FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date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ports appears to be out of date.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/ocaml-lacaml  | 7.2.6   | v8.0.4
+-+
net-mgmt/weathermap | 1.1.1   | 19.0.0
+-+


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
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: New user/group in /usr/ports/UIDs and /usr/ports/GIDs

[Matthias Fechner]

Dear all,

Am 13.02.2016 um 11:40 schrieb Matthias Fechner:
> Yuri us are currently working on a new port for gogs:
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205283
> 
> For this a new user and group is required.
> I already checked the file and I would like to add the following files:
> gogs:*:209:209::0:0:gogs user:/var/db/gogs/home:/bin/sh
> 
> and
> gogs:*:209:
> 
> Could you please advise me, what kind of PR I should create and what
> kind of approval is required?

I created for this now:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207206

I hope it is fine in this way.
Thanks.


Gruß
Matthias

-- 

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to
produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning." --
Rich Cook
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: New user/group in /usr/ports/UIDs and /usr/ports/GIDs

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205283
[...]
> I created for this now:
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207206

The blocker for gogs is not the additional users, the blockers are
the GH_TUPLE and the Uses/go.mk changes:

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204772
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205282

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4 years to go !
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

mail/pear-Mail_Queue broken by devel/pear-10.1

[Andrea Venturoli]

Hello.

It seems mail/pear-Mail_Queue is broken since devel/pear was upgraded to 
1.10.1.


The message I get is:

PHP Fatal error: Cannot make static method PEAR::isError() non static in class 
Mail_Queue in /usr/local/share/pear/Mail/Queue.php on line 126


This is widely found on the web and even a patch seems to exist:
http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=20976

Any plan to integrate this?

 bye & Thanks
av.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Recent update of security/nettle broke security/keepassx2

[Lars Engels]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:56:25AM -0500, Jason Unovitch wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Lars Engels  wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:59:26AM -0500, Richard Kuhns wrote:
> >> Apologies; it was apparently libgcrypt, not nettle.
> >>
> >> On 02/12/16 09:29, Richard Kuhns wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > After updating security/nettle, when I try to start keepassx2 I get:
> >> >
> >> > : rjk$~; keepassx
> >> > O j: Assertion `ctx->unused < 64' failed
> >> > (salsa20.c:400:salsa20_do_encrypt_stream)
> >> > Abort trap
> >> >
> >
> > I can confirm this. :-/
> 
> See https://bugs.FreeBSD.org/207042 and by extension
> https://bugs.FreeBSD.org/207107.

Thank you!


pgpmy7fUcCaS4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Removing documentation

[Michelle Sullivan]

Steven Hartland wrote:
> On 14/02/2016 11:25, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>> Kevin Oberman wrote:
>>> My experience is that pkg(8) has been wonderfully robust since 1.3.
>>> before
>>> 1.3 it was a real pain in the neck, though I never had a need to
>>> rebuild
>>> the DB, I did ave to do a bit of fix-up. I really, really wish Bapt had
>>> listened and held up the default to pkg for a bit. Much as I like
>>> it, it
>>> really was not ready for prime time when it became the default. The
>>> early
>>> issues chased too many people away. E.g. you.
>>>
>> Nailed it!
> The problem with that is its a chicken and egg situation, without it
> hitting prime time it likely wouldn't have got the needed use to
> identify and subsequently fix the issues you're referring to; at the
> very least it would have slowed that process down :(

You're wrong.  It was the default in 10.x ... as people upgraded to 10.x
it would have gotten more and more exposure, slowly and more controlled.

The way it was forced down everyone's necks pushed it to 8.4 and 9.x
systems as well as 10.x, this was a bad decision.  It was a decision
made by someone who doesn't live in the real world of production servers
and production services... 

The results were the same as back in the 7.x days when the last "ports"
change happened making it incompatible with previous versions of
FreeBSD  

...Systems out there stopped updating (getting updated)...

...Systems out there are now a security risk with 'FreeBSD' written on
the front door...

...Some of the FreeBSD systems that were out there now run Solaris or
CentOS (because we know that despite how much of a pain the fricken'
butt and expensive to maintain, it's better than the expense connected
when some developer out in their small world of running a blog server
that thinks they know how to administer production servers says, "You
know what we're just going to change the base way software (and
therefore patch) management works in the OS across your production
environment...  because we need more people to test our software.")

Anyhow, too late now the damage has been done and there is no way to get
the goodwill back or repair that damage now.

Regards,

-- 
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Hiawatha v.10.1 is out. Please update pkg and port <3

[Walter Schwarzenfeld]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207212
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/pear-Mail_Queue broken by devel/pear-10.1

[Martin Wilke]

Hi,

I'll have a look, thanks for your report.

- Martin

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Andrea Venturoli  wrote:

> Hello.
>
> It seems mail/pear-Mail_Queue is broken since devel/pear was upgraded to
> 1.10.1.
>
> The message I get is:
>
>> PHP Fatal error: Cannot make static method PEAR::isError() non static in
>> class Mail_Queue in /usr/local/share/pear/Mail/Queue.php on line 126
>>
>
> This is widely found on the web and even a patch seems to exist:
> http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=20976
>
> Any plan to integrate this?
>
>  bye & Thanks
> av.
>



-- 
+-oOO--(_)--OOo-+
With best Regards,
Martin Wilke (miwi_(at)_FreeBSD.org)

Mess with the Best, Die like the Rest
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Removing documentation

[John Marino]

Michelle wrote:
> The way it was forced down everyone's necks pushed it to 8.4 and 9.x
> systems as well as 10.x, this was a bad decision.  It was a decision
> made by someone who doesn't live in the real world of production servers
> and production services... 

Michelle, I sympathize, but you're also not taking any responsibility
for that situation.  All those transitions were announced years in
advance.  I seem to recall you were completely unaware of those plans,
and if that is accurate, it's something you should have been aware of as
the administrator of real world production servers.

There was always the option of freezing the tree and pulling in the
security updates manually until you were ready to migrate to pkg(8) too.
 So there were other options and from my vantage point, you were in
control of your destiny.  (Heck, I'm sure you could have found
"consultants" to keep old trees working to your specifications for not
nearly what it cost to migrate.)

Anyway, I understand the frustration but I think there is plenty of
blame to go around.

John


___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: New user/group in /usr/ports/UIDs and /usr/ports/GIDs

[Matthias Fechner]

Am 15.02.2016 um 10:49 schrieb Kurt Jaeger:
> The blocker for gogs is not the additional users, the blockers are
> the GH_TUPLE and the Uses/go.mk changes:
> 
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204772
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205282

it is not blocking in a hard way.
But if you have it installed you deinstall it and reinstall it again,
you maybe get permission problems, because the UID/GID for the gogs user
can change.
This could break in bad case the update process and the user has to
manually correct the UID/GUID of the repository stored on the system.

I think it is better to have a fixed UID/GUID for this really nice tool.

Or is that not correct?


