mail/mutt problems with sidebar patch
Hi, I emailed the mail/mutt maintainer a month ago and got no response, so I'm trying this list instead. After a pkg upgrade on my FreeBSD 9.1 system, mutt became so slow as to be almost unusable. When I would first come into mutt, it would stick at the "Sorting mailbox..." message, which formerly would always display so quickly I wouldn't even notice it. After the message index would finally display, each keystroke to navigate through the messages would take on the order of several seconds to process. After experimentation, attempted reinstalls, looking at the mutt source, etc., I determined that the sidebar patch appears to be the culprit. I keep large quantities of mail, and the sidebar patch must be trying to process the mail folders with every keystroke. Reinstalling mutt from the port, with sidebar patch disabled restored its previous snappy performance. I'm not sure how the issue with building binary packages, versus having large number of options ever played out. The binary package I got, at least, included the sidebar patch, even though I was previously building the port without it. I can use the pkg lock functionality to keep pkg from updating mutt, but am wondering if there is a better long-term fix, and what the general direction is for selecting options for the binary pkg builds, some of which may cause some users big problems (as in my case). I suppose I could clear out all my mail files, archiving their contents elsewhere, but it would be a shame to be forced to do that because of inclusion of a patch for a feature I don't even plan to use. I found a sidebar-related option that someone added, to address this exact problem, however it does not appear that the FreeBSD sidebar patch incorporates this. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/mutt-kz/2012-May/65.html I think if this $sidebar_refresh option is added, it provides a way out, to be able to have the sidebar patch included by default, while allowing mutt users with large mbox files to still be happy. Of course, this option should preferably be published somewhere prominent, so mutt users in a similar predicament can manage to find the fix w/o so much digging. Comments? Anybody else experiencing performance problems with the sidebar patch? Maybe I'll submit a patch to add the $sidebar_refresh option. Thanks, Alex ___ 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"
LXDE uses missing pcmanfm.conf or its wrong location
Hi, I've installed lxde-common-0.5.5_5, lxde-icon-theme-0.5.0_1, lxde-meta-1.0_7 and all their dependencies packages. Then if I try to run 'startlxde' following error is printed and 'startlxde' fails to run % cp: /usr/local/share/lxde/pcmanfm/pcmanfm.conf: No such file or directory I've found a possible solution for this issue on https://forums.freebsd.org/viewtopic.php?&t=41598 The solution is running following copy command: $ cp /usr/local/etc/xdg/pcmanfm/default/pcmanfm.conf /usr/local/share/lxde/pcmanfm But why there isn't one standard location of the pcmanfm.conf configuration file or why LXDE packages don't have their own version? Why LXDE doesn't run out of the box? P.S. I also have XFCE installed. Don't know if it matters. ___ 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: LXDE uses missing pcmanfm.conf or its wrong location
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Rostislav Krasny wrote: > Hi, > > I've installed lxde-common-0.5.5_5, lxde-icon-theme-0.5.0_1, > lxde-meta-1.0_7 and all their dependencies packages. Then if I try to > run 'startlxde' following error is printed and 'startlxde' fails to > run > > % cp: /usr/local/share/lxde/pcmanfm/pcmanfm.conf: No such file or > directory > > I've found a possible solution for this issue on > https://forums.freebsd.org/viewtopic.php?&t=41598 > > The solution is running following copy command: > > $ cp /usr/local/etc/xdg/pcmanfm/default/pcmanfm.conf > /usr/local/share/lxde/pcmanfm > > But why there isn't one standard location of the pcmanfm.conf > configuration file or why LXDE packages don't have their own version? > Why LXDE doesn't run out of the box? > > > P.S. I also have XFCE installed. Don't know if it matters. Manual copying pcmanfm.conf from the xdg fixes this issue but LXDE still doesn't work. Running startlxde just do nothing. What am I missing or doing wrong? ___ 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"
is bsd.database.mk out of sync with Uses/pgsql.mk?
Today I encountered these build messages with poudriere: Invalid PGSQL default version 92; valid versions are 8.4 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 These messages originate in Mk/Uses/pgsql.mk But Mk/bsd.database.mk claims a different format is correct: # DEFAULT_PGSQL_VER # - PostgreSQL default version, currently 90. Do you agree that the comments in Mk/bsd.database.mk need to updated? — Dan Langille signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: is bsd.database.mk out of sync with Uses/pgsql.mk?
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Dan Langille wrote: > Today I encountered these build messages with poudriere: > > Invalid PGSQL default version 92; valid versions are 8.4 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 > > These messages originate in Mk/Uses/pgsql.mk > > But Mk/bsd.database.mk claims a different format is correct: > > # DEFAULT_PGSQL_VER > # - PostgreSQL default version, currently 90. > > > Do you agree that the comments in Mk/bsd.database.mk need to updated? > According to Mk/Uses/pgsql.mk, DEFAULT_PGSQL_VER and WITH_PGSQL_VER are obsolete, and you should be using DEFAULT_VERSIONS=pgsql=9.2 instead. They are kept for backward compatibility, but require you to use the new version format (i.e 9.2). The USE_PGSQL code in Mk/bsd.database.mk is still using the old version format (92). I would consider that USE_PGSQL is obsolete, and ports that are still using USE_PGSQL should be updated to USES+= pgsql. -- DISCLAIMER: No electrons were maimed while sending this message. Only slightly bruised. ___ 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: On Docs option and custom build target
El 26/09/2014 08:40, "Mathieu Arnold" escribió:
>
> +--On 23 septembre 2014 23:23:31 +0200 Fernando Apesteguía
> wrote:
> |
> | do-build:
> | @cd ${BUILD_WRKSRC}/ && ${MAKE}
> | .if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MDOCS}
> | @cd ${BUILD_WRKSRC}/ && ${MAKE_CMD} doc
> | .endif
> |
>
> That should be:
>
> ALL_TARGET= all
> DOCS_ALL_TARGET=doc
>
> And then you don't need to include port.options.mk.
>
> As explained in
> <
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-options.html#options-variables
>
>
Changed. Thanks!
> --
> Mathieu Arnold
___
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"
