The FreeBSD Ports Management team as decided to do a hard freeze to
co-incide with the release of 8.4-FreeBSD RC1, tentatively scheduled for
March 30.
During this hard freeze, only security updates, critical fixes, and related
fixes related to the clean-up of the tree will be allowed. This is a
c
There haven't been any package updates since last October, even
September in the soon to be legacy case of RELENG_8 i386. So lets
say six months.
Last status I noticed was in January pending 'security review of
build farm code'.
Nearly two months later this would seem to be an unusual amount of
t
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 09:45:19PM +0100, Marco Steinbach wrote:
> Marco Steinbach wrote on 17.03.2013 21:02:
> > Baptiste Daroussin wrote on 17.03.2013 19:49:
> >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 07:27:56PM +0100, Marco Steinbach wrote:
> >>> Chris Rees wrote on 17.03.2013 17:15:
> On 17 Mar 2013 15:
Bryan Drewery wrote on 25.03.2013 19:46:
On 3/25/2013 6:35 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
On 3/25/2013 5:11 AM, Ilya A. Arkhipov wrote:
Hi All,
Fixed in
https://bitbucket.org/m1cro/d4p/commits/42e03ab186b30120fa79e2d0a6093a3c673385ef
Thanks Marco.
After checking it will committed, but you already
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:12:53 +
Chris Rees articulated:
> Hm, it's not mentioned.
>
> If the text "below the inclusion of bsd.port.options.mk" were
> included, would that be helpful?
Yes, it most certainly would. I am surprised that it was not mentioned.
--
Carmel ✌
carmel...@hotmail.com
_
Marco Steinbach wrote on 17.03.2013 21:02:
Baptiste Daroussin wrote on 17.03.2013 19:49:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 07:27:56PM +0100, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Chris Rees wrote on 17.03.2013 17:15:
On 17 Mar 2013 15:45, "Marco Steinbach"
wrote:
Matthew Seaman wrote on 17.03.2013 14:49:
On 17/03/
On 25 Mar 2013 17:36, "Carmel" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:23:10 +0100
> Alex Dupre articulated:
>
> > Carmel ha scritto:
> > > I have a problem with updating a Makefile for an existing port. When
> > > running "portlint -a" on the Makefile, it pops up with this warning:
> > >
> > > WARN: Ma
On 3/25/2013 6:35 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 3/25/2013 5:11 AM, Ilya A. Arkhipov wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Fixed in
>> https://bitbucket.org/m1cro/d4p/commits/42e03ab186b30120fa79e2d0a6093a3c673385ef
>>
>> Thanks Marco.
>>
>> After checking it will committed, but you already can test it:
>> - chan
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:23:10 +0100
Alex Dupre articulated:
> Carmel ha scritto:
> > I have a problem with updating a Makefile for an existing port. When
> > running "portlint -a" on the Makefile, it pops up with this warning:
> >
> > WARN: Makefile: [53]: NOPORTDOCS found. Consider using
> > POR
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
>> I've now run ia64 with the above change for over 2 weeks,
>> mostly rebuilding ports, etc.
>> I didn't see any issues with gcc47.
>> So, from my very limited testing,
>> gcc47 can be made def
Em Seg, 2013-03-25 às 04:49 -0700, sean bruno escreveu:
> >
> > Yes - it is correctly
> > http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/emulators/virtualbox-ose-kmod/files/patch-src-VBox-Runtime-r0drv-freebsd-memobj-r0drv-freebsd_VM_OBJECT_RENAME.c?r1=314797&r2=315200
>
>
> Ah, thank you. My patch defin
Carmel ha scritto:
> I have a problem with updating a Makefile for an existing port. When
> running "portlint -a" on the Makefile, it pops up with this warning:
>
> WARN: Makefile: [53]: NOPORTDOCS found. Consider using
> PORT_OPTIONS:MDOCS
>
> So, I have tried doing what the Porters Handbook su
I have a problem with updating a Makefile for an existing port. When
running "portlint -a" on the Makefile, it pops up with this warning:
WARN: Makefile: [53]: NOPORTDOCS found. Consider using
PORT_OPTIONS:MDOCS
So, I have tried doing what the Porters Handbook suggested, and it just
bombs out wi
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> I've now run ia64 with the above change for over 2 weeks,
> mostly rebuilding ports, etc.
> I didn't see any issues with gcc47.
> So, from my very limited testing,
> gcc47 can be made default.
Thanks for the feedback, Anton! To really make that swi
From ger...@pfeifer.com Mon Mar 18 00:32:16 2013
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>> So I wonder if there are any side effects or unexpected
>>> effects if I just change GCC_DEFAULT_VERSION= to e.g. 4.7?
