FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date
Dear port maintainer, The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your ports appears to be out of date.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 +-+ net/p5-Net-Ping | 2.41| 2.54 +-+ 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: make makepatch
Em qui, 27 de out de 2016 03:31, Franco Fichtner escreveu: > > > On 27 Oct 2016, at 8:28 AM, Jochen Neumeister > wrote: > > > > Is this now right, that i can only use the new patch in /files? With > > "make clean" i delete the work folder and the old patches. > > If all the previous patches patch a single file, makepatch will generate > the > patch for the file, because it doesn't care about the ptch context, just > the > file. > > If you want, you can deconstruct the new patch file and push the individual > chunks into their old files to silence portlint, but that only works if the > patches do not depend on each other. > > > Cheers, > Franco > ___ > 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" > Here, the procedure that I use to make patches is the follow. If a previously patch to file that need be edited exists in files dir # make patch // do my modificativos #make makepatch If a previously patch to file that need be edited do not exists in files dir # make patch // to extracto and apply patches to others files # cp work/blabla/file wor/blabla/file.orig // do my modificativos # make makepatch So, a New patch is created in files dir In a hope that can help []'s -Otacilio > ___ 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: lighttpd does not pull OpenSSL dependency
Le 26/10/2016 à 15:44, David Demelier a écrit : > 2016-10-26 10:46 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Arnold : >> Le 26/10/2016 à 00:14, Don Lewis a écrit : >>> Then the question is, if DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=openssl is not in >>> make.conf, then why is OpeSSL from ports installed? Nothing should >>> be depending on it. >> Well, the problem is that many ports have WITH_OPENSSL_PORT defined, so, >> something could have brought it along. I have a git branch changing it >> to WANT_OPENSSL_PORT that will mark the port IGNOREd if using base >> OpenSSL, I should commit it one day. >> >> Also, I'll change the default for ports from base to openssl, one day. > I can help if needed. Before changing the default, though, I need to change the way GSSAPI is handled, and create a DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=gssapi= and change all the ports with the USES=gssapi that gives options to the users. But I don't use all of that, so I need help figuring out which should be the default afterwards (it can't be base, because you can't mix base heimdal with non base openssl) -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: lighttpd does not pull OpenSSL dependency
> On 27 Oct 2016, at 11:00 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > Le 26/10/2016 à 15:44, David Demelier a écrit : >> 2016-10-26 10:46 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Arnold : >>> Le 26/10/2016 à 00:14, Don Lewis a écrit : Then the question is, if DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=openssl is not in make.conf, then why is OpeSSL from ports installed? Nothing should be depending on it. >>> Well, the problem is that many ports have WITH_OPENSSL_PORT defined, so, >>> something could have brought it along. I have a git branch changing it >>> to WANT_OPENSSL_PORT that will mark the port IGNOREd if using base >>> OpenSSL, I should commit it one day. >>> >>> Also, I'll change the default for ports from base to openssl, one day. >> I can help if needed. > > But I don't use all of that, so I need help figuring out which should be > the default afterwards (it can't be base, because you can't mix base > heimdal with non base openssl) Having stripped Kerberos from base for our 11.0 builds makes for a nice test bed in places where GSSAPI is not yet in a port, but actually required, leading to quick build errors. gssapi:heimdal is the closes thing to base as far as we could see, and we've rolled out several OPNsense releases with both OpenSSL and Heimdal from ports that work nicely with external AD servers. Cheers, Franco ___ 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: make makepatch
> On 27 Oct 2016, at 04:20, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > > Hi! > >> # portlint >> WARN: /usr/home/joneum/dev/ports/net/wpa_gui/files/patch-wpa_ctrl.c: >> patch was not generated using ``make makepatch''. It is recommended to >> use ``make makepatch'' when you need to [re-]generate a patch to ensure >> proper patch format. >> 0 fatal errors and 1 warning found. >> >> okay, i use "make makepatch", and copy the files from >> "work/.makepatch-tmp/archived-patches" to the "/files" folder, and start >> portlint. But, the same. >> >> what am i doing wrong? > > make makepatch places the corrected files into files/ and > the prevision version to work/.makepatch-tmp/archived-patches. > > So, I'd suggest: > > make patch > make makepatch > mv work work.old > portlint -AC > > and if portlint is silent, and all the necessary patches are in files/, > you're done. I only suggest to replace ‘make patch’ by: # make extract do-patch There are several ports that changes files using REINPLACE_CMD in post-patch: target, this way you will not run post-patch: and will not risky to end up converting REINPLACE_CMD into static patches. -- Renato Botelho ___ 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: lighttpd does not pull OpenSSL dependency
