actively decided not to
deal with it yet).

I would have thought the situation is kind of obvious.  There are lots
of PRs, nobody is paid to process them, there are no teams dedicated to
"new ports", lots of PRs are stuck because their non-freebsd.org
maintainers are MIA or abandoned their emails and nobody is going to
touch a PR in "feedback", etc, etc.  Finally, some committers are pretty
sloppy at closing complete/obsolete PRs.

When people get paid to do it, I think the situation will improve. :)

John
___
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: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

[Aryeh Friedman]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Big Lebowski wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I wanted to ask about the growing time of reaction to ports PR's - what is
> the problem? It seems to me, as a ports contributor, that this time is only
> growing, not shrinking, and there's no formal/automated procedures that
> would help in managing the issue.
>
> Today I found myself fighting with ezjail only to discover it has issues
> working on FreeBSD 10.0-R. Great, I thought, there must be something else,
> so I went to make the research. It appears there isnt much more, and the
> alternatives are qjail that seems to be quite dated and zjails, that's not
> in ports. Not long after looking into zjails, what seems to be a great
> tool, I found its port submission sits there since... September 2013. Now,
> given the fact the Docker is on mouth of everyone, and containers are
> getting a lot of attention, FreeBSD looks really bad with no tools to
> manage such great technology like Jails, especially when ezjail, unofficial
> industry standard to manage jails, is now broken and zjails waits to be
> accepted (or even rejected) for so much time.
>
>
Why not test on a VM instead of a jail it seems this is a even more
accurate test because you can run bare metal installs (I have run to some
ports [including some of my own]) that worked with jail/tinderbox but
failed a full bare metal install.   Take a look at -virtualization@ for
ideas, the proposed handbook entry on virtualization (
http://www.petitecloud.org) or just use a front end like petitecloud (yes
yet an other port waiting for comitting [one this one there are some bugs
though])

What is the problem? Isnt there enought commiters? Isnt there a automated
> PR handling procedure reminding commiters with relevant access about such
> submissions? Can we help? I hope to spark some discussion.
>

I have made a couple of scripts for automated this for specific ports but
not for all (the VM test method)... if you want I can post them (they are
high;y specific to installing the petitecloud port though)

-- 
Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org
___
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: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

[Big Lebowski]

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Aryeh Friedman
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Big Lebowski wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I wanted to ask about the growing time of reaction to ports PR's - what is
>> the problem? It seems to me, as a ports contributor, that this time is
>> only
>> growing, not shrinking, and there's no formal/automated procedures that
>> would help in managing the issue.
>>
>> Today I found myself fighting with ezjail only to discover it has issues
>> working on FreeBSD 10.0-R. Great, I thought, there must be something else,
>> so I went to make the research. It appears there isnt much more, and the
>> alternatives are qjail that seems to be quite dated and zjails, that's not
>> in ports. Not long after looking into zjails, what seems to be a great
>> tool, I found its port submission sits there since... September 2013. Now,
>> given the fact the Docker is on mouth of everyone, and containers are
>> getting a lot of attention, FreeBSD looks really bad with no tools to
>> manage such great technology like Jails, especially when ezjail,
>> unofficial
>> industry standard to manage jails, is now broken and zjails waits to be
>> accepted (or even rejected) for so much time.
>>
>>
> Why not test on a VM instead of a jail it seems this is a even more
> accurate test because you can run bare metal installs (I have run to some
> ports [including some of my own]) that worked with jail/tinderbox but
> failed a full bare metal install.   Take a look at -virtualization@ for
> ideas, the proposed handbook entry on virtualization (
> http://www.petitecloud.org) or just use a front end like petitecloud (yes
> yet an other port waiting for comitting [one this one there are some bugs
> though])
>
> What is the problem? Isnt there enought commiters? Isnt there a automated
>> PR handling procedure reminding commiters with relevant access about such
>> submissions? Can we help? I hope to spark some discussion.
>>
>
> I have made a couple of scripts for automated this for specific ports but
> not for all (the VM test method)... if you want I can post them (they are
> high;y specific to installing the petitecloud port though)
>

> --
> Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org
>

I think you've got me wrong - I am following freebsd-virtualization list
very closely, and the matter I've touched here is not my doubt on which
technology I should use, but rather a complaint on the state of jails
related tools directly leading to the delays in handling of ports related
PR's. I know the technology alternatives, I am decided to jails for a
reason, and I also know your work on the web interface focusing on bhyve,
but its not about it.