Matthias

-- 

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to
produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning." --
Rich Cook
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: New user/group in /usr/ports/UIDs and /usr/ports/GIDs

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> Am 15.02.2016 um 10:49 schrieb Kurt Jaeger:
> > The blocker for gogs is not the additional users, the blockers are
> > the GH_TUPLE and the Uses/go.mk changes:
> > 
> > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204772
> > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205282
> 
> it is not blocking in a hard way.
> But if you have it installed you deinstall it and reinstall it again,
> you maybe get permission problems, because the UID/GID for the gogs user
> can change.

That's a valid point.

Is there a reason for the gogs user to have /bin/sh instead
of /usr/sbin/nologin ?

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4 years to go !
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[Roger Marquis]

Michelle wrote:

The way it was forced down everyone's necks pushed it to 8.4 and 9.x
systems as well as 10.x, this was a bad decision.  It was a decision
made by someone who doesn't live in the real world of production servers
and production services...


It was actually worse than that.  Those of us who questioned the wisdom
of such disruptive and backwards-incompatible changes being implemented
mid-release instead of at a release boundry were A) ignored, B) told that
there were not enough (developer) resources, and C) even the announcement
was unprofessional and lacked justification for the rush job:

  There comes a time in the life cycle of just about every software
  package that it has bee re-evaluated, refreshed, deprecated or just
  retired.

  It is time that we bid farewell to the old pkg_* software that has been
  part of FreeBSD since the beginning, and has served us well.  After
  years of development, testing, and playing, pkg(8) has become a
  suitable replacement.

"there comes a time"?  "time that we bid farewell"?  These are not
suitable criteria IMO for dropping support of mission-critical
subsystems.  The FreeBSD Foundation SHOULD have played a part in insuring
a smoother transition to pkgng (much less portsng and, gack, rcng) but
this doesn't seem to have been on their radar.


From my perspective as an advocate and long-time user (since 2.0.5) this

marked a low-point in the viability of FreeBSD vis-a-vis other FOSS
distributions.  Thankfully, going forward from FreeBSD 11 the release
cycle has been lengthened and base is going to be packaged.  Those of use
who support large numbers of dev and production systems can at least
expect that future upgrades won't be as time-consuming or, hopefully, as
buggy.

John Marino wrote:

Michelle, I sympathize, but you're also not taking any responsibility
for that situation.  All those transitions were announced years in
advance.  I seem to recall you were completely unaware of those plans,
and if that is accurate, it's something you should have been aware of as
the administrator of real world production servers.


I believe this is factually incorrect.  We were aware but the decisions
were being made by core developers who were not, apparently, interested
in our concerns or the expected fallout.


There was always the option of freezing the tree and pulling in the
security updates manually until you were ready to migrate to pkg(8) too.


Sure, if you can afford to pay a full-time core dev there's the option of
backporting but even this was made impractical by the simultaneous
deprecation of the pre-ng ports tree, make version and pkg format.

There are lots of reasons why Linux has effectively eclipsed BSD
including device drivers, unattended deployments and install menus but
8.X's wholesale throwing of so many of us under the bus was by far the
worst.

IMO,
Roger Marquis
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[John Marino]

On 2/15/2016 5:59 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
> It was actually worse than that.  Those of us who questioned the wisdom
> of such disruptive and backwards-incompatible changes being implemented
> mid-release instead of at a release boundry were A) ignored, B) told that
> there were not enough (developer) resources, and C) even the announcement
> was unprofessional and lacked justification for the rush job:

This makes no sense.  Ports are not tied to base releases.
And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?


>   There comes a time in the life cycle of just about every software
>   package that it has bee re-evaluated, refreshed, deprecated or just
>   retired.
> 
>   It is time that we bid farewell to the old pkg_* software that has been
>   part of FreeBSD since the beginning, and has served us well.  After
>   years of development, testing, and playing, pkg(8) has become a
>   suitable replacement.
> 
> "there comes a time"?  "time that we bid farewell"?  These are not
> suitable criteria IMO for dropping support of mission-critical
> subsystems.  The FreeBSD Foundation SHOULD have played a part in insuring
> a smoother transition to pkgng (much less portsng and, gack, rcng) but
> this doesn't seem to have been on their radar.

You know good and well that people kick the can down the road FOREVER.
You could have announced it 3 years ahead and people would still scream
NOT YET!  NOT YET!  This would NEVER happen in Linux!

It doesn't matter where you draw the line, you will never get everyone
to respect it.  It's never enough time.


>> From my perspective as an advocate and long-time user (since 2.0.5) this
> marked a low-point in the viability of FreeBSD vis-a-vis other FOSS
> distributions.  Thankfully, going forward from FreeBSD 11 the release
> cycle has been lengthened and base is going to be packaged.  Those of use
> who support large numbers of dev and production systems can at least
> expect that future upgrades won't be as time-consuming or, hopefully, as
> buggy.

"large numbers of dev and production systems" (push to memory stack)



> I believe this is factually incorrect.  We were aware but the decisions
> were being made by core developers who were not, apparently, interested
> in our concerns or the expected fallout.

So you chose to ignore the deadlines in the hopes the pleading would
work?  You intentionally did not prepare against the published timetable?



>> There was always the option of freezing the tree and pulling in the
>> security updates manually until you were ready to migrate to pkg(8) too.
> 
> Sure, if you can afford to pay a full-time core dev there's the option of
> backporting but even this was made impractical by the simultaneous
> deprecation of the pre-ng ports tree, make version and pkg format.

No, it's not fully time.  You just said "large numbers of dev and
production systems", so I am pretty confident the business case would
have been there for this.

It's a business, right?  You aren't talking about a shoestring hobby.


> There are lots of reasons why Linux has effectively eclipsed BSD
> including device drivers, unattended deployments and install menus but
> 8.X's wholesale throwing of so many of us under the bus was by far the
> worst.

And now the fully circle.  This is FreeBSD's Godwin's law.  You know the
discussion is over when somebody says that "[issue] of the day" is the
root cause of BSD being eclipsed by Linux.  Since I've heard [issue]
replaced about 200 times, I'm kind of doubting it.  I guess it's purpose
is to make everyone involved with "[issue]" to feel personally
responsible and oh what could have been if you hadn't of made the wrong
decision



___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> The FreeBSD Foundation SHOULD have played a part in insuring
> a smoother transition to pkgng (much less portsng and, gack, rcng) but
> this doesn't seem to have been on their radar.

I don't know if it was on their radar, but I saw at that time that
the community lost users due to the technical debt of the old
pkg_* stuff. And it lost developers because the old way was too
burdensome.

> I believe this is factually incorrect.  We were aware but the decisions
> were being made by core developers who were not, apparently, interested
> in our concerns or the expected fallout.

Those two are seperate things:

- Being interested
- having enough communication bandwidth
  (== time to spend on mailing lists argueing back and forth)

So, what should a poor core developer do, given this choice ?

I don't think that too many core developers were left doing
the work.

> > There was always the option of freezing the tree and pulling in the
> > security updates manually until you were ready to migrate to pkg(8) too.

> Sure, if you can afford to pay a full-time core dev there's the option of
> backporting but even this was made impractical by the simultaneous
> deprecation of the pre-ng ports tree, make version and pkg format.