2016-10-27 11:00 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Arnold : > Before changing the default, though, I need to change the way GSSAPI is > handled, and create a DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=gssapi= > and change all the ports with the USES=gssapi that gives options to the > users. > But I don't use all of that, so I need help figuring out which should be > the default afterwards (it can't be base, because you can't mix base > heimdal with non base openssl) I've just tested my lighttpd package into a fresh jail, it has not installed openssl and the lighttpd binary was using /usr/lib/libssl from base instead. There is indeed something wrong then, because if I install openssl, lighttpd will use one from /usr/local/lib which is terrible as we have no guarantee about openssl ABI compatibility. I don't know much linker options, but it is possible to make absolute shared library dependency ? Like -l/usr/lib/libssl.so instead of -lssl. Will this force lighttpd to use openssl from base? That's what I dislike in having some software in base and also in ports. We need to figure out that. Or the best is to avoid having too much software in base. For example, it's nice to have ssh in base, but I have no problem if we need to install it in the next years. This will also have the benefits of more recent versions. By the way, for what openssl is needed in base? Regards, -- Demelier David ___ 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: lighttpd does not pull OpenSSL dependency
Le 27/10/2016 à 14:49, David Demelier a écrit : > 2016-10-27 11:00 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Arnold : >> Before changing the default, though, I need to change the way GSSAPI is >> handled, and create a DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=gssapi= >> and change all the ports with the USES=gssapi that gives options to the >> users. >> But I don't use all of that, so I need help figuring out which should be >> the default afterwards (it can't be base, because you can't mix base >> heimdal with non base openssl) > I've just tested my lighttpd package into a fresh jail, it has not > installed openssl and the lighttpd binary was using /usr/lib/libssl > from base instead. > > There is indeed something wrong then, because if I install openssl, > lighttpd will use one from /usr/local/lib which is terrible as we have > no guarantee about openssl ABI compatibility. > > I don't know much linker options, but it is possible to make absolute > shared library dependency ? Like -l/usr/lib/libssl.so instead of > -lssl. Will this force lighttpd to use openssl from base? Once you install openssl from ports, the ports framework will use it, always. If you do not want openssl from ports, do not install it. > That's what I dislike in having some software in base and also in > ports. We need to figure out that. Or the best is to avoid having too > much software in base. For example, it's nice to have ssh in base, but > I have no problem if we need to install it in the next years. This > will also have the benefits of more recent versions. Well, openssl should be moved to a private space in base, yes. > By the way, for what openssl is needed in base? With a quick run of ldd in base and a grep of libcrypto and libssl, I get: /bin/ed /bin/red /lib/libcrypto.so.8 /sbin/hastctl /sbin/hastd /usr/bin/bdes /usr/bin/dc /usr/bin/drill /usr/bin/factor /usr/bin/hxtool /usr/bin/kadmin /usr/bin/kinit /usr/bin/kpasswd /usr/bin/ksu /usr/bin/ntpq /usr/bin/openssl /usr/bin/slogin /usr/bin/ssh-agent /usr/bin/ssh-keygen /usr/bin/ssh /usr/bin/string2key /usr/bin/svnlite /usr/bin/svnlitebench /usr/bin/svnlitemucc /usr/bin/svnliterdump /usr/bin/svnlitesync /usr/bin/telnet /usr/lib/libarchive.so.6 /usr/lib/libbsnmp.so.6 /usr/lib/libfetch.so.6 /usr/lib/libgssapi_krb5.so.10 /usr/lib/libheimntlm.so.11 /usr/lib/libhx509.so.11 /usr/lib/libkrb5.so.11 /usr/lib/libmp.so.7 /usr/lib/libprivateldns.so.5 /usr/lib/libprivatessh.so.5 /usr/lib/libprivateunbound.so.5 /usr/lib/libradius.so.4 /usr/lib/libssl.so.8 /usr/sbin/auditdistd /usr/sbin/hostapd /usr/sbin/kstash /usr/sbin/ktutil /usr/sbin/ntp-keygen /usr/sbin/ntpd /usr/sbin/ntpdate /usr/sbin/ntpdc /usr/sbin/pkg /usr/sbin/ppp /usr/sbin/sntp /usr/sbin/sshd /usr/sbin/tcpdump /usr/sbin/uefisign /usr/sbin/unbound-anchor /usr/sbin/unbound-control /usr/sbin/unbound /usr/sbin/wpa_supplicant -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: lighttpd does not pull OpenSSL dependency