B.
___
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: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

[Big Lebowski]

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:41 AM, John Marino wrote:

> On 1/25/2014 00:30, Big Lebowski wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I wanted to ask about the growing time of reaction to ports PR's - what
> is
> > the problem? It seems to me, as a ports contributor, that this time is
> only
> > growing, not shrinking, and there's no formal/automated procedures that
> > would help in managing the issue.
> >
> > What is the problem?
>
> Seriously?  You did all that research and didn't notice this?
> query all open ports PRS: 1705 problems total.
>
> Short answer: Sheer number of PRs.
>

I did, in fact, and this is not the problem, this is the symptom of the
problem.


>
> > Isnt there enought commiters?
>
> Well, at least there are more PRs than people closing PRs.  Not all
> committers deal with PRs.  Getting a commit bit does not obligate you to
> process PRs.  If there's a PR already on a port a committer has interest
> in fixing, then he/she will probably process the PR while they are there.
>
> >  Isnt there a automated
> > PR handling procedure reminding commiters with relevant access about such
> > submissions? Can we help? I hope to spark some discussion.
>
> Of course there is.  People get reminded about assigned PRs constantly.
>  You think a computer message will make somebody work faster if they
> didn't forget about it (iow they are aware and actively decided not to
> deal with it yet).
>
> I would have thought the situation is kind of obvious.  There are lots
> of PRs, nobody is paid to process them, there are no teams dedicated to
> "new ports"


Perhaps there could be? Or some commiters who would assess if the PR can be
handled easily or it needs a more experienced eye to look at it?


> , lots of PRs are stuck because their non-freebsd.org
> maintainers are MIA or abandoned their emails and nobody is going to
>

Shouldnt those be invalidated and closed to reduce the workload illusion
that tends to set off people from doing work?


> touch a PR in "feedback", etc, etc.  Finally, some committers are pretty
> sloppy at closing complete/obsolete PRs.
>
> When people get paid to do it, I think the situation will improve. :)
>

Great, then perhaps FreeBSD deserves dedicated, paid commiter to handle
that situation? After all, we're donating money to the project, and if
there's general consensus this is a problem that needs to be fixed and this
is the only way to do it, then perhaps something can be done about it?


>
> John
> ___
> 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-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: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

[John Marino]

On 1/25/2014 01:03, Big Lebowski wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:41 AM, John Marino 
> wrote:
> 
>> On 1/25/2014 00:30, Big Lebowski wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I wanted to ask about the growing time of reaction to ports PR's - what
>> is
>>> the problem? It seems to me, as a ports contributor, that this time is
>> only
>>> growing, not shrinking, and there's no formal/automated procedures that
>>> would help in managing the issue.
>>>
>>> What is the problem?
>>
>> Seriously?  You did all that research and didn't notice this?
>> query all open ports PRS: 1705 problems total.
>>
>> Short answer: Sheer number of PRs.
>>
> 
> I did, in fact, and this is not the problem, this is the symptom of the
> problem.

No, it's not.  PRs are getting closed, all the time, every day.  But PRs
are coming in faster than they are getting closed.  A couple of days
ago, the number of open PRs was down to 1660.

You can say the solution is to increase the rate of PR closing.  I could
counter with not allowing any new PRs to be submitted.  Both would solve
the problem, and my way is easier to implement. :)


>> I would have thought the situation is kind of obvious.  There are lots
>> of PRs, nobody is paid to process them, there are no teams dedicated to
>> "new ports"
>  
> Perhaps there could be? Or some commiters who would assess if the PR can be
> handled easily or it needs a more experienced eye to look at it?
> 

Timeless question: How does one force a volunteer to do anything?
Answer: You can't.