So, if it was too burdensome for the whole project to support
two trees (that probably was the estimate for the core developers
involved [and I'm not one of them]), why, do you think, would
it have worked for a sub-fraction of the project ?

> There are lots of reasons why Linux has effectively eclipsed BSD
> including device drivers, unattended deployments and install menus but
> 8.X's wholesale throwing of so many of us under the bus was by far the
> worst.

Indeed, it was a cruel choice. Someone had to decide.

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4 years to go !
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[Michelle Sullivan]

John Marino wrote:
> On 2/15/2016 5:59 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>   
>> It was actually worse than that.  Those of us who questioned the wisdom
>> of such disruptive and backwards-incompatible changes being implemented
>> mid-release instead of at a release boundry were A) ignored, B) told that
>> there were not enough (developer) resources, and C) even the announcement
>> was unprofessional and lacked justification for the rush job:
>> 
>
> This makes no sense.  Ports are not tied to base releases.
> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
>   

Actually it made perfect sense... (for a change) ... make pkgng the
default on 10.x and allow people to use either on 8.4 and 9.x ...  this
made perfect sense...  Make base packaging using similar/same tools as
part of 11+ makes perfect sense... 


No, though... arbitrary date set, f**k real users, f**k whether it
works or not, because we need people to put it in production so we can
test our buggy software...

>
>   
>>   There comes a time in the life cycle of just about every software
>>   package that it has bee re-evaluated, refreshed, deprecated or just
>>   retired.
>>
>>   It is time that we bid farewell to the old pkg_* software that has been
>>   part of FreeBSD since the beginning, and has served us well.  After
>>   years of development, testing, and playing, pkg(8) has become a
>>   suitable replacement.
>>
>> "there comes a time"?  "time that we bid farewell"?  These are not
>> suitable criteria IMO for dropping support of mission-critical
>> subsystems.  The FreeBSD Foundation SHOULD have played a part in insuring
>> a smoother transition to pkgng (much less portsng and, gack, rcng) but
>> this doesn't seem to have been on their radar.
>> 
>
> You know good and well that people kick the can down the road FOREVER.
> You could have announced it 3 years ahead and people would still scream
> NOT YET!  NOT YET!  This would NEVER happen in Linux!
>
> It doesn't matter where you draw the line, you will never get everyone
> to respect it.  It's never enough time.
>   

Line drawn - at the next major version...  that's an easy win... people
can complain, but they can't argue that it isn't a good decision because
they can choose... upgrade/don't upgrade... we didn't get the chance to
choose ... it was forced down peoples necks... working or not. 
Fortunately I was able to get the old system working again... and in
fact keep it up to date until about 3 months ago... (and only stopped
there because I have other things to do - will go back to it again later.)

>>> From my perspective as an advocate and long-time user (since 2.0.5) this
>>>   
>> marked a low-point in the viability of FreeBSD vis-a-vis other FOSS
>> distributions.  Thankfully, going forward from FreeBSD 11 the release
>> cycle has been lengthened and base is going to be packaged.  Those of use
>> who support large numbers of dev and production systems can at least
>> expect that future upgrades won't be as time-consuming or, hopefully, as
>> buggy.
>> 
>
> "large numbers of dev and production systems" (push to memory stack)
>
>
>
>   
>> I believe this is factually incorrect.  We were aware but the decisions
>> were being made by core developers who were not, apparently, interested
>> in our concerns or the expected fallout.
>> 
>
> So you chose to ignore the deadlines in the hopes the pleading would
> work?  You intentionally did not prepare against the published timetable?
>   

Well I didn't know - despite following the conversations on the public
lists - until 3 weeks before the event that the change was going to
deliberately and irrevocably break the old systems... again...

>
>   
>>> There was always the option of freezing the tree and pulling in the
>>> security updates manually until you were ready to migrate to pkg(8) too.
>>>   
>> Sure, if you can afford to pay a full-time core dev there's the option of
>> backporting but even this was made impractical by the simultaneous
>> deprecation of the pre-ng ports tree, make version and pkg format.
>> 
>
> No, it's not fully time.  You just said "large numbers of dev and
> production systems", so I am pretty confident the business case would
> have been there for this.
>
> It's a business, right?  You aren't talking about a shoestring hobby.
>   

Dunno about Roger, but I am and I had been campaigning internally about
getting support for FreeBSD as a platform and support for the foundation
in the way of devs and/or cash...  that is *never* going to happen now. 
Money has been allocated and sent to Redhat (nothing to do with me, but
the pkgng debacle left me without legs to argue the case, so the
decision makers stuffed that.)

>> There are lots of reasons why Linux has effectively eclipsed BSD
>> including device drivers, unattended deployments and install menus but
>> 8.X's wholesale throwing of so many of us under the bus was by far the
>> worst.
>> 
>
> And now the fully circle.  

Re: Removing documentation

[Roger Marquis]

This makes no sense.  Ports are not tied to base releases.
And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?


There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know.  The issue was
with ports and by extension pkgng (and related -ngs).


You know good and well that people kick the can down the road FOREVER.
You could have announced it 3 years ahead and people would still scream
NOT YET!  NOT YET!  This would NEVER happen in Linux!


The announcement

was dated Feb 3 2014, leaving all of 7 months until the planned
deprecation.  Even if you could make a case that pkgng was ready (it
wasn't) 7 months is far less than the 2 calendar year and dozens of
person-year cycles required by some infrastructure-critical production
environments.  It's even farther from the 7+ years that other FOSS
distributions support their releases.


It's a business, right?  You aren't talking about a shoestring hobby.


There's no need to shoot the messenger here.  I may be expressing an
opinion but it is one that is shared by all of my colleagues: developers,
administrators and managers alike.

Roger
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[John Marino]

On 2/15/2016 6:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>> This makes no sense.  Ports are not tied to base releases.
>> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
> 
> There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know.  The issue was
> with ports and by extension pkgng (and related -ngs).

ports are developed independently.  They do not follow release
schedules.  Ports have to support all supported releases, that's the
only connection.

To say ports support has to coincide with a base release schedule shows
a lack of understanding of ports development process.  It also doesn't
account for 3 concurrent releases (or 2 releases and -CURRENT) which are
not synchronized.



> was dated Feb 3 2014, leaving all of 7 months until the planned
> deprecation.  Even if you could make a case that pkgng was ready (it
> wasn't) 7 months is far less than the 2 calendar year and dozens of
> person-year cycles required by some infrastructure-critical production
> environments.  It's even farther from the 7+ years that other FOSS
> distributions support their releases.

what FOSS distributions support releases for 7+ years for gratis?  One
pays for that kind of support.  Did your organization offer to pay for
extended support?


>> It's a business, right?  You aren't talking about a shoestring hobby.
> 
> There's no need to shoot the messenger here.  I may be expressing an
> opinion but it is one that is shared by all of my colleagues: developers,
> administrators and managers alike.

All your colleagues, developers, administrators, and managers want
enterprise level support without paying any money at all?   They *all*
think volunteers provide that level of support just because?  This is
not messenger-shooting, this is wondering what kind of place has
expectations like that.

