18/08/15 17:58(e)an, Stefan Esser igorleak idatzi zuen:
> Am 18.08.2015 um 14:07 schrieb Timur I. Bakeyev:
>> Could be that you are affected by
>> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11455
>>
>> Can you, please, verify, that it is the case?
>
> A good test is to install the pre-compiled pac
___
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"
All my ports are up to date,
but running ''portmaster -va'' on ~1000 ports takes more then 50 minutes.
Most time is spend on ghostscript9-9.06_10
I started a ''portmaster ghostscript9-9.06_10'' a while ago
and it does not do any thing yet but using 100% CPU on one prosessor.
What is going on?
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>>
>>
>> +--On 18 août 2015 22:49:47 +0300 Kimmo Paasiala
>> wrote:
>> | It would have been nice to have some kind of announcement about the
>> | removal of $UNIQUENAME. I for example
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>
>
> +--On 18 août 2015 22:49:47 +0300 Kimmo Paasiala
> wrote:
> | It would have been nice to have some kind of announcement about the
> | removal of $UNIQUENAME. I for example was depending on it in my
> | make.conf with declarations like t
On 2015-08-18 18:15, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 12:37:31 +, Ports Index build wrote:
Dear port maintainers,
The following list includes ports maintained by you that have
duplicate
LATEST_LINK values.
Without counting, it looks like a complete list of all po
> Yes, it does not create a /usr/bin/perl symlink, starting with Perl 5.20.
I'm curious about the logic behind this (automatic symlink removal without a
large warning message)? It would seem to come with a high cost and little
(any?) benefit. Shouldn't this at least be a dialog option?
> If you
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 12:37:31 +, Ports Index build wrote:
> Dear port maintainers,
>
> The following list includes ports maintained by you that have duplicate
> LATEST_LINK values.
Without counting, it looks like a complete list of all ports,
unsorted. Would it be possible to modify
+--On 18 août 2015 22:49:47 +0300 Kimmo Paasiala
wrote:
| It would have been nice to have some kind of announcement about the
| removal of $UNIQUENAME. I for example was depending on it in my
| make.conf with declarations like these:
|
| vim_SET= CONSOLE
| vim_UNSET= GTK2 RUBY TCL
|
| I can of
Hi, Stefan!
Was it a recent case? I belive this problem with md5.so was addressed while
ago in the upstream.
With regards,
Timur Bakeyev.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
> Am 18.08.2015 um 14:07 schrieb Timur I. Bakeyev:
> > Could be that you are affected by
> > https://bu
On Aug 18 22:49, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
It would have been nice to have some kind of announcement about the
removal of $UNIQUENAME. I for example was depending on it in my
make.conf with declarations like these:
vim_SET= CONSOLE
vim_UNSET= GTK2 RUBY TCL
I can of course rewrite those now using $O
It would have been nice to have some kind of announcement about the
removal of $UNIQUENAME. I for example was depending on it in my
make.conf with declarations like these:
vim_SET= CONSOLE
vim_UNSET= GTK2 RUBY TCL
I can of course rewrite those now using $OPTIONS_NAME (editors_vim
prefix instead o
Am 18.08.2015 um 14:07 schrieb Timur I. Bakeyev:
> Could be that you are affected by
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11455
>
> Can you, please, verify, that it is the case?
A good test is to install the pre-compiled package and compare
ldd output for the port compiled by you and the
Hi!
> I got an email with this subject but I?m not sure what to do about it.
Ignore it, someone sent the wrong stuff.
--
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 5 years to go !
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https:
I got an email with this subject but I’m not sure what to do about it. The port
on the list which I maintain (deskutils/autocutsel) doesn’t use LATEST_LINK or
munge PKGNAME at all, and I don’t see any collisions in e.g. INDEX-10.
I tried the recipes at https://wiki.freebsd.org/ports/PkgNameColli
Hi,
This looks like a bsd.port.mk or similar change resulting in PKGNAME*FIX not
being put into LATEST_LINK?
Or have these all been broken a while?
Chris
On 18 August 2015 13:37:23 BST, Ports Index build
wrote:
>Dear port maintainers,
>
>The following list includes ports maintained by you t
> Am 18.08.2015 um 14:37 schrieb Ports Index build :
> The following list includes ports maintained by you that have duplicate
> LATEST_LINK values. They should either be modified to use a unique
> PKGNAME, e.g. by using PKGNAMESUFFIX. Note that NO_LATEST_LINK is
> deprecated. See the portmgr b
+--On 18 août 2015 14:53:31 +0200 Michelle Sullivan
wrote:
| Ports Index build wrote:
|> Dear port maintainers,
|>
|> The following list includes ports maintained by you that have duplicate
|> LATEST_LINK values. They should either be modified to use a unique
|> PKGNAME, e.g. by using PKGNAMESUF
Hi!
> according to phpipam website, latest version since December of 2014 is
> 1.1.010:
> http://phpipam.net/phpipam-1-1-010-update-released/
>
> Is there a reason why version in FreeBSD ports is still at 1.0? Can it
> be upgraded to the latest version?
If someone provides a patch to update the
Ports Index build wrote:
> Dear port maintainers,
>
> The following list includes ports maintained by you that have duplicate
> LATEST_LINK values. They should either be modified to use a unique
> PKGNAME, e.g. by using PKGNAMESUFFIX. Note that NO_LATEST_LINK is
> deprecated. See the portmgr blo
Hi,
according to phpipam website, latest version since December of 2014 is
1.1.010:
http://phpipam.net/phpipam-1-1-010-update-released/
Is there a reason why version in FreeBSD ports is still at 1.0? Can it
be upgraded to the latest version?
Regards,
--
Marko Cupać
https://www.mimar.rs/
___
Could be that you are affected by
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11455
Can you, please, verify, that it is the case?
With best regards,
Timur
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Enrique Ayesta Perojo <
eaye...@portugalete.uned.es> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have updated a Samba 4.1 install
Hello,
I have updated a Samba 4.1 installation to latest Samba 4.2.3 from ports
and it doesn't start anymore, it seems to start but after a while (it
seems that it's reading or trying to read from disk) it suddenly stops
with signal 4 (Illegal instruction).
Has anybody have the same problem or ha
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
