Could anyone help me land a few approved diffs, please?
Greetings, Could anyone please commit and land the following list of my diffs? They're all tested, approved, and ready to land. D34816: sysutils/dust: Update to v0.8.0 D34817: www/vultr-cli: Update to v2.12.2 D34818: devel/wrangler: Update to v1.19.11 D34843: lang/voc: Update to v2.1.1 D34851: graphics/zathura: Update to 0.4.9 Cheers, Faraz signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Could anyone help me land a few approved diffs, please?
On 4/12/22 12:50, Faraz Vahedi wrote: Greetings, Could anyone please commit and land the following list of my diffs? They're all tested, approved, and ready to land. D34816: sysutils/dust: Update to v0.8.0 Start with sysutils/dust D34817: www/vultr-cli: Update to v2.12.2 D34818: devel/wrangler: Update to v1.19.11 D34843: lang/voc: Update to v2.1.1 D34851: graphics/zathura: Update to 0.4.9 Cheers, Faraz
Re: Could anyone help me land a few approved diffs, please?
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 2:51 PM Faraz Vahedi wrote: > > Greetings, > > Could anyone please commit and land the following list of my > diffs? They're all tested, approved, and ready to land. Hi Faraz, thanks for your work! > > D34816: sysutils/dust: Update to v0.8.0 > D34817: www/vultr-cli: Update to v2.12.2 > D34818: devel/wrangler: Update to v1.19.11 > D34843: lang/voc: Update to v2.1.1 > D34851: graphics/zathura: Update to 0.4.9 ^^ I suppose at least the last one will need the two weeks courtesy period to see if the maintainer chimes in. I personally prefer bugzilla's PR to deal with port updates. That way we can link PR's to one another. For instance, maybe D34851 fixes https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=263200? Also in https://reviews.freebsd.org/D34843, we have to look in the Makefile to see who is approving the review. Is he/she the maintainer? Is it another person? In bugzilla we have specific fields for this. I don't see any specific flags for this in phab. Just my thoughts. Again, thanks for working on this. Cheers. > > Cheers, > Faraz
Re: Could anyone help me land a few approved diffs, please?
On 4/12/22 13:24, Rodrigo Osorio wrote: On 4/12/22 12:50, Faraz Vahedi wrote: Greetings, Could anyone please commit and land the following list of my diffs? They're all tested, approved, and ready to land. D34816: sysutils/dust: Update to v0.8.0 Start with sysutils/dust D34817: www/vultr-cli: Update to v2.12.2 sysutils/dust and www/vultr-cli are done. Just for the record there is a typo in your commit message, there is no "_" in Differential Revision. Cheers, - rodrigo D34818: devel/wrangler: Update to v1.19.11 D34843: lang/voc: Update to v2.1.1 D34851: graphics/zathura: Update to 0.4.9 Cheers, Faraz
Boost ports version
Hello folks, The various boost ports (C++ libraries) available are currently on upstream version 1.72 whereas the current release would be 1.78. I'd like to understand whether there is a technical reason for the FreeBSD ports being "so far behind"? Best regards, ~ Joel
Re: Boost ports version
Hi! > The various boost ports (C++ libraries) available are currently on upstream > version 1.72 whereas the current release would be 1.78. > > I'd like to understand whether there is a technical reason for the FreeBSD > ports being "so far behind"? Somewhat, yes. There's a PR for the update: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246106 The cause of the delay is this: If we update boost, we test-build all the depends. If there are errors, the maintainers of those depending ports should fix those errors. That's not always easy, possible or the maintainer is busy with other things. -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372Now what ?
Re: Could anyone help me land a few approved diffs, please?
Hello Fernando, > Hi Faraz, thanks for your work! My pleasure. > I suppose at least the last one will need the two weeks courtesy > period to see if the maintainer chimes in. > > I personally prefer bugzilla's PR to deal with port updates. That way > we can link PR's to one another. For instance, maybe D34851 fixes > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=263200? > Also in https://reviews.freebsd.org/D34843, we have to look in the > Makefile to see who is approving the review. Is he/she the maintainer? > Is it another person? In bugzilla we have specific fields for this. I > don't see any specific flags for this in phab. > > Just my thoughts. Again, thanks for working on this. It makes total sense, right. Henceforth, I use bugzilla for ports I don't maintain, roger that. By the way, this one (graphics/zathura) is already approved by the maintainer, just in a different diff (D32266), but OK, let's give it a two weeks courtesy period. Thank you so much. Cheers, Faraz signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Could anyone help me land a few approved diffs, please?
Hello Rodrigo, > sysutils/dust and www/vultr-cli are done. Just for the record > there is a typo in your commit message, there is no "_" in > Differential Revision. Ah, my apologies. OK, I'll take care of it as of now. Thank you so much. Cheers, Faraz signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Boost ports version
Kurt Jaeger wrote: The various boost ports (C++ libraries) available are currently on upstream version 1.72 whereas the current release would be 1.78. I'd like to understand whether there is a technical reason for the FreeBSD ports being "so far behind"? Somewhat, yes. There's a PR for the update: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246106 The cause of the delay is this: If we update boost, we test-build all the depends. If there are errors, the maintainers of those depending ports should fix those errors. That's not always easy, possible or the maintainer is busy with other things. To add, we have to do this for *every* boost update because the API is not stable between versions. We have an overlay repository [0] if anyone would like to help move it along. [0] https://github.com/fluffykhv/freebsd-ports-boost -- Charlie Li …nope, still don't have an exit line. OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [RFC] patch's default backup behavior
On 2022-04-08 20:25, Kyle Evans wrote: Hello! FreeBSD's patch follows historical patch(1) behavior w.r.t. backups, where a backup is created for every file patched. I'd like to test the waters on switching this to the GNU behavior, which feels a whole lot more reasonable. Notably, they'll only create backup files if a mismatch was detected (presumably this means either a hunk needed fuzz or a hunk outright failed). This yields far fewer backup files in the ideal scenario (context entirely matches), while still leaving backup files when it's sensible (base file changed and we might want to regenerate the patch). Thoughts / comments / concerns? This makes good sense to me too. Yes. Please && Thanks. Cross-posted this to a couple of different lists to try and hit the largest number of stakeholders in patch(1) behavior. Thanks, Kyle Evans l8r, Chris 0xBDE49540.asc Description: application/pgp-keys
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 +-+ sysutils/google-compute-engine-oslogin | 20191018.00 | 20220411.00 +-+ 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 Reported by:portscout!
