Re: intellij-ultimate looking for a commiter

2017-12-14 Thread Boris Samorodov 
14.12.2017 09:25, abi пишет:
> Hello,
> 
> can you review and commit
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222472 ? I use it for
> 2 months for myself and it's definitely works.

I'll take care of it.

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

FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date

2017-12-14 Thread 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ports appears to be out of date.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
+-+
games/pysolfc   | 2.0 | 2.1.2
+-+
lang/adacontrol | 1.18r9  | 1.19r10
+-+


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: portmaster with FLAVOR support available for testing

2017-12-14 Thread Walter Schwarzenfeld 

Btw, I think it has nothing to do with FLAVOR, I found this (bug?)

sudo portmaster py27-setuptools

===>>> Working on:
    py27-setuptools-36.5.0
    py27-setuptools_scm-1.15.5

I only try to build py27-setuptools and portmaster wants to build 
py27-setuptools_scm too.


(The old portmaster version and the new)

___
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: portmaster with FLAVOR support available for testing

2017-12-14 Thread Walter Schwarzenfeld 

Sorry, my fault:

I have to do

portmaster devel/py27-setuptools

___
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: Linux ports tutorial? WPS Office

2017-12-14 Thread Pedro Giffuni 



On 12/13/17 22:31, blubee blubeeme wrote:



On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Pedro Giffuni > wrote:


Hello;


On 13/12/2017 21:11, Chris H wrote:

On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:56:24 -0500 "Pedro Giffuni"
 said

On 12/10/17 14:55, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 11.12.2017 2:22, Pedro Giffuni пишет:
>> Hello guys;
>>
>> I would like to attempt a port for WPS Office (AKA
Kingsoft Office):
>>
>> http://wps-community.org/
>>
>> Are there guidelines for linux ports? I couldn't find
much details in the
> handbook.
>>
>> In particular, how do you handle when the pkg-plist is
different for i386
> and amd64?
>>
>> Some ports use pkg-plist.${ARCH}  but I don't know how
those work.
> Just have "USES=linux", "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes" and make
these two files
> pkg-plist.i386 and pkg-plist.amd64
> and they are used automatically. Or you could duplicate
a magic from
> /ports/Mk/Uses/linux.mk  in your Makefile:
>
> PLIST?= ${PKGDIR}/pkg-plist.${LINUX_ARCH:S/x86_64/amd64/}
>
> For details, read Porter's Handbook:
>
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/


>

The handbook has no information about "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes".
If I set that it appears the ports framework will ignore
MASTER_SITES.

Should I dig into the MK framework to see how to change
the repository or should I use the .tar.xz distribution
instead? :(.

I'm not sure. But would having a look at the way
emulators/linux_base-c(6|7)
provide some clues?


Not really but I think I found something in Mk/Uses/linux.mk
:

For the case of USE_LINUX_RPM it is supposed to not do anything
when MASTER_SITES is defined but it is somewhat messy, and somehow
it always uses ${MASTER_SITE_CENTOS_LINUX}. Any port that uses RPM
but not the Centos repositories?

Just a thought, and hope it helps!

Thanks, I just have to keep digging :(.

Pedro.


___
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
"


The linux packaging is okay but I'd recommend learning how the porting 
process and not just wrapping up a linux binary in FreeBSD.




Well ... of course if I had the source code I would not be dealing RPMs 
for the linuxulator.


Software can be free but not include source code.  It can still be 
desirable for FreeBSD.


The main reason for that is you can port your way into a corner that 
relies on very Linux specific stuff that there's just no solution for 
yet nor will there be one unless you port the entire Linux kernel to 
FreeBSD.




Which is why we have a linuxulator.

Pedro.

___
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: Linux ports tutorial? WPS Office

2017-12-14 Thread blubee blubeeme 
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 22:15 Pedro Giffuni  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/13/17 22:31, blubee blubeeme wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
>
>> Hello;
>>
>>
>> On 13/12/2017 21:11, Chris H wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:56:24 -0500 "Pedro Giffuni" 
>>>  said
>>>
>>> On 12/10/17 14:55, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
 > 11.12.2017 2:22, Pedro Giffuni пишет:
 >> Hello guys;
 >>
 >> I would like to attempt a port for WPS Office (AKA Kingsoft Office):
 >>
 >> http://wps-community.org/
 >>
 >> Are there guidelines for linux ports? I couldn't find much details
 in the
 > handbook.
 >>
 >> In particular, how do you handle when the pkg-plist is different for
 i386
 > and amd64?
 >>
 >> Some ports use pkg-plist.${ARCH}  but I don't know how those work.
 > Just have "USES=linux", "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes" and make these two files
 > pkg-plist.i386 and pkg-plist.amd64
 > and they are used automatically. Or you could duplicate a magic from
 > /ports/Mk/Uses/linux.mk in your Makefile:
 >
 > PLIST?= ${PKGDIR}/pkg-plist.${LINUX_ARCH:S/x86_64/amd64/}
 >
 > For details, read Porter's Handbook:
 > https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/
 >

 The handbook has no information about "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes".
 If I set that it appears the ports framework will ignore MASTER_SITES.