I've never worked at a place like that.

John
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: ftp/pure-ftpd mysql auth from jail not working?

[Volodymyr Kostyrko]

Marko Cupać wrote:

Hi,

I have working pure-ftpd server on vmware-based 9.3-RELEASE-p33. It
authenticates virtual users from mysql server over tcp, and chroots them
to their directories.



Any idea why the same configuration does not work in jail-based host?


I can only guess wide: there's no connection to database. Whether you 
missed the difference between 'localhost' and '127.0.0.1' or the jail 
misses network connection to the server. Try connecting to the mysql 
database directly with a commandline client.


--
Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[Roger Marquis]

So, if it was too burdensome for the whole project to support
two trees (that probably was the estimate for the core developers
involved [and I'm not one of them]), why, do you think, would
it have worked for a sub-fraction of the project ?


Thanks Kurt, for cutting to the core issue.  It's one that has dogged
FreeBSD for some time now i.e., to either A) manage change-control with a
long term perspective with the goal of growing or at least retaining the
installed base of end-users or B) with a short-term perspective for the
benefit of our generous and skilled developers.


From a strictly end-user perspective I'd prefer if the skew went a little

more towards former (long-term planning) for both selfish (more FreeBSD
jobs) and shared (more stability, better security, fewer bugs) goals.
There's no getting around the budget, however, and hope that FreeBSD's
long-term viability plays a larger part in at least the Foundation's
efforts.

Roger
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[John Marino]

On 2/15/2016 6:31 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> Actually it made perfect sense... (for a change) ... make pkgng the
> default on 10.x and allow people to use either on 8.4 and 9.x ...  this
> made perfect sense...  Make base packaging using similar/same tools as
> part of 11+ makes perfect sense... 

It might make sense if you had zero knowledge of how ports are developed
and made the assumption they are synchronized to three base branches.
They aren't.

One ports tree, developed independently.


> No, though... arbitrary date set, f**k real users, f**k whether it
> works or not, because we need people to put it in production so we can
> test our buggy software...

Even with asterisks, I'm not happy with swear words like this on a mail
list.  Can we keep it cleaner?


> Line drawn - at the next major version...  that's an easy win... people
> can complain, but they can't argue that it isn't a good decision because
> they can choose... upgrade/don't upgrade... we didn't get the chance to
> choose ... it was forced down peoples necks... working or not. 
> Fortunately I was able to get the old system working again... and in
> fact keep it up to date until about 3 months ago... (and only stopped
> there because I have other things to do - will go back to it again later.)

See above, ports isn't tied to base releases and never has been AFAIK.
There were technical options to extend the time, the simplest being:
Don't update the ports tree!

Bring in security updates manually is a lot easier than migrating 50
servers and it's not that big a deal for a few months, and as I said, I
am sure your organisation could have paid a reasonable amount for
somebody to do it for you.

> Well I didn't know - despite following the conversations on the public
> lists - until 3 weeks before the event that the change was going to
> deliberately and irrevocably break the old systems... again...


As I said, I sympathize, but are you really going to point the fingers
at others before yourself here?


> Dunno about Roger, but I am and I had been campaigning internally about
> getting support for FreeBSD as a platform and support for the foundation
> in the way of devs and/or cash...  that is *never* going to happen now. 
> Money has been allocated and sent to Redhat (nothing to do with me, but
> the pkgng debacle left me without legs to argue the case, so the
> decision makers stuffed that.)

And the next linux-related fiasco experiences can be traced back to a
rash and technically questionable decision by all involved.  Good luck I
guess.  And what was the cost of the transition and what will be the TCO
over the next 10 years?  None of that money would have been better spent
on the encumbent system.  That's really hard to believe.


> That I can't (and won't) comment on, but I will tell you that's the
> reason all new servers I manage are being installed with CentOS+paid
> support contract and not FreeBSD+donation.  The bed was made by people,
> they can sleep in it.

And you probably spent magnitudes more than just getting a consultant to
help for a few months for a few hours a month.  It's easy to say
foundation would have gotten money but harder to believe if they never
got a donation in the past when everything was working okay, right?

John



___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[dr . klepp]

Am Montag, 15. Februar 2016 schrieb Roger Marquis:
> There are lots of reasons why Linux has effectively eclipsed BSD
> including device drivers, unattended deployments and install menus but
> 8.X's wholesale throwing of so many of us under the bus was by far the
> worst.

Well, have you experience with "systemd"? That's the Linux nemesis that drives 
people to *BSD - including me.

Nik


-- 
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with 
the NSA.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> > So, if it was too burdensome for the whole project to support
> > two trees (that probably was the estimate for the core developers
> > involved [and I'm not one of them]), why, do you think, would
> > it have worked for a sub-fraction of the project ?
> 
> Thanks Kurt, for cutting to the core issue.  It's one that has dogged
> FreeBSD for some time now i.e., to either A) manage change-control with a
> long term perspective with the goal of growing or at least retaining the
> installed base of end-users or B) with a short-term perspective for the
> benefit of our generous and skilled developers.

I've never met bapt, who implemented pkg, or bdrewery, but from
what I can see, implementing pkg was not a short-term project for them.

It was the only way out from the technical burden of the old scheme,
they saw the problem, and went to solve it.

If someone A wants someone B else to work harder for his own benefit:
You can always hope that B is doing it, but you can not expect it.

And it's a bit strange to disparage such a person with a snide remark
like 'short-term perspective'. It's always easy to argue from the
sideline.

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4 years to go !
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[Roger Marquis]

Ports have to support all supported releases, that's the only connection.


They have historically and for good reason.  Cross-platform ports are
FreeBSD's strongest feature, but it would not have taken a tremendous
amount of effort to have supported both pre- and post- ng trees in tandem
for say a year.


what FOSS distributions support releases for 7+ years for gratis?  One
pays for that kind of support.  Did your organization offer to pay for
extended support?


We would have loved to if that option had been available.  The cost would
have been minuscule compared to doing the same with contractors and
in-house devs.  Now that Xinuos is around we at least have that option.


All your colleagues, developers, administrators, and managers want
enterprise level support without paying any money at all?   They *all*
think volunteers provide that level of support just because?


Please don't make so many assumptions.  No BSD shop that I know of needs
enterprise level support.  Had that with Sun (SunSove) but they never had
ports much less a good security track record.  All we need is to be able
to compile ports and  patch the few kernel security issues that come up.
It's not something beyond the abilities of our community (IMO) but rather
more of a policy issue.

Roger
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: postfix-current is marked broken w.r.t SPF support, why?

