I missed it was already documented in Porter's handbook.
Porter's handbook: 5.4.3.1. Fetching Multiple Files From GitHub
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-distfiles.html
Thanks,
2015-08-21 15:29 に Koichiro IWAO さんは書きました:
Hello,
If a port requires to f
Hello,
If a port requires to fetch multiple distfiles from GitHub,
what is the bestpractice? For example, equivalent to like this
MASTER_SITES expression.
MASTER_SITES= http://foo.example.com/distfile1.tar.gz:foo \
http://bar.example.com/distfile2.tar.gz:bar
AFAIK, this does not
sami.b...@gmail.com
___
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"
On 20 Aug 2015 19:24:08 - l...@gta.com (Larry Baird) wrote
> We have serveral headless FreeBSD servers that use the ghostscript nox11
> port. We currently compile all of the ports on these boxes and have
> "OPTIONS_UNSET=X11" configured in /etc/make.conf. Just in case we ever
> switched to p
On 2015-Aug-20 10:08:37 -0500, "Matthew D. Fuller"
wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 08:32:07AM +0100 I heard the voice of
>Mathieu Arnold, and lo! it spake thus:
>>
>> I'm not exactly sure what you're all complaining about. The port
>> just works fine, it does take a few seconds for make to iter
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Hiroki Sato wrote:
Plan A: Just remove print/ghostscript*-nox11.
Currently ghostscript depends on X11 libraries of ice, sm, x11,
xext, and xt. While one can still eliminate these dependency by
disabling X11 in PORT_OPTIONS, the pre-complied packages always
depend on th
We have serveral headless FreeBSD servers that use the ghostscript nox11
port. We currently compile all of the ports on these boxes and have
"OPTIONS_UNSET=X11" configured in /etc/make.conf. Just in case we ever
switched to pre-compile ports, my vote would be for Plan B. But as long as
there is a
Hi everyone,
portmaster is way too verbose for my tastes. It takes a quarter of the screen
to not update anything, and I get about 2 ports total before any relevant
information about the first one is off the screen. A huge chunk of the messages
are informational verbosity that holds low relevan
I haven't used -nox11 for years.
Plan A for me, but I don't have
a strong opinion.
Thank you for looking into this.
Anton
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail t
Someone seemed to have commented yesterday. I have taken the bug. Comply
accordingly. Will take care of the rest.
BR,
@bofh
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:25 PM, B. Estrade wrote:
> I submitted the following update for a port I maintain, lang/qore, I have
> seen no movement on it. I'm happy to make
I submitted the following update for a port I maintain, lang/qore, I have
seen no movement on it. I'm happy to make any necessary changes, I just
need some feedback.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202230
Thanks!
Brett
___
freebsd-port
Hi,
I would like your comments about removal of ghostscript*-nox11 ports,
more specifically, whether many people think X11 library dependency
is annoying or not. After trying to fix -nox11 ports in the end of
last month and then investigating them more carefully, I also reached
a conclusion
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:07:55 -0400 Vick Khera wrote
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:37 AM, 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
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Henk van Oers wrote:
> [root@mbox /usr/ports/print/ghostscript9]# time date
> Thu Aug 20 13:49:43 CEST 2015
>
> real0m0.003s
> user0m0.003s
> sys 0m0.001s
> [root@mbox /usr/ports/print/ghostscript9]# time make clean
[...]
> [root@mbox /usr/ports/print/ghostscrip
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 08:32:07AM +0100 I heard the voice of
Mathieu Arnold, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you're all complaining about. The port
> just works fine, it does take a few seconds for make to iterate over
> all options, but it's because the port has way too man
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:37 AM, 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
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what you're all complaining about. The port just
works fine, it does take a few seconds for make to iterate over all
options, but it's because the port has way too many options. It's not as
if you're all sitting behind your desk
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
[...]
It's not as
if you're all sitting behind your desk looking at the screen waiting for it
to finish.
I can not wait for this:
ls -al /usr/ports/print/ghostscript9
total 88
drwxr-xr-x3 root wheel512 Aug 20 12:15 .
drwxr-xr-x 262 root wh
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 2015-08-20 09:32, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>
>
> +--On 20 août 2015 08:24:25 +0100 Anton Shterenlikht
> wrote:
> |> OTOH I do not want to use ghostscript !
> |
> | In my view ghost is a critically important port.
> | I will not be able to use FreeBSD productively withouth it.
> | Since I have no t
>From m...@freebsd.org Thu Aug 20 09:33:38 2015
>
>+--On 20 ao=C3=BBt 2015 08:24:25 +0100 Anton Shterenlikht =
>
>wrote:
>|> OTOH I do not want to use ghostscript !
>|=20
>| In my view ghost is a critically important port.
>| I will not be able to use FreeBSD productively withouth it.
>| Since I ha
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:29:00 +0100 (BST)
Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> >On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:40:27 +0100 (BST)
> >Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> >
> >> Anybody else is seeing this?
> >>
> >
> >I'm not.
> >
> >[tiger@laptop]:/<2>net-im/skype4>pkg info -x skype
> >linux-skype_oss_wrapper-0.1.1
> >
+--On 20 août 2015 08:24:25 +0100 Anton Shterenlikht
wrote:
|> OTOH I do not want to use ghostscript !
|
| In my view ghost is a critically important port.
| I will not be able to use FreeBSD productively withouth it.
| Since I have no time or skill to contribute to
| address the slowness probl
>On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:40:27 +0100 (BST)
>Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
>
>> Anybody else is seeing this?
>>
>
>I'm not.
>
>[tiger@laptop]:/<2>net-im/skype4>pkg info -x skype
>linux-skype_oss_wrapper-0.1.1
>skype4-4.3.0.37,1
>
>[tiger@laptop]:/<2>net-im/skype4>pkg info -x pulse
>pkg: No package(s)
>OTOH I do not want to use ghostscript !
In my view ghost is a critically important port.
I will not be able to use FreeBSD productively withouth it.
Since I have no time or skill to contribute to
address the slowness problem, I'm happy to put
up with the extra hour.
Anton
___
25 matches
Mail list logo