 Should I dig into the MK framework to see how to change the repository
 or should I use the .tar.xz distribution instead? :(.

>>> I'm not sure. But would having a look at the way
>>> emulators/linux_base-c(6|7)
>>> provide some clues?
>>>
>>>
>> Not really but I think I found something in Mk/Uses/linux.mk:
>>
>> For the case of USE_LINUX_RPM it is supposed to not do anything when
>> MASTER_SITES is defined but it is somewhat messy, and somehow it always
>> uses ${MASTER_SITE_CENTOS_LINUX}. Any port that uses RPM but not the Centos
>> repositories?
>>
>> Just a thought, and hope it helps!
>>>
>>> Thanks, I just have to keep digging :(.
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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"
>>
>
> The linux packaging is okay but I'd recommend learning how the porting
> process and not just wrapping up a linux binary in FreeBSD.
>
>
> Well ... of course if I had the source code I would not be dealing RPMs
> for the linuxulator.
>
> Software can be free but not include source code.  It can still be
> desirable for FreeBSD.
>
>
> The main reason for that is you can port your way into a corner that
> relies on very Linux specific stuff that there's just no solution for yet
> nor will there be one unless you port the entire Linux kernel to FreeBSD.
>
>
> Which is why we have a linuxulator.
>
>
> Pedro.
>
What's in these tar.gz files here: http://wps-community.org/downloads
>
___
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: Linux ports tutorial? WPS Office

2017-12-14 Thread Kurt Jaeger 
Hi!

> > Well ... of course if I had the source code I would not be dealing RPMs
> > for the linuxulator.
[...]

> What's in these tar.gz files here: http://wps-community.org/downloads

I've downloaded 

http://kdl1.cache.wps.com/ksodl/download/linux/a21//wps-office_10.1.0.5707~a21_x86_64.tar.xz

and found binaries for linux, but no source code.

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 3 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: Linux ports tutorial? WPS Office

2017-12-14 Thread Pedro Giffuni 



On 12/14/17 10:57, blubee blubeeme wrote:




On Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 22:15 Pedro Giffuni > wrote:




On 12/13/17 22:31, blubee blubeeme wrote:



On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Pedro Giffuni mailto:p...@freebsd.org>> wrote:

Hello;


On 13/12/2017 21:11, Chris H wrote:

On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:56:24 -0500 "Pedro Giffuni"
  said

On 12/10/17 14:55, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 11.12.2017 2:22, Pedro Giffuni пишет:
>> Hello guys;
>>
>> I would like to attempt a port for WPS Office (AKA
Kingsoft Office):
>>
>> http://wps-community.org/
>>
>> Are there guidelines for linux ports? I couldn't
find much details in the
> handbook.
>>
>> In particular, how do you handle when the
pkg-plist is different for i386
> and amd64?
>>
>> Some ports use pkg-plist.${ARCH}  but I don't know
how those work.
> Just have "USES=linux", "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes" and
make these two files
> pkg-plist.i386 and pkg-plist.amd64
> and they are used automatically. Or you could
duplicate a magic from
> /ports/Mk/Uses/linux.mk  in your
Makefile:
>
> PLIST?=
${PKGDIR}/pkg-plist.${LINUX_ARCH:S/x86_64/amd64/}
>
> For details, read Porter's Handbook:
>

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/
>

The handbook has no information about
"USE_LINUX_RPM=yes".
If I set that it appears the ports framework will
ignore MASTER_SITES.

Should I dig into the MK framework to see how to
change the repository or should I use the .tar.xz
distribution instead? :(.

I'm not sure. But would having a look at the way
emulators/linux_base-c(6|7)
provide some clues?


Not really but I think I found something in Mk/Uses/linux.mk
:

For the case of USE_LINUX_RPM it is supposed to not do
anything when MASTER_SITES is defined but it is somewhat
messy, and somehow it always uses
${MASTER_SITE_CENTOS_LINUX}. Any port that uses RPM but not
the Centos repositories?

Just a thought, and hope it helps!

Thanks, I just have to keep digging :(.

Pedro.


___
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
"


The linux packaging is okay but I'd recommend learning how the
porting process and not just wrapping up a linux binary in FreeBSD.



Well ... of course if I had the source code I would not be dealing
RPMs for the linuxulator.

Software can be free but not include source code.  It can still be
desirable for FreeBSD.



The main reason for that is you can port your way into a corner
that relies on very Linux specific stuff that there's just no
solution for yet nor will there be one unless you port the entire
Linux kernel to FreeBSD.



Which is why we have a linuxulator.


Pedro.