> I don't think this is working as expected.
On 25 March 2013 10:49, Alex Dupre wrote:
> Eitan Adler ha scritto:
>> This is insufficient to include, say, line 212:
>>
>> "raknet-*devel/raknetOriginal license is
>> Indy license, special authorization granted to provide RakNet under
>> GPL v3"
>
> Ehmm, I could argu
Eitan Adler ha scritto:
> This is insufficient to include, say, line 212:
>
> "raknet-*devel/raknetOriginal license is
> Indy license, special authorization granted to provide RakNet under
> GPL v3"
Ehmm, I could argue about the private email permission, but if it's
li
On 25 March 2013 10:37, Alex Dupre wrote:
> Eitan Adler ha scritto:
>> The LEGAL file is for a broader set of things than just RESTRICTED.
>> It covers "no commercial use" which is NO_CDROM but not RESTRICTED
>
> Yup, LEGAL is both NO_CDROM and RESTRICTED, and RESTRICTED_FILES already
> contains t
Eitan Adler ha scritto:
> The LEGAL file is for a broader set of things than just RESTRICTED.
> It covers "no commercial use" which is NO_CDROM but not RESTRICTED
Yup, LEGAL is both NO_CDROM and RESTRICTED, and RESTRICTED_FILES already
contains the list of !distributable files. I'd say this is eno
On 25 March 2013 10:08, Alex Dupre wrote:
> Eitan Adler ha scritto:
>> RESTRICTED does not cover "special permission granted to distribute"
>> and other not-a-restriction things.
>
> And why do we need them? RESTRICTED is for !distributable, exactly as
> the LEGAL file. We can improve RESTRICTED t
Eitan Adler ha scritto:
> RESTRICTED does not cover "special permission granted to distribute"
> and other not-a-restriction things.
And why do we need them? RESTRICTED is for !distributable, exactly as
the LEGAL file. We can improve RESTRICTED to automatically generate LEGAL.
For particular licen
On 25 March 2013 09:36, Alex Dupre wrote:
> Eitan Adler ha scritto:
>> I have been trying to capture the differences between LEGAL and the ports
>> tree.
>> At this point I am convinced we need a new variable to capture in a
>> machine usable way issues such as "special permission granted to
>> d
Eitan Adler ha scritto:
> I have been trying to capture the differences between LEGAL and the ports
> tree.
> At this point I am convinced we need a new variable to capture in a
> machine usable way issues such as "special permission granted to
> distribute under the GPL" or "No license -- see
> h
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
On 25.03.2013 15:40, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Eugene V. Boontseff wrote on 25.03.2013 12:29:
On 25.03.2013 14:43, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Ilya A. Arkhipov wrote on 25.03.2013 11:11:
On 03/25/13 14:01, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Eugene V. Boontseff wrote on 25.03.2013 09:57:
On 25.03.2013 03:37, Mar
>
> Yes - it is correctly
> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/emulators/virtualbox-ose-kmod/files/patch-src-VBox-Runtime-r0drv-freebsd-memobj-r0drv-freebsd_VM_OBJECT_RENAME.c?r1=314797&r2=315200
Ah, thank you. My patch definitely was not right and I was wondering
where the kpanic on load/star
HI,I don’t download the postfix-vda-v11-2.9.5.patch.
Please help me.
Thank you!
Chenyiyi
Error:
root@mail:/usr/ports/mail/postfix # make install clean
===> Found saved configuration for postfix-2.9.5,1
=> postfix-vda-v11-2.9.5.patch doesn't seem to exist in
/usr/ports/distfil
HI,I don’t download the postfix-vda-v11-2.9.5.patch.
Please help me.
Thank you!
Chenyiyi
Error:
root@mail:/usr/ports/mail/postfix # make install clean
===> Found saved configuration for postfix-2.9.5,1
=> postfix-vda-v11-2.9.5.patch doesn't seem to exist in
/usr/ports/distfil
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:44:47 +0400
"Eugene V. Boontseff" wrote:
> On 25.03.2013 00:58, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:40:47 +0400
> > "Eugene V. Boontseff" wrote:
> >
> >> *Marco Steinbach wrote:
> >> *
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> after installing dialog4ports, I'm getting the follow
Eugene V. Boontseff wrote on 25.03.2013 12:29:
On 25.03.2013 14:43, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Ilya A. Arkhipov wrote on 25.03.2013 11:11:
On 03/25/13 14:01, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Eugene V. Boontseff wrote on 25.03.2013 09:57:
On 25.03.2013 03:37, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Michael Gmelin schrieb:
On 3/25/2013 5:11 AM, Ilya A. Arkhipov wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Fixed in
> https://bitbucket.org/m1cro/d4p/commits/42e03ab186b30120fa79e2d0a6093a3c673385ef
>
> Thanks Marco.