[Michael Grimm]

Hi Olli —

On 14.02.2016, at 22:37, olli hauer  wrote:
> On 2016-02-08 20:13, Michael Grimm wrote:

>> I am wondering why postfix-current is still marked broken regarding SPF 
>> support:
>> 
>> | poudriere build log file excerpt:
>> |Finished build of mail/postfix-current: Ignored: is marked as broken: 
>> At the moment, SPF support is unavailable for postfix-3.0-20151003
>> 
>> Thus, I made a custom port removing this restriction in the Makefile, and 
>> that custom port compiles including SPF support:
>> 
>> | mail> pkg query %do postfix-custom
>> | security/openssl
>> | devel/icu
>> | mail/dovecot2
>> | mail/libspf2
>> | devel/pcre
>> 
>> | mail> pkg info | grep libspf
>> | libspf2-1.2.10_2   Sender Rewriting Scheme 2 C Implementation
>> 
>> | mail> ldd `which postfix`
>> | /usr/local/sbin/postfix:
>> |...
>> |libspf2.so.2 => /usr/local/lib/libspf2.so.2 (0x8024a8000)
>> |...
> 
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> until now the patch will not apply clean and there is no new patch available.
> If we remove the BROKEN message users getting perhaps no notification if 
> current will become the new default postfix
> 
> 
> ===> Fetching all distfiles required by postfix-current-3.0.20151003_1,4 for 
> building
> => SHA256 Checksum OK for postfix/postfix-3.0.3.tar.gz.
> => SHA256 Checksum OK for postfix/postfix-2.8.0-libspf2-1.2.x-0.patch.gz.
> ===> Patching for postfix-current-3.0.20151003_1,4
> ===> Applying distribution patches for postfix-current-3.0.20151003_1,4
> 1 out of 2 hunks failed--saving rejects to src/global/mail_params.c.rej
> 1 out of 7 hunks failed--saving rejects to src/smtpd/smtpd.c.rej
> 1 out of 3 hunks failed--saving rejects to src/smtpd/smtpd_check.c.rej
> *** Error code 1


Oh, I see. I didn't realize before that this SPF support will patch postfix and 
add functionality to deal with SPF in smptd, directly.

But that patch is old and made for a postfix version 2.8.x no longer supported 
upstream, and in addition, the author of postfix, Wietse, clearly states [1] 
that:

| Note: Postfix already ships with SPF support, in the form of a plug-in 
| policy daemon. This is the preferred integration model, at least until 
| SPF is mandated by standards. 

And in postfix source's examples/smtpd-policy directory the README.SPF states:

| See http://www.openspf.org/Software for the current version of the
| SPF policy daemon for Postfix.
|
| SPF support is also available via MILTER plugins, such as sid-milter
| at http://sourceforge.net/projects/sid-milter/ which implements both
| SenderID and SPF.

Hmm, please don't get me wrong, but wouldn't it be "better" to create a 
postfix28 port including that SPF patch for those in need of a smtpd built-in 
SPF functionality and create a stable postfix port (next week it will be 3.1) 
with just including libspf2 library and advise users to go with Wietse's 
recommendations to leave that SPF part for policy delegation? Especially with 
two ports available (postfix-policyd-spf-perl-2.010_1 and 
py27-postfix-policyd-spf-python-1.3.2_1), already.
 
Again, that's just my personal opinion, you are the maintainer, and: I might 
have missed reasons why that might be a bad idea of mine. And, as mentioned 
above, I don't even use SPF. I was only wondering, why postfix stable is still 
2.11 and came across postfix-current port with the BROKEN issue.

Thanks for all your work and regards,
Michael


[1] http://www.postfix.org/addon.html

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[Roger Marquis]

I've never met bapt, who implemented pkg, or bdrewery, but from
what I can see, implementing pkg was not a short-term project for them.


Short-term perspective != short-term project considering they're both
relative to the ecosystem.


It was the only way out from the technical burden of the old scheme,
they saw the problem, and went to solve it.


Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing here.  Most of us fully
support pkgng, it's devs and goals.  We can't say this loud enough:
Thanks Baptist!  Thanks Brian!  Thanks everyone who contributed!  This
is, however, tangental from discussions of how to implement change
control for the greatest good and least pain.  Such project management is
critical IMO for the future viability of FreeBSD, its end-users and
businesses that use it.


From another perspective it is a bit of a chicken and egg issue

considering that devs by nature, myself included, enjoy new features and
new code more than fixing bugs or long-term planning.  Bugs aside I think
we all would much rather be writing code or tweaking systems used by 100s
of thousands rather than simply thousands.  The point I'm trying to make
is:

 A) a larger FreeBSD end-users is worth the effort, and

 B) the way to get there, IMO, is with fewer upgrade hassles and better
 end-user APIs

MO perhaps but based on real world decisions at real world companies.


And it's a bit strange to disparage such a person with a snide remark
like 'short-term perspective'. It's always easy to argue from the
sideline.


Definetly not on the sideline having spent the better part of 30 years
years working with Unix and 21 with FreeBSD.  For the sake of open
discussion regarding substantive issues, however, I beg you take back or
better substantiate such grossly unfair and inaccurate characterizations.

Roger
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[Michelle Sullivan]

John Marino wrote:
> On 2/15/2016 6:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>   
>>> This makes no sense.  Ports are not tied to base releases.
>>> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
>>>   
>> There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know.  The issue was
>> with ports and by extension pkgng (and related -ngs).
>> 
>
> ports are developed independently.  They do not follow release
> schedules.  Ports have to support all supported releases, that's the
> only connection.
>   
Yeah, I'd agree with this... except...

pkg_* tools don't exist on 10.x only pkgng...  that makes it base os
thing.. even if it's downloaded in/via ports..

So sorry don't claim it's only part of the ports system, because whilst
it maybe built and administered there, the tools it replaced were
removed from the base OS at the very beginning of 10.x...

Michelle

-- 
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

How to set mariadb in /etc/make.conf DEFAULT_VERSIONS ?

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

What is the correct way to set the DEFAULT_VERSIONS to mariadb
in /etc/make.conf ?

I looked at /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk.

In /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.database.mk it looks like 101m is a valid value,
which would map to 

DEFAULT_VERSIONS= mysql=10.1m

Would this work ?

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4 years to go !
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

RE: How to set mariadb in /etc/make.conf DEFAULT_VERSIONS ?

[Ricky G]

> Hi!
> 
> What is the correct way to set the DEFAULT_VERSIONS to mariadb
> in /etc/make.conf ?
> 
> I looked at /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk.
> 
> In /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.database.mk it looks like 101m is a valid value,
> which would map to 
> 
> DEFAULT_VERSIONS= mysql=10.1m

DEFAULT_MYSQL_VER=101m
This is how I have it set. 
Hope this helps
Ricky 
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[John Marino]

On 2/15/2016 9:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> Yeah, I'd agree with this... except...
> 
> pkg_* tools don't exist on 10.x only pkgng...  that makes it base os
> thing.. even if it's downloaded in/via ports..
> 
> So sorry don't claim it's only part of the ports system, because whilst
> it maybe built and administered there, the tools it replaced were
> removed from the base OS at the very beginning of 10.x...

What stopped you from installing pkg_* tools from the ports tree on
10.x?  You're just talking about them being removed from base, but you
weren't prohibited from using the tools until they were removed from the
ports tree (and then you could have just frozen the tree while they were
still present)

Plus now you're in a weird place where you can freely migrate to the
latest release (10.x) but can't freely migrate package tools?