What's in these tar.gz files here: http://wps-community.org/downloads


binaries:

libauth.so  libtiff.so.4
libavcodec.so   libtiff.so.4.3.4
libavcodec.so.57    libtxtrw.so
libavcodec.so.57.24.102 libwordconvert.so
libavformat.so  libwordml12w.so
libavformat.so.57   libwppcore.so
libavformat.so.57.25.100    libwpsdocxrw.so
libavutil.so    libwpshtmlrw.so
libavutil.so.55 libwpsio.so
libavutil.so.55.17.103  libwpstablestyle.so
libc++.so   libwpswordtool.so
libc++.so.1 libwpsxmlrw.so
libc++.so.1.0   libxercesc3.so
libc++abi.so    libxlsxrw.so
libc++abi.so.1  mui
libc++abi.so.1.0    qt
libdap.so   qt.conf
libdocreader.so res
libdocwriter.so skins
libethtmlrw2.so thirdpartylegalnotices.txt
libethtmrw.so   transerr
libetsolver.so  wpp
libetxmlrw.so   wps
...
___
fre

Suggesting new virtual categories: physics and chemistry

2017-12-14 Thread Yuri 

Some ports naturally fall under these categories:

https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13481


Thanks,
Yuri

___
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"

Deprecated variables are being removed

2017-12-14 Thread Adam Weinberger 
Real Soon Now(tm), support for deprecated variables (some of which have  
carried warnings for over 4 years) will be removed. If you use any of the  
following constructs (usually in /etc/make.conf), you must switch to the  
new incantations, or port builds will fail.


WITH_[...] / WITHOUT_[...]
  ->  OPTIONS_SET=[...] / OPTIONS_UNSET=[...]
WITHOUT_NLS
  ->  OPTIONS_UNSET=NLS
NOPORTDOCS
  ->  OPTIONS_UNSET=DOCS
NOPORTEXAMPLES
  ->  OPTIONS_UNSET=EXAMPLES
WITH_BDB_VER=[...]
  ->  DEFAULT_VERSIONS+= bdb=[...]
OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT=[...]
  ->  DEFAULT_VERSIONS+= linux=[...]
WITH_OPENSSL_BASE
  ->  DEFAULT_VERSIONS+= ssl=base
WITH_OPENSSL_PORT
  ->  DEFAULT_VERSIONS+= ssl=openssl

There is a Phabric review for the change at  
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13490.


# Adam


--
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
http://www.adamw.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: Suggesting new virtual categories: physics and chemistry

2017-12-14 Thread RW via freebsd-ports 
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 08:47:38 -0800
Yuri wrote:

> Some ports naturally fall under these categories:
> 
> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13481

Science isn't particularly large:


$ for d in `make -V SUBDIR` ;do  echo  "`find $d/ -maxdepth 1 -type d
|wc -l`  $d"   ;done  |sort -n | tail -n 30
 179  converters
 191  emulators
 195  x11-fonts
 196  science
 199  net-im
 209  comms
 222  dns
 248  archivers
 253  editors
 269  print
 283  deskutils
 295  x11-toolkits
 301  japanese
 362  lang
 391  net-mgmt
 459  multimedia
 513  misc
 535  x11
 749  mail
 754  math
 895  audio
1044  databases
1120  graphics
1200  games
1274  security
1364  sysutils
1481  net
1810  textproc
2543  www
6105  devel
___
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: Suggesting new virtual categories: physics and chemistry

2017-12-14 Thread Yuri 

On 12/14/17 10:05, RW via freebsd-ports wrote:

Science isn't particularly large:



This is for search and categorization purposes. They aren't going to be 
moved, category will be added to the list of relevant categories.



Yuri

___
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: Suggesting new virtual categories: physics and chemistry

2017-12-14 Thread Adam Weinberger 

On 14 Dec, 2017, at 9:47, Yuri  wrote:

Some ports naturally fall under these categories:

https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13481


Thanks,
Yuri


I am a big fan of virtual categories. They make wading through the nearly  
30,000 ports a much easier task. It's even more important for specialized  
fields of study.


The downside to categories is that they make it WORSE if they're not  
maintained. Part of the new category process is making 100% sure that all  
chemistry and physics ports are located (be sure to look in biology/ and  
math/ too).


There's no minimum number of ports required to create a category, and  
precedent is simply "more than a few." Six ports (as proposed for physics)  
is almost certainly too low. It might be more useful to just make sure that  
the word "physics" appears in the COMMENT for those ports.


# Adam


--
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
http://www.adamw.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: Suggesting new virtual categories: physics and chemistry

2017-12-14 Thread Yuri 

On 12/14/17 10:44, Adam Weinberger wrote:



There's no minimum number of ports required to create a category, and 
precedent is simply "more than a few." Six ports (as proposed for 
physics) is almost certainly too low. It might be more useful to just 
make sure that the word "physics" appears in the COMMENT for those ports. 



This isn't a finished process. I have about 5 more physics ports, and 
there are some to be added to the list fro graphics/ like "bullet", 
"py-bullet". This is the reason I started this.



Yuri

___
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"

github: handmade vs autogenerated distibution

2017-12-14 Thread Sergei Vyhenski 

Hi,

Some projects on Github provide handmade distribution tarball (let us 
call it H-tarball) for a release.
The contents of this H-tarball could be essentially different from the 
check-out'ed source. The latter being identical to the autogenerated 
tarball (let us call it A-tarball), which we get with USE_GITHUB 
construct in the port's Makefile.