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 03:05:03PM +0200 I heard the voice of Mathieu Arnold, and lo! it spake thus: > > Once you install openssl from ports, the ports framework will use > it, always. That is absolutely not the case since OpenSSL in base was updated to .so.8 and ports wasn't re-bumped past it. Everything gets confused all the time. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209582 Even in an e.g. net/ntp rebuilt just now: % ldd /usr/local/sbin/ntpd | grep -E '(crypto|ssl)' libcrypto.so.8 => /usr/local/lib/libcrypto.so.8 (0x800cea000) libssl.so.8 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.8 (0x801ae6000) Just looking at a ldd through /usr/local I'm finding tons of things that are still linking to base libcrypto. STuff from ldns, nginx, Virtualbox, libwww, lots of X pieces... This makes me *EXTREMELY* nervous about upgrading _any_ systems where I'm using ports OpenSSL to stable/11. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fulle...@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream. ___ 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: lighttpd does not pull OpenSSL dependency
On Oct 27 10:00, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 03:05:03PM +0200 I heard the voice of Mathieu Arnold, and lo! it spake thus: Once you install openssl from ports, the ports framework will use it, always. That is absolutely not the case since OpenSSL in base was updated to .so.8 and ports wasn't re-bumped past it. Everything gets confused all the time. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209582 Even in an e.g. net/ntp rebuilt just now: % ldd /usr/local/sbin/ntpd | grep -E '(crypto|ssl)' libcrypto.so.8 => /usr/local/lib/libcrypto.so.8 (0x800cea000) libssl.so.8 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.8 (0x801ae6000) Just looking at a ldd through /usr/local I'm finding tons of things that are still linking to base libcrypto. STuff from ldns, nginx, Virtualbox, libwww, lots of X pieces... This makes me *EXTREMELY* nervous about upgrading _any_ systems where I'm using ports OpenSSL to stable/11. I don't see this on my system which is FreeBSD 11.0-STABLE #0 r307132 $ ldd /usr/local/sbin/ntpd | grep -E '(crypto|ssl)' libcrypto.so.38 => /usr/local/lib/libcrypto.so.38 (0x800cee000) libssl.so.39 => /usr/local/lib/libssl.so.39 (0x801aca000) Most likely because I have correctly declared the default version of the SSL library by putting DEFAULT_VERSIONS=ssl=libressl-devel in make.conf. Without declaring it specifically like that I wouldn't trust the system to do it automatically either. -- Matt ___ 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: lighttpd does not pull OpenSSL dependency
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 04:22:09PM +0100 I heard the voice of Matt Smith, and lo! it spake thus: > > I don't see this on my system which is FreeBSD 11.0-STABLE #0 r307132 > > $ ldd /usr/local/sbin/ntpd | grep -E '(crypto|ssl)' > libcrypto.so.38 => /usr/local/lib/libcrypto.so.38 (0x800cee000) > libssl.so.39 => /usr/local/lib/libssl.so.39 (0x801aca000) > > Most likely because I have correctly declared the default version of the > SSL library by putting DEFAULT_VERSIONS=ssl=libressl-devel in make.conf. You're using libressl, which has a totally different SOVERSION, so it can't flip itself back and forth. openssl has the same SOVERSION. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fulle...@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream. ___ 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: lighttpd does not pull OpenSSL dependency
On Oct 27 16:22, Matt Smith wrote: I don't see this on my system which is FreeBSD 11.0-STABLE #0 r307132 $ ldd /usr/local/sbin/ntpd | grep -E '(crypto|ssl)' libcrypto.so.38 => /usr/local/lib/libcrypto.so.38 (0x800cee000) libssl.so.39 => /usr/local/lib/libssl.so.39 (0x801aca000) Oh never mind, I guess it's because the so revision is 38/39 whereas in openssl it's 8 the same as the base version. Sorry for the noise! -- Matt ___ 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: lighttpd does not pull OpenSSL dependency
Le 27/10/2016 à 17:00, Matthew D. Fuller a écrit : > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 03:05:03PM +0200 I heard the voice of > Mathieu Arnold, and lo! it spake thus: >> Once you install openssl from ports, the ports framework will use >> it, always. > That is absolutely not the case since OpenSSL in base was updated to > .so.8 and ports wasn't re-bumped past it. Everything gets confused > all the time. Well, that is another problem, and you are right, OpenSSL's shlib should have been bumped, blame the former maintainer for that. I'll talk to the new maintainer about that. > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209582 > > Even in an e.g. net/ntp rebuilt just now: > > % ldd /usr/local/sbin/ntpd | grep -E '(crypto|ssl)' > libcrypto.so.8 => /usr/local/lib/libcrypto.so.8 (0x800cea000) > libssl.so.8 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.8 (0x801ae6000) > > Just looking at a ldd through /usr/local I'm finding tons of things > that are still linking to base libcrypto. STuff from ldns, nginx, > Virtualbox, libwww, lots of X pieces... > > This makes me *EXTREMELY* nervous about upgrading _any_ systems where > I'm using ports OpenSSL to stable/11. > > -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: WIP: lang/php71