>> , lots of PRs are stuck because their non-freebsd.org
>> maintainers are MIA or abandoned their emails and nobody is going to
>>
> 
> Shouldnt those be invalidated and closed to reduce the workload illusion
> that tends to set off people from doing work?

Yes.
Now, who is going to do it?
And after you select him or her, how do you force them to do it?



>> touch a PR in "feedback", etc, etc.  Finally, some committers are pretty
>> sloppy at closing complete/obsolete PRs.
>>
>> When people get paid to do it, I think the situation will improve. :)
>>
> 
> Great, then perhaps FreeBSD deserves dedicated, paid commiter to handle
> that situation? After all, we're donating money to the project, and if
> there's general consensus this is a problem that needs to be fixed and this
> is the only way to do it, then perhaps something can be done about it?


I don't control FreeBSD Foundation funds in any way.
Having a full time paid person doing PR triage would put a huge dent in
the backlog.  But we're just wishing, right?  There aren't many paid
positions and those don't do clerical work like trouble tickets.

John
___
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: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

[Big Lebowski]

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 1:22 AM, John Marino wrote:

> On 1/25/2014 01:03, Big Lebowski wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:41 AM, John Marino  >wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/25/2014 00:30, Big Lebowski wrote:
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> I wanted to ask about the growing time of reaction to ports PR's - what
> >> is
> >>> the problem? It seems to me, as a ports contributor, that this time is
> >> only
> >>> growing, not shrinking, and there's no formal/automated procedures that
> >>> would help in managing the issue.
> >>>
> >>> What is the problem?
> >>
> >> Seriously?  You did all that research and didn't notice this?
> >> query all open ports PRS: 1705 problems total.
> >>
> >> Short answer: Sheer number of PRs.
> >>
> >
> > I did, in fact, and this is not the problem, this is the symptom of the
> > problem.
>
> No, it's not.  PRs are getting closed, all the time, every day.  But PRs
> are coming in faster than they are getting closed.  A couple of days
> ago, the number of open PRs was down to 1660.
>
> You can say the solution is to increase the rate of PR closing.  I could
> counter with not allowing any new PRs to be submitted.  Both would solve
> the problem, and my way is easier to implement. :)
>
>
> >> I would have thought the situation is kind of obvious.  There are lots
> >> of PRs, nobody is paid to process them, there are no teams dedicated to
> >> "new ports"
> >
> > Perhaps there could be? Or some commiters who would assess if the PR can
> be
> > handled easily or it needs a more experienced eye to look at it?
> >
>
> Timeless question: How does one force a volunteer to do anything?
> Answer: You can't.
>
>
> >> , lots of PRs are stuck because their non-freebsd.org
> >> maintainers are MIA or abandoned their emails and nobody is going to
> >>
> >
> > Shouldnt those be invalidated and closed to reduce the workload illusion
> > that tends to set off people from doing work?
>
> Yes.
> Now, who is going to do it?
> And after you select him or her, how do you force them to do it?
>
>
>
> >> touch a PR in "feedback", etc, etc.  Finally, some committers are pretty
> >> sloppy at closing complete/obsolete PRs.
> >>
> >> When people get paid to do it, I think the situation will improve. :)
> >>
> >
> > Great, then perhaps FreeBSD deserves dedicated, paid commiter to handle
> > that situation? After all, we're donating money to the project, and if
> > there's general consensus this is a problem that needs to be fixed and
> this
> > is the only way to do it, then perhaps something can be done about it?
>
>
> I don't control FreeBSD Foundation funds in any way.
> Having a full time paid person doing PR triage would put a huge dent in
> the backlog.  But we're just wishing, right?  There aren't many paid
> positions and those don't do clerical work like trouble tickets.
>

I was hoping to get some discussion revealing how the work is organized
around ports PR, perhaps some ideas on improving them and I hoped that
people who can make decisions and changes would notice it and consider
them, since as they say, the squeeky wheel gets the grease, that's all. At
no point I insisted on forcing anyone to anything, and I dont think that's
neither only nor a viable solution.