H-tarball could contain files, which are missing from the A-tarball, 
such as:

- configure script,
- several Makefile's
- documentation prebuilt from several formats

In one example (which is expat, see below) - to build documentation 
(seems like) it requires this very expat to be installed in advance, 
thus bringing us to the cycle dependency. No wonder that the author of 
expat went into trouble and provided the H-tarball.


Hence, building from A-tarball becomes a challenging task, which goes 
far beyond from saying "USES=autoreconf gmake" and "GNU_CONFIGURE=yes".


Example for textproc/expat2 ver. 2.5.5:
H-tarball:
https://github.com/libexpat/libexpat/releases/download/R_2_2_5/expat-2.2.5.tar.bz2
source:
https://github.com/libexpat/libexpat/tree/master/expat
A-tarball:
https://codeload.github.com/libexpat/libexpat/tar.gz/R_2_2_5?dummy=/R_2_2_5_GH0.tar.bz2

Playing with GH_* variables, I was able to fetch A-tarball within 
guidelines of

bsd.sites.mk.

But to fetch H-tarball, I could only invent the following:

PORTNAME=   expat
PORTVERSION=    2.2.5
MASTER_SITES= 
https://github.com/libexpat/libexpat/releases/download/R_${PORTVERSION:S|.|_|g}/


Also, this project has declared that it moves from SF to GH. It still 
publishes H-tarballs on SF. But it seems that switching of the FreeBSD 
port to take distribution from GH is inevitable.


Do you think that explicit MASTER_SITES instead of USE_GITHUB (thus 
using H-tarball) here contradicts to some rules of good stile?


Do you think that fighting with A-tarball is always necessary?

Regards, Sergei
___
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"

portmaster now supports FLAVORs

2017-12-14 Thread Stefan Esser 
I have just committed the upgrade of portmaster to a version with flavor
support.

You need to upgrade portmaster on its own (e.g. by "portmaster portmaster")
and it should then be possible to use "portmaster -a" with flavored and
non-flavored ports (and automatically re-install ports, that have been
converted to generic versions with flavors).

Please let me know, if you notice any deviations from previous behavior.

Regards, STefan
___
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: OSS Audio

2017-12-14 Thread Sid 
> I prefer simplicity over complexity,
All ports and packages should be built with audio/sndio and audio/portaudio 
(not pulseaudio) as default for the front end to the FreeBSD's native OSS 
backend.

> I want the best possible audio for my system. I work with synthesizers and
> audio programs a lot and on Linux for pro audio everyone recommended using
> Jack sound server, which was always a pain to maintain, keep connections
> between sessions, etc...

> After learning more about audio, I realized that Jack only complicated
> things and OSS can do what jack without needing the additional complexity
> of Jack server.

> If I can provide OSS audio/midi input and output for the tools that I use,
> then I can do all the routing natively with OSS.

I thought Jack was a necessity for MIDI instruments and professional music 
production. If you say OSS can do it, then that's great.
sndio, and sometimes portaudio, is often required as a frontend, in order to 
replace ALSA and other complicated sound architectures.

> I ran osstest on my system and I was shocked how great my
> sound system is
This is what they commonly say about SNDIO and PORTAUDIO over FreeBSD's native 
version (/driver) of OSS.
___
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: OSS Audio

2017-12-14 Thread Sid 
> blubee blubeeme - Tue Dec 5 00:48:05 UTC 2017

> If I can provide OSS audio/midi input and output for the tools that I use,
> then I can do all the routing natively with OSS.

I glossed over this in my response.
___
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: Linux ports tutorial? WPS Office

2017-12-14 Thread Chris H 

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:15:35 -0500 "Pedro Giffuni"  said

On 12/13/17 22:31, blubee blubeeme wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Pedro Giffuni > wrote:


Hello;
On 13/12/2017 21:11, Chris H wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:56:24 -0500 "Pedro Giffuni"
 said

On 12/10/17 14:55, Eugene Grosbein wrote:

11.12.2017 2:22, Pedro Giffuni пишет:

Hello guys;

I would like to attempt a port for WPS Office (AKA

Kingsoft Office):


http://wps-community.org/

Are there guidelines for linux ports? I couldn't find

much details in the

handbook.


In particular, how do you handle when the pkg-plist is

different for i386

and amd64?


Some ports use pkg-plist.${ARCH}  but I don't know how

those work.

Just have "USES=linux", "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes" and make

these two files

pkg-plist.i386 and pkg-plist.amd64
and they are used automatically. Or you could duplicate

a magic from

/ports/Mk/Uses/linux.mk  in your Makefile:

PLIST?= ${PKGDIR}/pkg-plist.${LINUX_ARCH:S/x86_64/amd64/}

For details, read Porter's Handbook:


https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/





The handbook has no information about "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes".
If I set that it appears the ports framework will ignore
MASTER_SITES.

Should I dig into the MK framework to see how to change
the repository or should I use the .tar.xz distribution
instead? :(.

I'm not sure. But would having a look at the way
emulators/linux_base-c(6|7)
provide some clues?


Not really but I think I found something in Mk/Uses/linux.mk
:

For the case of USE_LINUX_RPM it is supposed to not do anything
when MASTER_SITES is defined but it is somewhat messy, and somehow
it always uses ${MASTER_SITE_CENTOS_LINUX}. Any port that uses RPM
but not the Centos repositories?