> Am 26.10.2016 um 14:28 schrieb Torsten Zuehlsdorff : > > Aloha, > > PHP 7.1 RC5 was released and it will hopefully not too far until the full > release. Therefore i started some work on the new port. > > Sadly i haven't had much time in the last, so its not too much. Currently i > just added lang/php71, pet portlint a little and test a little of the basics. > > Of course all 60+ extensions are missing, but i centered my affords at the > core. It should be relatively easy to add them. > > If you want to test or participate you can use my ports-tree copy from GitLab: > > $ git clone https://github.com/t-zuehlsdorff/freebsd-ports > $ git checkout php71 > > Feel free to add what you want and do a pull request! Thanks! I forked and am working on the php71-pgsql now. Is it a good idea to do pull requests per port? E.g. after having them run through poudriere testport without hiccups? Martin ___ 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: lighttpd does not pull OpenSSL dependency
Le 27/10/2016 à 20:36, Matthew D. Fuller a écrit : > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 06:35:25PM +0200 I heard the voice of > Mathieu Arnold, and lo! it spake thus: >> Well, that is another problem, and you are right, OpenSSL's shlib >> should have been bumped, blame the former maintainer for that. I'll >> talk to the new maintainer about that. > The argument could be made that (a) OpenSSL 1.1.0 is gonna be released > and brought into ports Any Day Now and it already has a different > shlibver (and that would get us back on parity with upstream, for what > that's worth), and (b) by the time 11-CURRENT (where you gotta expect > bumps) becomes 11-STABLE, base openssl will be private-ized anyway. > > It's a good couple theories... Yes, well, OpenSSL 1.1.0 was released, in late august, it was committed without any kind of test, and broke many things, which is why I reverted it. So, yes, it could come along any day, but the shlib number is just an artificial number, it should have been bumped months ago, and it still has not. -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: lighttpd does not pull OpenSSL dependency
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 06:35:25PM +0200 I heard the voice of Mathieu Arnold, and lo! it spake thus: > > Well, that is another problem, and you are right, OpenSSL's shlib > should have been bumped, blame the former maintainer for that. I'll > talk to the new maintainer about that. The argument could be made that (a) OpenSSL 1.1.0 is gonna be released and brought into ports Any Day Now and it already has a different shlibver (and that would get us back on parity with upstream, for what that's worth), and (b) by the time 11-CURRENT (where you gotta expect bumps) becomes 11-STABLE, base openssl will be private-ized anyway. It's a good couple theories... -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fulle...@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream. ___ 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: make makepatch
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Jochen Neumeister wrote:
>
>
> On 27.10.2016 08:08, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>>> On 27 Oct 2016, at 7:53 AM, Jochen Neumeister wrote:
>>>
>>> No, make makepatch delete the patches into /files and:
>> If there are no patches in files/ maybe you have no patches applied
>> in the work/ dir? Does running "make patch" before makepatch help?
>>
>>
> Hm that is interesting.
>
> make patch: there are 3 patches into /file
>
> make makepatch: now the 3 files are removed, but:
>
> make makepatch
> Generated patch-wpagui.cpp
> The previous patches have been placed here:
> /usr/home/joneum/dev/ports/net/wpa_gui/work/.makepatch-tmp/archived-patches
>
> Now I'm confused. After "make patch" and "make makepatch", there is only
> one "new" patch in files:
>
> /home/joneum/dev/ports/net/wpa_gui/files # ls
> patch-wpagui.cpp pkg-message.in
>
> and in work/.makepatch-tmp/archived-patches: # ls
> patch-os_unix.c patch-wpa_ctrl.c patch-wpagui.cpp
>
> Is this now right, that i can only use the new patch in /files? With
> "make clean" i delete the work folder and the old patches.
Here is the problem:
The port redefines WRKSRC by setting WRKSRC_SUBDIR=
wpa_supplicant/wpa_gui-qt4, but the two patches that did not get
generated are outside of WRKSRC. The easiest thing to do is:
1) clean everything up
2) run "make patch"
3) add PATCH_WRKSRC= ${WRKDIR}/${DISTNAME} to the port Makefile
4) run "make makepatch"
That should regenerate the patches and subsequently rename them.
Remind the committer to do "svn mv" to rename the patches instead of
deleting and re-adding them.
Cheers,
Jason
___
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"