It seems obvious that current process doesnt work very well, then I'd aim
at reorganizing that process - it appears that there is no roles specified,
so the responsibility is blurred, and when everyone is responsible for one
thing, in practice no one is. Perhaps role assignment could be of any help?


>
> John
> ___
> 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-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: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

[John Marino]

On 1/25/2014 01:36, Big Lebowski wrote:
> I was hoping to get some discussion revealing how the work is organized
> around ports PR, perhaps some ideas on improving them and I hoped that
> people who can make decisions and changes would notice it and consider
> them, since as they say, the squeeky wheel gets the grease, that's all. At
> no point I insisted on forcing anyone to anything, and I dont think that's
> neither only nor a viable solution.
> 
> It seems obvious that current process doesnt work very well, then I'd aim
> at reorganizing that process - it appears that there is no roles specified,
> so the responsibility is blurred, and when everyone is responsible for one
> thing, in practice no one is. Perhaps role assignment could be of any help?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but surely I'm coming off that way.
Again, nobody is obligated to accept any assignment.  They have to
volunteer to do it.  The only person that The Big Lebowski can influence
here is himself.

Thus, are you volunteering for this role?  It's not my call, but if you
really want to do clean out and triage the all PRs on an ongoing basis,
my guess is that would be very welcome and we'd figure out a way to set
that up.  It would definitely help, especially for those maintainer that
"approve" patches but the PRs never get opened (or set to a better state
than "open").

At some point we'll have a new PR system, that fact might be having an
impact on current PRs as well...

John
___
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: net/avahi-app core dumps signal 11

[Sergio de Almeida Lenzi]

Em Sex, 2014-01-24 às 18:19 +0200, Yevgen Lasman escreveu:
> Have the same problem… BUT on test machine (updated from 9.2-REL) it
> works perfectly but when updated working machine (from 9.2-REL too) to
> 10.0 it started to segfault!
> 
> 
> 
> Now I end up with test machine with working avahi and production
> server which is can't run it 

Thank you...  You notice that if you compile it on the 9.2 move it with
tar to 10.0  it works!!!

But if you compile on the 10.0 it segfaults, in a way that gdb is
useless as 
it aborts BEFORE reaching the main() function...

IS there a GURU that can resolve this issue??? I need it working and
compiled on the version 10 of FreeBSD...

___
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: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

[Aryeh Friedman]

>
> I think you've got me wrong - I am following freebsd-virtualization list
> very closely, and the matter I've touched here is not my doubt on which
> technology I should use, but rather a complaint on the state of jails
> related tools directly leading to the delays in handling of ports related
> PR's. I know the technology alternatives, I am decided to jails for a
> reason, and I also know your work on the web interface focusing on bhyve,
> but its not about it.
>

My point is writing scripts for VM's is easier (nothing more then copy the
master and then do a normal make install/portmaster on the port of you
choice [better to run them one at a time I have found).  When I get into
port testing I usually have 3 VM's on the host working on compiling and 1
for development.   I have yet to find a good way to have 4 jails running as
independentlu.

-- 
Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org
___
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: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

[Aryeh Friedman]

I would be willing to help write some scripts to start/stop the VM's
(PetiteCloud does a command line that will be better documented and such in
the next version or two)