Just a thought, and hope it helps!

Thanks, I just have to keep digging :(.

Pedro.

The linux packaging is okay but I'd recommend learning how the porting 
process and not just wrapping up a linux binary in FreeBSD.




Well ... of course if I had the source code I would not be dealing RPMs 
for the linuxulator.


Software can be free but not include source code.  It can still be 
desirable for FreeBSD.


The main reason for that is you can port your way into a corner that 
relies on very Linux specific stuff that there's just no solution for 
yet nor will there be one unless you port the entire Linux kernel to 
FreeBSD.




Which is why we have a linuxulator.

OK Pedro, just so I know I understand your intentions correctly;
You need a way to unpack all the .rpm's, and separate them by
$arch -- 32bit -vs- 64bit, so that you can create the correct pkg-plist(s)
for each of them. Is that correct?

I'll await your response before a solution for that.

--Chris


Pedro.



___
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: github: handmade vs autogenerated distibution

2017-12-14 Thread Yasuhiro KIMURA 
Hello.

From: Sergei Vyhenski 
Subject: github: handmade vs autogenerated distibution
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 23:43:51 +0300

> Do you think that explicit MASTER_SITES instead of USE_GITHUB (thus
> using H-tarball) here contradicts to some rules of good stile?
> 
> Do you think that fighting with A-tarball is always necessary?

I'm a maintainer of www/tdiary and it uses H-tarball because following
steps are necessary to create source tree equivalent to H-tarball.

1. Checkout https://github.com/tdiary/tdiary-core.git
2. Checkout https://github.com/tdiary/tdiary-theme.git and put
   everything into 'theme' sub-directory of step 1.
3. Genarate doc/*.html from doc/*.md by using Markdown-to-HTML
   converter.

So if I use USE_GITHUB in this port,

* I need to use complex way described in "5.4.3.1. Fetching Multiple
  Files from GitHub" of Porter's Handbook.
* Markdown-to-HTML converter have to be added to BUILD_DEPEND.

But if I use H-tarball Makefile and build process get much simpler
because

* Simple fetching archive and extracting it way can be used.
* Markdown-to-HTML converter can be forgot in build process.

So I think there are definitely some cases that using H-tarball is
preferable.

Regards.

---
Yasuhiro KIMURA
___
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: github: handmade vs autogenerated distibution

2017-12-14 Thread Mathieu Arnold 
Le 14/12/2017 à 21:43, Sergei Vyhenski a écrit :
> Playing with GH_* variables, I was able to fetch A-tarball within
> guidelines of
> bsd.sites.mk.

Or you could have read the Porter's Handbook's section on it:
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-distfiles.html#makefile-master_sites-github

It would probably have been faster that trying to reverse engineer what
is being done in there.

> PORTNAME=   expat
> PORTVERSION=    2.2.5
> MASTER_SITES=
> https://github.com/libexpat/libexpat/releases/download/R_${PORTVERSION:S|.|_|g}/
>
> Also, this project has declared that it moves from SF to GH. It still
> publishes H-tarballs on SF. But it seems that switching of the FreeBSD
> port to take distribution from GH is inevitable.
>
> Do you think that explicit MASTER_SITES instead of USE_GITHUB (thus
> using H-tarball) here contradicts to some rules of good stile?

No.

> Do you think that fighting with A-tarball is always necessary? 

You should always use released tarballs, if they are available, people
go through much efforts to make them so that people can build their
software more easily. The git archive you get from USE_GITHUB should
only be used if nothing else is available.

-- 
Mathieu Arnold




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Linux ports tutorial? WPS Office

2017-12-14 Thread Chris H 

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 17:59:34 -0500 "Pedro Giffuni"  said


On 12/14/17 17:07, Chris H wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:15:35 -0500 "Pedro Giffuni"  said
>> On 12/13/17 22:31, blubee blubeeme wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Pedro Giffuni >>> > wrote:

>>>
>>> Hello;
>>> On 13/12/2017 21:11, Chris H wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:56:24 -0500 "Pedro Giffuni"
>>>  said
>>>
>>> On 12/10/17 14:55, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
 11.12.2017 2:22, Pedro Giffuni пишет:
> Hello guys;
>
> I would like to attempt a port for WPS Office (AKA
>>> Kingsoft Office):
>
> http://wps-community.org/
>
> Are there guidelines for linux ports? I couldn't find
>>> much details in the
 handbook.
>
> In particular, how do you handle when the pkg-plist is
>>> different for i386
 and amd64?
>
> Some ports use pkg-plist.${ARCH}  but I don't know how
>>> those work.
 Just have "USES=linux", "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes" and make
>>> these two files
 pkg-plist.i386 and pkg-plist.amd64
 and they are used automatically. Or you could duplicate
>>> a magic from
 /ports/Mk/Uses/linux.mk  in your Makefile:

 PLIST?= ${PKGDIR}/pkg-plist.${LINUX_ARCH:S/x86_64/amd64/}

 For details, read Porter's Handbook:

>>> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/
>>> 

>>>
>>> The handbook has no information about "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes".
>>> If I set that it appears the ports framework will ignore
>>> MASTER_SITES.
>>>
>>> Should I dig into the MK framework to see how to change
>>> the repository or should I use the .tar.xz distribution
>>> instead? :(.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure. But would having a look at the way
>>> emulators/linux_base-c(6|7)
>>> provide some clues?
>>>
>>>
>>> Not really but I think I found something in Mk/Uses/linux.mk
>>> :
>>>
>>> For the case of USE_LINUX_RPM it is supposed to not do anything
>>> when MASTER_SITES is defined but it is somewhat messy, and somehow
>>> it always uses ${MASTER_SITE_CENTOS_LINUX}. Any port that uses RPM
>>> but not the Centos repositories?
>>>
>>>     Just a thought, and hope it helps!
>>>
>>> Thanks, I just have to keep digging :(.
>>>
>>> Pedro.
>>>
>>> The linux packaging is okay but I'd recommend learning how the 
>>> porting process and not just wrapping up a linux binary in FreeBSD.

>>>
>>
>> Well ... of course if I had the source code I would not be dealing 
>> RPMs for the linuxulator.

>>
>> Software can be free but not include source code.  It can still be 
>> desirable for FreeBSD.

>>
>>> The main reason for that is you can port your way into a corner that 
>>> relies on very Linux specific stuff that there's just no solution 
>>> for yet nor will there be one unless you port the entire Linux 
>>> kernel to FreeBSD.

>>>
>>
>> Which is why we have a linuxulator.
> OK Pedro, just so I know I understand your intentions correctly;
> You need a way to unpack all the .rpm's, and separate them by
> $arch -- 32bit -vs- 64bit, so that you can create the correct 
> pkg-plist(s)

> for each of them. Is that correct?
>
> I'll await your response before a solution for that.
>

I did that already, thanks.
The trick was defining DISTFILES_amd64, DISTFILES_i386 and SRC_DISTFILES.

Now the problem is that our RPM support doesn't expect to find files 
installed in usr/bin and share.


At some point I decided it was better to use the .tar.xz distribution 
but that uses version of glibc and libpng that don't match either of the 
centos distributions we carry. So I am back to RPMs.

Can't you just *omit* those, and use those already supplied by FreeBSD?
Maybe those in the linux_base ports, via (run|make)depends?

just a thought. :-)

--Chris



Cheers,

Pedro.



___
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: Linux ports tutorial? WPS Office

2017-12-14 Thread Pedro Giffuni 



On 12/14/17 17:07, Chris H wrote:

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:15:35 -0500 "Pedro Giffuni"  said

On 12/13/17 22:31, blubee blubeeme wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Pedro Giffuni > wrote:


Hello;
On 13/12/2017 21:11, Chris H wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:56:24 -0500 "Pedro Giffuni"
 said

On 12/10/17 14:55, Eugene Grosbein wrote:

11.12.2017 2:22, Pedro Giffuni пишет:

Hello guys;

I would like to attempt a port for WPS Office (AKA

Kingsoft Office):


http://wps-community.org/

Are there guidelines for linux ports? I couldn't find

much details in the

handbook.


In particular, how do you handle when the pkg-plist is

different for i386

and amd64?


Some ports use pkg-plist.${ARCH}  but I don't know how

those work.

Just have "USES=linux", "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes" and make

these two files

pkg-plist.i386 and pkg-plist.amd64
and they are used automatically. Or you could duplicate

a magic from

/ports/Mk/Uses/linux.mk  in your Makefile:

PLIST?= ${PKGDIR}/pkg-plist.${LINUX_ARCH:S/x86_64/amd64/}

For details, read Porter's Handbook:


https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/





The handbook has no information about "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes".
If I set that it appears the ports framework will ignore
MASTER_SITES.

Should I dig into the MK framework to see how to change
the repository or should I use the .tar.xz distribution
instead? :(.

I'm not sure. But would having a look at the way
emulators/linux_base-c(6|7)
provide some clues?


Not really but I think I found something in Mk/Uses/linux.mk
:

For the case of USE_LINUX_RPM it is supposed to not do anything
when MASTER_SITES is defined but it is somewhat messy, and somehow
it always uses ${MASTER_SITE_CENTOS_LINUX}. Any port that uses RPM
but not the Centos repositories?

    Just a thought, and hope it helps!

Thanks, I just have to keep digging :(.

Pedro.

The linux packaging is okay but I'd recommend learning how the 
porting process and not just wrapping up a linux binary in FreeBSD.




Well ... of course if I had the source code I would not be dealing 
RPMs for the linuxulator.


Software can be free but not include source code.  It can still be 
desirable for FreeBSD.


The main reason for that is you can port your way into a corner that 
relies on very Linux specific stuff that there's just no solution 
for yet nor will there be one unless you port the entire Linux 
kernel to FreeBSD.




Which is why we have a linuxulator.

OK Pedro, just so I know I understand your intentions correctly;
You need a way to unpack all the .rpm's, and separate them by
$arch -- 32bit -vs- 64bit, so that you can create the correct 
pkg-plist(s)

for each of them. Is that correct?

