On 02/09/17 19:03, Pete Wright wrote:
I have run into the same issue, and I have reported this to the
maintainers. This diff resolved the issue on my end, which allowed all
Xorg packages to build:
Thanks.
Solved here too.
bye
av.
___
freeb
> On 9 Feb, 2017, at 18:51, Mel Pilgrim wrote:
>
> A PR for a port I maintain includes a patch. I'm supposed to set the
> maintainer-approval flag to + to approve the patch, but it doesn't seem to be
> working. When I go to the patch details page, I can set
> maintainer-approval+, but it does
A PR for a port I maintain includes a patch. I'm supposed to set the
maintainer-approval flag to + to approve the patch, but it doesn't seem
to be working. When I go to the patch details page, I can set
maintainer-approval+, but it doesn't stick, even if I include a comment.
I found an older
> Am 09.02.2017 um 18:14 schrieb Julian Elischer :
>
> Commercial products are Hardly EVER rolling releases.
> they lurch from point of stability to point of stability, with large amounts
> of testing between releases.
>>> On the pkg side of things we need the ability for pkg to say "yeah I
>>>
This is due to the DTRACE option breaking the Firefox build currently. You can
compile it from ports by disabling the DTRACE option.
--
Best regards,
Domagoj Stolfa
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 09:21:18PM +0100, Ronald Klop wrote:
> Interesting:
>
> # 21:12:51 root@sjakie [~]
> pkg install firefox
> U
Interesting:
# 21:12:51 root@sjakie [~]
pkg install firefox
Updating FreeBSD repository catalogue...
FreeBSD repository is up-to-date.
All repositories are up-to-date.
pkg: No packages available to install matching 'firefox' have been found
in the repositories
I guess this is a temporary hick
On 02/09/2017 08:57, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
On 01/24/17 00:55, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
Hi all,
This is a call for testing for newer Xorg along with newer drivers:
intel and
ati.
Hello.
Thanks for your work.
I'm willing to test this, since I'm experiencing frequent X lock ups
on an In
On 9/2/17 11:02 pm, Steve Wills wrote:
Hi Julian,
On 02/07/2017 13:03, Julian Elischer wrote:
[...]
I found this all confusing and vague, but it sounds like what's
happening is you need older versions of some software for whatever
reason and to provide that you are pulling older versions of port
On 02/09/17 16:44, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> Why don't add some check in to "pkg" to deny (or warn user) upgrade or
> install on unsupported / EOLed system?
> Just check version on current system against some metadata info in
> repository.
Actually the metadata should be in the package, rather tha
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 6:03 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>
> Just because you don't use any features of the newer version doesn't
> mean it's safe to run binaries built for the newer version on the older
> version, as far as I understand it.
True. :)
Yet the reports are for missing symbols in pkg and
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:42:45PM +, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> Why do you think it is not being enforced? Forwards compatibility means
> that during the lifetime of a major branch you can only *add* symbols to
> the system shared libraries, not remove them nor modify any existing
> symbols. Th
Hi,
On 02/09/2017 12:00, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
> Let me try another way:
>
> Since pkg has feature macros for building correctly on different
> FreeBSD versions, namely 10.0, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3, the way to
> provide binaries without missing symbols is to build pkg with a
> fixed set of featu
On 01/24/17 00:55, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
Hi all,
This is a call for testing for newer Xorg along with newer drivers: intel and
ati.
Hello.
Thanks for your work.
I'm willing to test this, since I'm experiencing frequent X lock ups on
an Intel-based laptop.
I applied your patch to my por
Hi,
On 02/09/2017 11:44, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> Why don't add some check in to "pkg" to deny (or warn user) upgrade or
> install on unsupported / EOLed system?
> Just check version on current system against some metadata info in
> repository.
I would be happy to see a patch that showed how thi
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 5:53 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>
> What would enforcement look like? Something like "Sorry, you can't pkg
> update because this system isn't supported any more."? But how would
> that be possible without also breaking things for those who build/ship
> their own OS and packages?