On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Big Lebowski wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Aryeh Friedman  > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Big Lebowski wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I wanted to ask about the growing time of reaction to ports PR's - what
>>> is
>>> the problem? It seems to me, as a ports contributor, that this time is
>>> only
>>> growing, not shrinking, and there's no formal/automated procedures that
>>> would help in managing the issue.
>>>
>>> Today I found myself fighting with ezjail only to discover it has issues
>>> working on FreeBSD 10.0-R. Great, I thought, there must be something
>>> else,
>>> so I went to make the research. It appears there isnt much more, and the
>>> alternatives are qjail that seems to be quite dated and zjails, that's
>>> not
>>> in ports. Not long after looking into zjails, what seems to be a great
>>> tool, I found its port submission sits there since... September 2013.
>>> Now,
>>> given the fact the Docker is on mouth of everyone, and containers are
>>> getting a lot of attention, FreeBSD looks really bad with no tools to
>>> manage such great technology like Jails, especially when ezjail,
>>> unofficial
>>> industry standard to manage jails, is now broken and zjails waits to be
>>> accepted (or even rejected) for so much time.
>>>
>>>
>> Why not test on a VM instead of a jail it seems this is a even more
>> accurate test because you can run bare metal installs (I have run to some
>> ports [including some of my own]) that worked with jail/tinderbox but
>> failed a full bare metal install.   Take a look at -virtualization@ for
>> ideas, the proposed handbook entry on virtualization (
>> http://www.petitecloud.org) or just use a front end like petitecloud
>> (yes yet an other port waiting for comitting [one this one there are some
>> bugs though])
>>
>> What is the problem? Isnt there enought commiters? Isnt there a automated
>>> PR handling procedure reminding commiters with relevant access about such
>>> submissions? Can we help? I hope to spark some discussion.
>>>
>>
>> I have made a couple of scripts for automated this for specific ports but
>> not for all (the VM test method)... if you want I can post them (they are
>> high;y specific to installing the petitecloud port though)
>>
>
>> --
>> Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org
>>
>
> I think you've got me wrong - I am following freebsd-virtualization list
> very closely, and the matter I've touched here is not my doubt on which
> technology I should use, but rather a complaint on the state of jails
> related tools directly leading to the delays in handling of ports related
> PR's. I know the technology alternatives, I am decided to jails for a
> reason, and I also know your work on the web interface focusing on bhyve,
> but its not about it.
>
> B.
>



-- 
Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org
___
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: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

[Gary J. Hayers]

On 25 Jan 2014, at 00:47, John Marino  wrote:
> 
>> On 1/25/2014 01:36, Big Lebowski wrote:
>> I was hoping to get some discussion revealing how the work is organized
>> around ports PR, perhaps some ideas on improving them and I hoped that
>> people who can make decisions and changes would notice it and consider
>> them, since as they say, the squeeky wheel gets the grease, that's all. At
>> no point I insisted on forcing anyone to anything, and I dont think that's
>> neither only nor a viable solution.
>> 
>> It seems obvious that current process doesnt work very well, then I'd aim
>> at reorganizing that process - it appears that there is no roles specified,
>> so the responsibility is blurred, and when everyone is responsible for one
>> thing, in practice no one is. Perhaps role assignment could be of any help?
> 
> I'm not trying to be a jerk, but surely I'm coming off that way.
> Again, nobody is obligated to accept any assignment.  They have to
> volunteer to do it.  The only person that The Big Lebowski can influence
> here is himself.
> 
> Thus, are you volunteering for this role?  

That's a role I would happily volunteer to do. 

> It's not my call, but if you
> really want to do clean out and triage the all PRs on an ongoing basis,
> my guess is that would be very welcome and we'd figure out a way to set
> that up.  It would definitely help, especially for those maintainer that
> "approve" patches but the PRs never get opened (or set to a better state
> than "open").

Perhaps triage of all new (and existing PRs until caught up) is the way to go. 

> At some point we'll have a new PR system, that fact might be having an
> impact on current PRs 

--

Regards, 
Gary J. Hayers 

___
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: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

[Alfred Perlstein]

On 1/24/14, 4:47 PM, John Marino wrote:

On 1/25/2014 01:36, Big Lebowski wrote:

I was hoping to get some discussion revealing how the work is organized
around ports PR, perhaps some ideas on improving them and I hoped that
people who can make decisions and changes would notice it and consider
them, since as they say, the squeeky wheel gets the grease, that's all. At
no point I insisted on forcing anyone to anything, and I dont think that's
neither only nor a viable solution.