I'll await your response before a solution for that.



I did that already, thanks.
The trick was defining DISTFILES_amd64, DISTFILES_i386 and SRC_DISTFILES.

Now the problem is that our RPM support doesn't expect to find files 
installed in usr/bin and share.


At some point I decided it was better to use the .tar.xz distribution 
but that uses version of glibc and libpng that don't match either of the 
centos distributions we carry. So I am back to RPMs.


Cheers,

Pedro.

___
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: Deprecated variables are being removed

2017-12-14 Thread Sergei Vyhenski 

What about variables with a non-trivial value like:

WITH_PKG=devel


On 14.12.2017 20:58, Adam Weinberger wrote:
Real Soon Now(tm), support for deprecated variables (some of which 
have carried warnings for over 4 years) will be removed. If you use 
any of the following constructs (usually in /etc/make.conf), you must 
switch to the new incantations, or port builds will fail.


WITH_[...] / WITHOUT_[...]
  ->  OPTIONS_SET=[...] / OPTIONS_UNSET=[...]
--
Adam Weinberger


___
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: Deprecated variables are being removed

2017-12-14 Thread Adam Weinberger 

On 14 Dec, 2017, at 16:24, Sergei Vyhenski  wrote:

What about variables with a non-trivial value like:

WITH_PKG=devel


Good question, Sergei. This is just referring to the WITH_/WITHOUT_ that  
turn options on and off. It was what we had many years ago, before OPTIONS  
came about.


# Adam


--
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
http://www.adamw.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: Linux ports tutorial? WPS Office

2017-12-14 Thread Pedro Giffuni 



On 12/14/17 18:11, Chris H wrote:

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 17:59:34 -0500 "Pedro Giffuni"  said


On 12/14/17 17:07, Chris H wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:15:35 -0500 "Pedro Giffuni" 
 said

>> On 12/13/17 22:31, blubee blubeeme wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Pedro Giffuni >>> > wrote:

>>>
>>> Hello;
>>> On 13/12/2017 21:11, Chris H wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:56:24 -0500 "Pedro Giffuni"
>>>  said
>>>
>>> On 12/10/17 14:55, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
 11.12.2017 2:22, Pedro Giffuni пишет:
> Hello guys;
>
> I would like to attempt a port for WPS Office (AKA
>>> Kingsoft Office):
>
> http://wps-community.org/
>
> Are there guidelines for linux ports? I couldn't find
>>> much details in the
 handbook.
>
> In particular, how do you handle when the pkg-plist is
>>> different for i386
 and amd64?
>
> Some ports use pkg-plist.${ARCH}  but I don't know how
>>> those work.
 Just have "USES=linux", "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes" and make
>>> these two files
 pkg-plist.i386 and pkg-plist.amd64
 and they are used automatically. Or you could duplicate
>>> a magic from
 /ports/Mk/Uses/linux.mk  in your Makefile:

 PLIST?= ${PKGDIR}/pkg-plist.${LINUX_ARCH:S/x86_64/amd64/}

 For details, read Porter's Handbook:

>>> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/
>>> 

>>>
>>> The handbook has no information about "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes".
>>> If I set that it appears the ports framework will ignore
>>> MASTER_SITES.
>>>
>>> Should I dig into the MK framework to see how to change
>>> the repository or should I use the .tar.xz distribution
>>> instead? :(.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure. But would having a look at the way
>>> emulators/linux_base-c(6|7)
>>> provide some clues?
>>>
>>>
>>> Not really but I think I found something in Mk/Uses/linux.mk
>>> :
>>>
>>> For the case of USE_LINUX_RPM it is supposed to not do anything
>>> when MASTER_SITES is defined but it is somewhat messy, and somehow
>>> it always uses ${MASTER_SITE_CENTOS_LINUX}. Any port that uses RPM
>>> but not the Centos repositories?
>>>
>>>     Just a thought, and hope it helps!
>>>
>>> Thanks, I just have to keep digging :(.
>>>
>>> Pedro.
>>>
>>> The linux packaging is okay but I'd recommend learning how the 
>>> porting process and not just wrapping up a linux binary in FreeBSD.

>>>
>>
>> Well ... of course if I had the source code I would not be dealing 
>> RPMs for the linuxulator.

>>
>> Software can be free but not include source code.  It can still be 
>> desirable for FreeBSD.

>>
>>> The main reason for that is you can port your way into a corner 
that >>> relies on very Linux specific stuff that there's just no 
solution >>> for yet nor will there be one unless you port the entire 
Linux >>> kernel to FreeBSD.

>>>
>>
>> Which is why we have a linuxulator.
> OK Pedro, just so I know I understand your intentions correctly;
> You need a way to unpack all the .rpm's, and separate them by
> $arch -- 32bit -vs- 64bit, so that you can create the correct > 
pkg-plist(s)

> for each of them. Is that correct?
>
> I'll await your response before a solution for that.
>

I did that already, thanks.
The trick was defining DISTFILES_amd64, DISTFILES_i386 and 
SRC_DISTFILES.


Now the problem is that our RPM support doesn't expect to find files 
installed in usr/bin and share.