Michelle, it's seriously very weak to say ports are tied to releases
because something moved out of base.  Stuff moves out of base all the
time (and actually not fast enough).

JOhn
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: How to set mariadb in /etc/make.conf DEFAULT_VERSIONS ?

[Miroslav Lachman]

Kurt Jaeger wrote on 02/15/2016 22:10:

Hi!

What is the correct way to set the DEFAULT_VERSIONS to mariadb
in /etc/make.conf ?

I looked at /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk.

In /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.database.mk it looks like 101m is a valid value,
which would map to

DEFAULT_VERSIONS= mysql=10.1m

Would this work ?


I am not using 10.1, I am on 5.5 and have this in make.conf

DEFAULT_VERSIONS=apache=2.4 perl5=5.20 mysql=5.5m php=5.5 python=3.4 
pgsql=9.3


So if you want 10.1, you should use
DEFAULT_VERSIONS=mysql=10.1m

If somebody wants 10.0, then
DEFAULT_VERSIONS=mysql=10.0m

"m" is for MariaDB
"p" is for Percona


I think DEFAULT_MYSQL_VER=101m is wrong. bsd.detabase.mk has this warning:

.if defined(DEFAULT_MYSQL_VER)
WARNING+=   "DEFAULT_MYSQL_VER is defined, consider using 
DEFAULT_VERSIONS=mysql=${DEFAULT_MYSQL_VER} instead"

.endif

Miroslav Lachman
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

RE: How to set mariadb in /etc/make.conf DEFAULT_VERSIONS ?

[Ricky G]

> I think DEFAULT_MYSQL_VER=101m is wrong. bsd.detabase.mk has this warning:
> 
> .if defined(DEFAULT_MYSQL_VER)
> WARNING+=   "DEFAULT_MYSQL_VER is defined, consider using 
> DEFAULT_VERSIONS=mysql=${DEFAULT_MYSQL_VER} instead"
> .endif


Ah, I didn't realize it was deprecated. I had set this some time ago. Changing 
it now thanks =]

Ricky 
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[Jeffrey Bouquet via freebsd-ports]

On 02/15/2016 09:32, Roger Marquis wrote:
>> This makes no sense.  Ports are not tied to base releases.
>> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
>
> There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know.  The issue was
> with ports and by extension pkgng (and related -ngs).
>
>> You know good and well that people kick the can down the road FOREVER.
>> You could have announced it 3 years ahead and people would still scream
>> NOT YET!  NOT YET!  This would NEVER happen in Linux!
>
> The announcement
> 
>
> was dated Feb 3 2014, leaving all of 7 months until the planned
> deprecation.  Even if you could make a case that pkgng was ready (it
> wasn't) 7 months is far less than the 2 calendar year and dozens of
> person-year cycles required by some infrastructure-critical production
> environments.  It's even farther from the 7+ years that other FOSS
> distributions support their releases.

> Roger
> ___
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
IIRC pkg(ng) was why I joined the freebsd-current mailing list, arguing
there several times against
its abstraction from command-line pipe tricks on the /var/db/pkg
subfiles... by portmaster etc...
[ if not, it was the second issue posted about... ]


Since upgraded all systems (almost all) to pkg. (Not without breakage,
sorry to say, but did one or two
reinstalls of the OS, thankfully not on often-used systems...)

And have  a near-seamless twice-weekly upgrade.
...
However, I would surmise it best to eventually (as I stated before)
re-enable the pkg_tools as  a
parallel subsystem ( sort of like a shadow fallback /var/db/pkg if one's
sqlite3 file goes missing...)
(or an urgent-upgrade path with portmaster -d -B -P -i -g (or something
if the usual one is broken..)
Or even a 'pkg runs in a sandbox 'pkg upgrade' AND portmaster -d -B -P
-i -g and actually does the
upgrade that completes without error... maybe examinable by the user

However, that is all just a subset of the wish list here (like reverse
engineering the MOVED portmanager
and making it pkg-capable... )

 And some schemes I postulate here may be more doable on paper than
in practice...

BTW made synth ccache-aware and ran it for the first time 'en masse'
today.  Unclear whether it with
the build-only command, did actual installs or not, (some were listed as
FAILED) but it sure was
*pretty* ...  (red, green...) to see.

Apologies for treading off-topic.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: New user/group in /usr/ports/UIDs and /usr/ports/GIDs

[Matthias Fechner]

Am 15.02.2016 um 16:24 schrieb Kurt Jaeger:
>> it is not blocking in a hard way.
>> But if you have it installed you deinstall it and reinstall it again,
>> you maybe get permission problems, because the UID/GID for the gogs user
>> can change.
> 
> That's a valid point.
> 
> Is there a reason for the gogs user to have /bin/sh instead
> of /usr/sbin/nologin ?

yes, the shell is required, because the user will login using public ssh
key and then a git process is triggered to be able to push/pull via git.

Gruß
Matthias

-- 

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to
produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning." --
Rich Cook
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[Jim Ohlstein]

Hello,

On 2/15/16 3:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:

John Marino wrote:

On 2/15/2016 6:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:


This makes no sense.  Ports are not tied to base releases.
And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?


There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know.  The issue was
with ports and by extension pkgng (and related -ngs).



ports are developed independently.  They do not follow release
schedules.  Ports have to support all supported releases, that's the
only connection.


Yeah, I'd agree with this... except...

pkg_* tools don't exist on 10.x only pkgng...  that makes it base os
thing.. even if it's downloaded in/via ports..

So sorry don't claim it's only part of the ports system, because whilst
it maybe built and administered there, the tools it replaced were
removed from the base OS at the very beginning of 10.x...


This is like milking a dead cow here. Even if you get something out of 
it you're not going to drink it.


If you want to be using a 2014 OS in 2022, then a RHEL derived system is 
the product for you. Enjoy it. I don't believe that there is an upgrade 
path in RHEL, so you'll either have to retire hardware or nuke your 
systems to upgrade.


No one forced you to use 10.x before you were ready. 9 is still 
supported to this day. And as has been pointed out, pkg_ tools were in 
ports should you have wanted to continue to use them, and you could have 
kept them and frozen your ports tree, as has been pointed out.


Could the pkg(8) roll out have been handled better? Yes! Hey, I'm not 
happy about Bush v Gore in 2000 but I'm not still crying about it. 
You're frustrated, angry, bitter, whatever. I'm terribly sorry but it's 
ime to move on.


Red Hat, which is now your preferred product, is a for-profit company 
with over 8000 paid employees, many of whom are testing and testing and 
testing. They never update anything except at the point of a gun, and 
then only after extensive testing. On the plus side, it's stable. It 
never really changes. FreeBSD, on the other hand, is a comparatively 
small organization and an operating system that moves forward, though 
sometimes it's two steps forward and one back.. Some things need to be 
tested in the field to find out where and what needs to be 
changed/fixed/improved. That's the way it is. Was this an epic fail? 
That's a matter of opinion, though we all already know yours. The fact 
is that you had choices. You made those choices with your eyes open (if 
you didn't then shame on you!) and things didn't go as smoothly as you'd 
have liked. As I said, it's time to move on. Your arguments are specious.