It seems obvious that current process doesnt work very well, then I'd aim
at reorganizing that process - it appears that there is no roles specified,
so the responsibility is blurred, and when everyone is responsible for one
thing, in practice no one is. Perhaps role assignment could be of any help?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but surely I'm coming off that way.
Again, nobody is obligated to accept any assignment.  They have to
volunteer to do it.  The only person that The Big Lebowski can influence
here is himself.

Thus, are you volunteering for this role?  It's not my call, but if you
really want to do clean out and triage the all PRs on an ongoing basis,
my guess is that would be very welcome and we'd figure out a way to set
that up.  It would definitely help, especially for those maintainer that
"approve" patches but the PRs never get opened (or set to a better state
than "open").

At some point we'll have a new PR system, that fact might be having an
impact on current PRs as well...


To me it would speak of tooling as opposed to anything.

Does the ports system have a 1 or 2 click interface for merging PRs like 
for instance github?


Could ports take PRs in the form of pull requests on github?

Wouldn't that just turn the number of updates into a few minor clicks?

(also wouldn't it make it easier for ports submitters)?

(maybe there is some great ports system that I'm not aware of that makes 
this all as easy github, but I somehow doubt that.)


-Alfred

___
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: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

[Aryeh Friedman]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:

>
>
> (maybe there is some great ports system that I'm not aware of that makes
> this all as easy github, but I somehow doubt that.)


Nice to be able to plug something other then petitecloud as a possible
solution to this... namely as far I can tell from previous discussions and
such that the port system is nothing more then a very large DAG (directed
acyc. graph) the author of devel/cook (and devel/aegis) wrote an incredible
paper showing why Make (in any form) will never be upto the task (
http://aegis.sourceforge.net/auug97.pdf )... there are several solutions
that use this paper as their foundation in the ports system (devel/cook,
devel/cons, devel/scons)...  don't get me wrong the actual building of each
port should be delegated to whatever build scripts it uses the idea is only
that the entire port system be considered as a single graph... side note we
use devel/cook and devel/aegis to maintain and build petitecloud on.
-- 
Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org
___
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: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

[John Marino]

On 1/25/2014 05:16, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>> Thus, are you volunteering for this role?  It's not my call, but if you
>> really want to do clean out and triage the all PRs on an ongoing basis,
>> my guess is that would be very welcome and we'd figure out a way to set
>> that up.  It would definitely help, especially for those maintainer that
>> "approve" patches but the PRs never get opened (or set to a better state
>> than "open").
>>
>> At some point we'll have a new PR system, that fact might be having an
>> impact on current PRs as well...
> 
> To me it would speak of tooling as opposed to anything.
> Does the ports system have a 1 or 2 click interface for merging PRs like
> for instance github?

The SCM part of the ports process is not the bottleneck.

> Could ports take PRs in the form of pull requests on github? 
> Wouldn't that just turn the number of updates into a few minor clicks?

This makes a fatal and untrue assumption: That was is submitted just
needs to be committed.  In my brief experience, I can tell you that's
simply not true.  If a submission can be taken without a single change,
that is truly an exception.  It's not even the submitters fault often,
sometimes the infrastructure changes but the submitter didn't know or
account for it, or the PR came before the infrastructure change.

One can RARELY take a submission as-is.  Thus, pull requests turn into
merge conflict exercises and cause more work, not less IMO.

> (also wouldn't it make it easier for ports submitters)?

personally I don't really think so, plus I don't see the current or
future PR system as the barrier for port submitters.

> (maybe there is some great ports system that I'm not aware of that makes
> this all as easy github, but I somehow doubt that.)

I would like to see something where the submission gets tested in
Redports automatically, and automatically annotates if the port passes
on all platforms or not.  Then the submitter gets notice it needs fixing
immediately and FreeBSD folks don't have to take the PR, test it, reject
it, and state why.  That iteration can take a few cycles and automated
testing could cut that process time tremendously.

John


___
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"