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 5:53 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>
> What would enforcement look like? Something like "Sorry, you can't pkg
> update because this system isn't supported any more."? But how would
> that be possible without also breaking things for those who build/ship
> their own OS and packages?
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 05:26:00PM +0100, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:30:20PM +0100, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> > > FreeBSD package management makes an ABI promise in the form of
> > > "FreeBSD:10:amd64", but not even pkg code itself adheres to this,
> > > and thus we h
Hi,
On 02/09/2017 11:24, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 5:21 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>>
>> We provide backwards compatibility, not forwards compatibility.
>
> But don't you see that users won't know this?
Users who don't know their software is no longer supported and refuse to
up
Kurt Jaeger wrote on 2017/02/09 17:26:
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:30:20PM +0100, Franco Fichtner wrote:
FreeBSD package management makes an ABI promise in the form of
"FreeBSD:10:amd64", but not even pkg code itself adheres to this,
and thus we have had subtle and yet fatal breakage in 10.
On 2017/02/09 16:24, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 5:21 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>>
>> We provide backwards compatibility, not forwards compatibility.
> But don't you see that users won't know this?
Forward compatibility has been the ABI stability guarantee basically
ever since there
Hi!
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:30:20PM +0100, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> > FreeBSD package management makes an ABI promise in the form of
> > "FreeBSD:10:amd64", but not even pkg code itself adheres to this,
> > and thus we have had subtle and yet fatal breakage in 10.2 and 10.3.
> Stop spreading
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 5:21 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>
> We provide backwards compatibility, not forwards compatibility.
But don't you see that users won't know this?
This is a good theory, yet it is difficult in practice because it is
not being enforced.
Cheers,
Franco
__
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 5:21 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>
> We provide backwards compatibility, not forwards compatibility.
But don't you see that users won't know this?
This is a good theory, yet it is difficult in practice because it is
not being enforced.
Cheers,
Franco
__
Hi,
On 02/09/2017 11:14, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
> You're contradicting yourself here. Either it's compatible or it isn't?
>
Not at all. There's a difference between backwards compatibility (binary
built on older release works on newer release) and forwards
compatibility (binary built on newe
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 5:12 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:30:20PM +0100, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>> FreeBSD package management makes an ABI promise in the form of
>> "FreeBSD:10:amd64", but not even pkg code itself adheres to this,
>> and thus we have had subtle and y
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:30:20PM +0100, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> FreeBSD package management makes an ABI promise in the form of
> "FreeBSD:10:amd64", but not even pkg code itself adheres to this,
> and thus we have had subtle and yet fatal breakage in 10.2 and 10.3.
Stop spreading FUD. There is n
Hi,
On 02/09/2017 11:01, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 4:47 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>>
>> They're supposed to upgrade to a supported version of FreeBSD.
>
> pkg won't refuse the upgrade. And at least if it upgraded, it
> should not break itself.
Even if the update of pkg were d
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 4:47 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>
> They're supposed to upgrade to a supported version of FreeBSD.
pkg won't refuse the upgrade. And at least if it upgraded, it
should not break itself.
Imagine a GUI-driven appliance being bricked. There is nobody
who can tell it "fetch ports
Hi,
On 02/09/2017 10:30, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 4:09 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>>
>> Ports and packages are maintained on the assumption that the user is
>> using a supported version of the OS. We didn't decide when to end
>> support for 10.1 or 10.2. How long aft
A huge six-day fix of seamonkey breakage on 11-CURRENT of april 2016, upgraded
finally last night to pkg 12-CURRENT feb 2017 working and etc by base.txz
overwrite etc...
...
I've many many hours to restore the desktop to full how-it-was-before, but as it
Hi Steve,
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 4:09 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>
> Ports and packages are maintained on the assumption that the user is
> using a supported version of the OS. We didn't decide when to end
> support for 10.1 or 10.2. How long after the end of life for 10.1 would
> you have ports mainta
Hi,
On 02/09/2017 03:55, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 9:49 AM, Kirill Ponomarev wrote:
>>
>> I don't understand all critics I see in this thread and in your mail,
>> the fate of this project is all in your hands - try to contribute more,
>
> I'm going to stop you right there.