--
Jim Ohlstein


"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the 
difference." - Mark Twain

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: New user/group in /usr/ports/UIDs and /usr/ports/GIDs

[Douglas Thrift]

On 2/15/2016 2:46 PM, Matthias Fechner wrote:
> Am 15.02.2016 um 16:24 schrieb Kurt Jaeger:
>>> it is not blocking in a hard way.
>>> But if you have it installed you deinstall it and reinstall it again,
>>> you maybe get permission problems, because the UID/GID for the gogs user
>>> can change.
>>
>> That's a valid point.
>>
>> Is there a reason for the gogs user to have /bin/sh instead
>> of /usr/sbin/nologin ?
> 
> yes, the shell is required, because the user will login using public ssh
> key and then a git process is triggered to be able to push/pull via git.
> 
> Gruß
> Matthias
> 

I mentioned this already on that ticket, but why use the user "gogs"
instead of "git" which is already used by the gitosis and gitolite
ports? That seems like a more standard thing to see in your git urls:

git clone g...@example.com vs git clone g...@example.com

-- 
Douglas William Thrift

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[Michelle Sullivan]

John Marino wrote:
> On 2/15/2016 9:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>   
>> Yeah, I'd agree with this... except...
>>
>> pkg_* tools don't exist on 10.x only pkgng...  that makes it base os
>> thing.. even if it's downloaded in/via ports..
>>
>> So sorry don't claim it's only part of the ports system, because whilst
>> it maybe built and administered there, the tools it replaced were
>> removed from the base OS at the very beginning of 10.x...
>> 
>
> What stopped you from installing pkg_* tools from the ports tree on
> 10.x? 
Which port, I wasn't even aware the pkg_* tools where there?  Not
forgetting they wouldn't actually work because the ports tree actively
installs and uses pkg (no matter what options you have) so you're
screwed regardless.

>  You're just talking about them being removed from base, but you
> weren't prohibited from using the tools until they were removed from the
> ports tree (and then you could have just frozen the tree while they were
> still present)
>   
Nice idea except there were a slew of vulnerabilities (notable openssl
IIRC) which had to be patched... and IIRC it wasn't even back ported to
the quarterly.. I know I asked for several patches to be put into the
quarterly and they never were (and one of those patches was on a port I
maintained.)

> Plus now you're in a weird place where you can freely migrate to the
> latest release (10.x) but can't freely migrate package tools?
>   
Sorry? 

pre 8.4 pkg_* only.
8.4 + 9.x pkg_* or pkgng - user choice.
10.x pkgng only.

Seems to be a good path to get people to switch without the pain.

> Michelle, it's seriously very weak to say ports are tied to releases
> because something moved out of base.  Stuff moves out of base all the
> time (and actually not fast enough).
>   
Wasn't the point I was making, but people will jump on that to give
weight to their argument.  I was supporting someone else's notion that
it would have been a lot more sensible and painless had it been done ...
(eg like I suggested above) ... however it wasn't.. arbitrary date
set...  That said, you cannot deny..  10.x didn't have working pkg_*
tools (as in usable - because bapt (and others) made sure there were so
many version checks so if you were on 10.x the ports tree would not use
pkg_* tools even if you went to the source and compiled them like I
did...  seems to me like they had already chosen to go the way I
suggested above, but too many people stayed clear of 10.0 so they forced
the issue on everyone else...  Here's the fact: I run configure and my
systems, not some random wheeny that wants me to debug their software. 
I know the 'wheeny' is friends with people on here.. and a lot more
respected by many than I ever will be when it comes to this mailing
list, but I really don't care, I say it how it is, you may agree or
disagree with me, I will respect you if you do, however you will never
change my mind nor will I just shut up and go away whilst I have a
single box affected (which means until they are all migrated.)

Michelle

-- 
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

[Baho Utot]

Michelle Sullivan wrote:

John Marino wrote:

On 2/15/2016 5:59 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
   

It was actually worse than that.  Those of us who questioned the wisdom
of such disruptive and backwards-incompatible changes being implemented
mid-release instead of at a release boundry were A) ignored, B) told that
there were not enough (developer) resources, and C) even the announcement
was unprofessional and lacked justification for the rush job:
 

This makes no sense.  Ports are not tied to base releases.
And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
   

Actually it made perfect sense... (for a change) ... make pkgng the
default on 10.x and allow people to use either on 8.4 and 9.x ...  this
made perfect sense...  Make base packaging using similar/same tools as
part of 11+ makes perfect sense...


No, though... arbitrary date set, f**k real users, f**k whether it
works or not, because we need people to put it in production so we can
test our buggy software...

   

   There comes a time in the life cycle of just about every software
   package that it has bee re-evaluated, refreshed, deprecated or just
   retired.

   It is time that we bid farewell to the old pkg_* software that has been
   part of FreeBSD since the beginning, and has served us well.  After
   years of development, testing, and playing, pkg(8) has become a
   suitable replacement.

"there comes a time"?  "time that we bid farewell"?  These are not
suitable criteria IMO for dropping support of mission-critical
subsystems.  The FreeBSD Foundation SHOULD have played a part in insuring
a smoother transition to pkgng (much less portsng and, gack, rcng) but
this doesn't seem to have been on their radar.
 

You know good and well that people kick the can down the road FOREVER.
You could have announced it 3 years ahead and people would still scream
NOT YET!  NOT YET!  This would NEVER happen in Linux!

It doesn't matter where you draw the line, you will never get everyone
to respect it.  It's never enough time.
   

Line drawn - at the next major version...  that's an easy win... people
can complain, but they can't argue that it isn't a good decision because
they can choose... upgrade/don't upgrade... we didn't get the chance to
choose ... it was forced down peoples necks... working or not.
Fortunately I was able to get the old system working again... and in
fact keep it up to date until about 3 months ago... (and only stopped
there because I have other things to do - will go back to it again later.)


 From my perspective as an advocate and long-time user (since 2.0.5) this
   

marked a low-point in the viability of FreeBSD vis-a-vis other FOSS
distributions.  Thankfully, going forward from FreeBSD 11 the release
cycle has been lengthened and base is going to be packaged.  Those of use
who support large numbers of dev and production systems can at least
expect that future upgrades won't be as time-consuming or, hopefully, as
buggy.
 

"large numbers of dev and production systems" (push to memory stack)



   

I believe this is factually incorrect.  We were aware but the decisions
were being made by core developers who were not, apparently, interested
in our concerns or the expected fallout.
 

So you chose to ignore the deadlines in the hopes the pleading would
work?  You intentionally did not prepare against the published timetable?
   

Well I didn't know - despite following the conversations on the public
lists - until 3 weeks before the event that the change was going to
deliberately and irrevocably break the old systems... again...

   

There was always the option of freezing the tree and pulling in the
security updates manually until you were ready to migrate to pkg(8) too.
   

Sure, if you can afford to pay a full-time core dev there's the option of
backporting but even this was made impractical by the simultaneous
deprecation of the pre-ng ports tree, make version and pkg format.
 