At some point I decided it was better to use the .tar.xz distribution 
but that uses version of glibc and libpng that don't match either of 
the centos distributions we carry. So I am back to RPMs.

Can't you just *omit* those, and use those already supplied by FreeBSD?
Maybe those in the linux_base ports, via (run|make)depends?



Yes, I did that.

The port still doesn't work:
- It appears it wants to use a old version of libpng that is not in our 
centos7.
- USE_RPM doesn't install anything, it seems like we are missing support 
for non-base RPMs.


I think I'll bail on this port, it requires some packaging-foo that I 
don't want to spend time on.


I'll leave my WIP here, for someone else to play with it:

https://people.freebsd.org/~pfg/ports/linux-wps-office.tgz

Cheers,

Pedro.

___
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: Re: OSS Audio

2017-12-14 Thread Sid 
> blubee blubeeme - Tue Dec 5 00:48:05 UTC 2017

> If I can provide OSS audio/midi input and output for the tools that I use,
> then I can do all the routing natively with OSS.

A problem with this is FreeBSD's backend sound architecture allows one device 
input or output at a time.
cat /dev/sndstat shows this, which I believe is OSS. There is sndio's backend 
sndiod (from OpenBSD) that can alternatively be enabled, but I hear the volume 
on it is too low, and I'm not sure if it allows multiple devices. sndiod's 
backend can be enabled by service sndiod start: it is in /usr/local/etc/rc.d/.
___
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: Tensorflow port

2017-12-14 Thread Jov 
I tried to fix and update the py-tensorflow last week but failed because
the bazel and tensorflow upstream seem heavily development and a lot of
things changed. My time for the ports work is limited so I will give up
this port. Anyone can take it and I am fine to answer any question.

The easiest fixing is to create a new port bazel5 with 0.5.3 as version and
change the tensorflow depend on this new port.

Jov

2017-12-15 9:21 GMT+08:00 Jason Bacon :

>
> Hi Jov,
>
> Are you aware that your py-tensorflow port is marked BROKEN?
>
> Thanks for porting this, BTW.  We have researchers interested in it and we
> use FreeBSD quite a bit here.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jason
>
> --
> Earth is a beta site.
>
>
___
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"

Patches for a slave port

2017-12-14 Thread Kevin Oberman 
I am attempting to submit a fix for a slave port,
multimedia/avidemux_plugins. All of the patches are in the master port,
avidemux. So I make all of the fixes and run "make makepatch". All of the
patches are generated into avidemux/files. I then ran "svn diff" in
avidemux_plugins and the only thing generated is the removal of BROKEN. OK.
The patches are in the master port, so I run "svn diff" there and no
differences are shown. Huh?

Why does "svn diff" not see the new files? How do I get the diffs? Or am I
going to have to manually generate the diff the old fashioned way.
--
Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer
E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
___
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: Patches for a slave port

2017-12-14 Thread Franco Fichtner 
Hi Kevin,

> On 15. Dec 2017, at 5:53 AM, Kevin Oberman  wrote:
> 
> Why does "svn diff" not see the new files? How do I get the diffs? Or am I
> going to have to manually generate the diff the old fashioned way.

Use "svn add" on these files beforehand.


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: Re: OSS Audio

2017-12-14 Thread blubee blubeeme 
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Sid  wrote:

> > blubee blubeeme - Tue Dec 5 00:48:05 UTC 2017
>
> > If I can provide OSS audio/midi input and output for the tools that I
> use,
> > then I can do all the routing natively with OSS.
>
> A problem with this is FreeBSD's backend sound architecture allows one
> device input or output at a time.
> cat /dev/sndstat shows this, which I believe is OSS. There is sndio's
> backend sndiod (from OpenBSD) that can alternatively be enabled, but I hear
> the volume on it is too low, and I'm not sure if it allows multiple
> devices. sndiod's backend can be enabled by service sndiod start: it is in
> /usr/local/etc/rc.d/.
>
There's nothing in FreeBSD that makes the sound architecture only support 1
audio device.
These were issues with earlier versions of OSS implementation; please
remember the days of rebooting your system to get new devices to show up.

All those issues have been sorted out in OSS 4.0 and above.

OSS API is like working with file descriptors;
The open() system call
The close() system call
The read() system call
The write() system call
The ioctl() system call
The select() and poll() system calls
The mmap() system call

What's complicated about that?

Jack audio is NOT necessary, I already ported amsynth over to FreeBSD, they
had a very old implementation of OSS backend for midi that just worked with
my midi keyboard.
I spoke to the developer and he also updated his code to the newest version
of OSS, here's some code:
https://github.com/amsynth/amsynth/commit/7171bd4d945c5938442b80f4276b7e096f06a3a0#diff-0b31b8315cadf5e7556f54a245817f90

There's a lot of misinfo out there about OSS being depreciated or dead,
that's not the case.
>From looking at what's available OSS is one of the most straight forward
and stable Audio API's out there.

If you want to test for yourself, install audio/oss then run osstest and
report back.

There's ALSA plugins for OSS that would provide better audio vs the way
things are implemented right now.
___
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"