>
> After checking it will committed, but you already can test it:
> - change dialog4ports version to 0.1.2
> - make makesum
>
Eitan Adler wrote:
> I have been trying to capture the differences between LEGAL and the ports
> tree.
> At this point I am convinced we need a new variable to capture in a
> machine usable way issues such as "special permission granted to
> distribute under the GPL" or "No license -- see
> http
On 25.03.2013 14:43, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Ilya A. Arkhipov wrote on 25.03.2013 11:11:
On 03/25/13 14:01, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Eugene V. Boontseff wrote on 25.03.2013 09:57:
On 25.03.2013 03:37, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Michael Gmelin schrieb:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:40:47 +0400
"Eugene V. B
В Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:04:40 +0100
Bernhard Fröhlich пишет:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
> > В Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:05:07 +0200
> > Konstantin Belousov пишет:
> >
> >> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 01:26:27PM +0200, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
> >> > I have
> >> > uname -a
> >> > Fr
On 3/25/2013 5:19 AM, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
> On 2012-07-14 18:27, Chris Rees wrote:
>> On 14 July 2012 16:24, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
>>> One problem (at least how it appears to me) is that when a PR gets
>>> automatically assigned to a maintainer who is also a committer, it is
>>> not automaticall
(Note: an HTML version of this report is available at
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?category=ports .)
The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users.
These represent problem reports covering all versions including
experimental development code and obsol
Ilya A. Arkhipov wrote on 25.03.2013 11:11:
On 03/25/13 14:01, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Eugene V. Boontseff wrote on 25.03.2013 09:57:
On 25.03.2013 03:37, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Michael Gmelin schrieb:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:40:47 +0400
"Eugene V. Boontseff" wrote:
*Marco Steinbach wrote:
*
On 2012-07-14 18:27, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 14 July 2012 16:24, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
>> One problem (at least how it appears to me) is that when a PR gets
>> automatically assigned to a maintainer who is also a committer, it is
>> not automatically unassigned if the person is missing for a few
>>
On 03/25/13 14:01, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Eugene V. Boontseff wrote on 25.03.2013 09:57:
On 25.03.2013 03:37, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Michael Gmelin schrieb:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:40:47 +0400
"Eugene V. Boontseff" wrote:
*Marco Steinbach wrote:
*
Hi,
after installing dialog4ports, I'm get
Eugene V. Boontseff wrote on 25.03.2013 09:57:
On 25.03.2013 03:37, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Michael Gmelin schrieb:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:40:47 +0400
"Eugene V. Boontseff" wrote:
*Marco Steinbach wrote:
*
Hi,
after installing dialog4ports, I'm getting the following behaviour
on each 8.3-ST
Thanks Ruslan. I think we need to modify the siproxd and libexosip too. But
I have got a new patch for libexosip too. Should I create a patch for it or
wait for libosip to complete?
Regards,
Muhammad
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Ruslan Makhmatkhanov wrote:
> Muhammad Moinur Rahman wrote on
Muhammad Moinur Rahman wrote on 24.03.2013 23:08:
Hi Ruslan,
Do we need to do it in a REPOCOPY style? Or plain simple new port?
Regards,
Muhammad
Yes, net/libosip will be svn cp'ed to net/libosip24 and then your patch
applied to it (with you as maintainer). I'll try to do that later this day
On 25.03.2013 03:37, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Michael Gmelin schrieb:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:40:47 +0400
"Eugene V. Boontseff" wrote:
*Marco Steinbach wrote:
*
Hi,
after installing dialog4ports, I'm getting the following behaviour
on each 8.3-STABLE I tried:
# jexec /bin/tcsh
# cd
# make c
On 25.03.2013 00:58, Michael Gmelin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:40:47 +0400
"Eugene V. Boontseff" wrote:
*Marco Steinbach wrote:
*
Hi,
after installing dialog4ports, I'm getting the following behaviour
on each 8.3-STABLE I tried:
# jexec /bin/tcsh
# cd
# make config
cannot open tty-out
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
> В Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:05:07 +0200
> Konstantin Belousov пишет:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 01:26:27PM +0200, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
>> > I have
>> > uname -a
>> > FreeBSD nonamehost 10.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #0 r248596: Fri
>> > Mar 2
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 08:56:52PM -0400, Steve Wills wrote:
> I'm sure your list probably includes this, but just in case,
> databases/db42 broke with this for me.
>
> Steve
Here is a new version that fix the issue for db42 and others:
http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/config_site.diff
Thanks all
46 matches
Mail list logo