No, it's not fully time.  You just said "large numbers of dev and
production systems", so I am pretty confident the business case would
have been there for this.

It's a business, right?  You aren't talking about a shoestring hobby.
   

Dunno about Roger, but I am and I had been campaigning internally about
getting support for FreeBSD as a platform and support for the foundation
in the way of devs and/or cash...  that is *never* going to happen now.
Money has been allocated and sent to Redhat (nothing to do with me, but
the pkgng debacle left me without legs to argue the case, so the
decision makers stuffed that.)


There are lots of reasons why Linux has effectively eclipsed BSD
including device drivers, unattended deployments and install menus but
8.X's wholesale throwing of so many of us under the bus was by far the
worst.
 

And now the fully circle.  This is FreeBSD's Godwin's law.  You know the
discussion is over when somebody says that "[issue] of the day" is the
root cause of BSD being eclips

Re: Removing documentation

[Michelle Sullivan]

Jim Ohlstein wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 2/15/16 3:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>> John Marino wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2016 6:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>>>
> This makes no sense.  Ports are not tied to base releases.
> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
>
 There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know.  The
 issue was
 with ports and by extension pkgng (and related -ngs).

>>>
>>> ports are developed independently.  They do not follow release
>>> schedules.  Ports have to support all supported releases, that's the
>>> only connection.
>>>
>> Yeah, I'd agree with this... except...
>>
>> pkg_* tools don't exist on 10.x only pkgng...  that makes it base os
>> thing.. even if it's downloaded in/via ports..
>>
>> So sorry don't claim it's only part of the ports system, because whilst
>> it maybe built and administered there, the tools it replaced were
>> removed from the base OS at the very beginning of 10.x...
>
> This is like milking a dead cow here. Even if you get something out of
> it you're not going to drink it.

One of the reasons that over the last few months I have been ignoring
most threads on here and IRC... just looking for something I need to
know about only.
>
> If you want to be using a 2014 OS in 2022, then a RHEL derived system
> is the product for you. Enjoy it. I don't believe that there is an
> upgrade path in RHEL, so you'll either have to retire hardware or nuke
> your systems to upgrade.

I don't, I'm forced to now.

>
> No one forced you to use 10.x before you were ready. 9 is still
> supported to this day. And as has been pointed out, pkg_ tools were in
> ports should you have wanted to continue to use them, and you could
> have kept them and frozen your ports tree, as has been pointed out.
I don't have a 10.x box.  I do still have 40+ 9.x boxes and a non-frozen
ports tree where i have backported many of the new changes to the old
pkg_* system ... just because in the immortal words "these changes
cannot work with pkg_* tools, we needed to change everything to move
forward." (or something very close to those words.)

>
> Could the pkg(8) roll out have been handled better? Yes!


> Red Hat, which is now your preferred product, 
No, it's the product I have to use because that is now company policy.

> is a for-profit company with over 8000 paid employees, many of whom
> are testing and testing and testing. They never update anything except
> at the point of a gun, and then only after extensive testing. On the
> plus side, it's stable. It never really changes. FreeBSD, on the other
> hand, is a comparatively small organization and an operating system
> that moves forward, though sometimes it's two steps forward and one
> back.. Some things need to be tested in the field to find out where
> and what needs to be changed/fixed/improved. That's the way it is. Was
> this an epic fail? That's a matter of opinion, though we all already
> know yours. The fact is that you had choices. You made those choices
> with your eyes open (if you didn't then shame on you!) 

I have very little choice because whilst my eyes were open, I missed one
message ... *ONE* message that said (paraphrasing), "as of the EOL date
the old tools will be broken"


> and things didn't go as smoothly as you'd have liked. As I said, it's
> time to move on. Your arguments are specious.
>
>
Your assumptions about me and my motives are very specious.  I have
already moved on professionally (as in, in my job) and I replied to this
thread only to let the original poster know there were not alone in
their thoughts or arguments.  Others, you included have persisted in
telling me how and why I'm wrong without realising that if I amd wrong
so are you, just as if I am right so are you because I am talking about
my experience, observations and opinion, which are mine and mine alone,
you will keep the argument going whilst ever you deny my observations
and opinions.

-- 
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

textproc/xqilla shared lib question

[Henry Chan]

Hello,

I recently upgraded textproc/xqilla from version 2.3.0_3,1 to 2.3.2,1 and I 
have noticed that my applications have stopped working. The main problem is 
that libxqilla.so.6 is not found after the upgrade, only libxqilla.so.4.2.0 is 
available. Doing a pkg info for xqilla shows that libxqilla.so.4 is provided.

The pkg-plist also shows libxqilla.so.4.

The main question is: Why did the version go from 6 to 4?


Here is the pkg info for xqilla for both versions:

Name   : xqilla
Version: 2.3.2,1
Installed on   : Mon Feb 15 15:15:11 2016 PST
Origin : textproc/xqilla
Architecture   : freebsd:10:x86:64
Prefix : /usr/local
Categories : textproc
Licenses   : APACHE20
Maintainer : po...@freebsd.org
WWW: http://xqilla.sourceforge.net
Comment: XQuery and XPath2 library
Options:
DOXYGEN: off
Shared Libs required:
libtidy-0.99.so.0
libxerces-c-3.1.so
Shared Libs provided:
libxqilla.so.4
Annotations:
repo_type  : binary
repository : FreeBSD
Flat size  : 16.1MiB
Description:
XQilla is an XQuery and XPath 2 library and command line utility written
in C++, implemented on top of the Xerces-C library.



Name   : xqilla
Version: 2.3.0_3,1
Installed on   : Mon Nov  2 15:08:30 2015 PST
Origin : textproc/xqilla
Architecture   : freebsd:10:x86:64
Prefix : /usr/local
Categories : textproc
Licenses   : APACHE20
Maintainer : po...@freebsd.org
WWW: http://xqilla.sourceforge.net
Comment: XQuery and XPath2 library
Options:
DOCS   : off
Shared Libs required:
libstdc++.so.6
libxerces-c-3.1.so
Shared Libs provided:
libxqilla.so.6
Annotations:
repo_type  : binary
repository : qa
Flat size  : 17.6MiB
Description:
XQilla is an XQuery and XPath 2 library and command line utility written
in C++, implemented on top of the Xerces-C library.


Thanks
Henry
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

graphics/qgis: commit of PR 206834

[Rainer Hurling]

Hi committers,

is someone willing to commit bug 206834 [1]?

It is about activating some features by new options in QGIS and it is 
maintainer approved (by me).


Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Rainer Hurling


[1] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206834
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: graphics/qgis: commit of PR 206834

[Lars Engels]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 07:18:47AM +0100, Rainer Hurling wrote:
> Hi committers,
> 
> is someone willing to commit bug 206834 [1]?
> 
> It is about activating some features by new options in QGIS and it is 
> maintainer approved (by me).
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Best regards,
> Rainer Hurling
> 
> 
> [1] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206834

Hi Rainer,

the commit is in with a MFH request set.

Lars


pgp1JPN2Mt3Nm.pgp
Description: PGP signature