>
Hi,
On 02/08/2017 12:34, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
>
> I *did* check for bug reports. I did a search on "utimenstat"
> and found exactly one, which had been withdrawn as not being a
> bug.
>
> But it *is* a bug. It's a bug on several levels, the most
> significant of which is that the overl
On 09/02/2017 16:17, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 14:03, Domagoj Stolfa wrote:
>>
>> It would seem that the firefox build is broken on 12.0-CURRENT. I've been
>> getting the same error as seem on [1]. Has anyone else experienced this?
>>
>> [1]
>> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/
Hi Julian,
On 02/07/2017 13:03, Julian Elischer wrote:
> This is a serious post on a serious issue that ports framework people
> seem unaware of.
To be honest, it's kind of a confusing post, at least to me.
> It' getting too easy to get into dependency hell here (I've spent the
> last week figh
Hi,
On 02/09/2017 09:55, Herbert J. Skuhra wrote:
>
> DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ruby=2.3
Err, yeah, sorry, was too early for me... Thanks for the correction.
Steve
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Steve Wills skrev:
>
> Hi,
> On 02/08/2017 11:20, Gerard Seibert wrote:
>> On or about 20170109, the default version of ruby was updated from 2.2
>> to 2.3. However, "pkg install" wants to install version 2.2 for ports
>> that require ruby. Is there a way to override this behavior?
>>
>
> The pa
The gatling Webserver is updatet and its a importent Security fix.
Please upgarde ASAP
Thanks
sokrates
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 9 Feb 2017, at 14:03, Domagoj Stolfa wrote:
>
> It would seem that the firefox build is broken on 12.0-CURRENT. I've been
> getting the same error as seem on [1]. Has anyone else experienced this?
>
> [1]
> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pkg-fallout/Week-of-Mon-20170206/408053.h
Hi,
On 02/08/2017 11:20, Gerard Seibert wrote:
> On or about 20170109, the default version of ruby was updated from 2.2
> to 2.3. However, "pkg install" wants to install version 2.2 for ports
> that require ruby. Is there a way to override this behavior?
>
The packages are built from the quarter
Hello,
It would seem that the firefox build is broken on 12.0-CURRENT. I've been
getting the same error as seem on [1]. Has anyone else experienced this?
[1]
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pkg-fallout/Week-of-Mon-20170206/408053.html
--
Best regards,
Domagoj Stolfa
signature.asc
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 10:03 AM, Kirill Ponomarev wrote:
>
> On 02/09, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>>
>>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 9:49 AM, Kirill Ponomarev wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't understand all critics I see in this thread and in your mail,
>>> the fate of this project is all in your hands - try to contrib
On 02/09, Neal Nelson wrote:
> Hi al.
>
> Sorry to hassle the committers, but I filed bug #215941, an update to
> the lang/nim port to the latest version a month ago and it has just
> languished in the bugs database ever since. If someone could look at
> committing it I would be very grateful.
>
Hi al.
Sorry to hassle the committers, but I filed bug #215941, an update to
the lang/nim port to the latest version a month ago and it has just
languished in the bugs database ever since. If someone could look at
committing it I would be very grateful.
There's also bug #215304 for a new port for
On 02/09, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
> > On 9 Feb 2017, at 9:49 AM, Kirill Ponomarev wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand all critics I see in this thread and in your mail,
> > the fate of this project is all in your hands - try to contribute more,
>
> I'm going to stop you right there.
>
> That's
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 9:49 AM, Kirill Ponomarev wrote:
>
> I don't understand all critics I see in this thread and in your mail,
> the fate of this project is all in your hands - try to contribute more,
I'm going to stop you right there.
That's not entirely true. Too few committers, substantial
On 02/08, list-freebsd-po...@jyborn.se wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 12:34:36PM -0500, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> > For those people (I'm one) long version lifespans and bug-free
> > operation is a much bigger desideratum than winning the secret
> > race (I presume there is some kind of secr
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
48 matches
Mail list logo
