On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Florent Peterschmitt
wrote:
> Le mardi 09 avril 2013 à 13:03 -0400, Robert Simmons a écrit :
>> > Hum, I didn't thought about that. So I think it would be possible to
>> > have a secondary « branch » for the distribution including something
>> > like « special ports
Le mardi 09 avril 2013 à 13:03 -0400, Robert Simmons a écrit :
> > Hum, I didn't thought about that. So I think it would be possible to
> > have a secondary « branch » for the distribution including something
> > like « special ports » which can be retrieved, built and managed (for
> > porters) qui
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Florent Peterschmitt
wrote:
> Le mardi 09 avril 2013 à 06:09 -0700, Darren Pilgrim a écrit :
>> On 2013-04-08 10:22, Florent Peterschmitt wrote:
>> > Yep, OpenSSH is tiny enought to keep it in base system. It would be a
>> > big loss not to have it by default, secu
Le mardi 09 avril 2013 à 06:09 -0700, Darren Pilgrim a écrit :
> On 2013-04-08 10:22, Florent Peterschmitt wrote:
> > Yep, OpenSSH is tiny enought to keep it in base system. It would be a
> > big loss not to have it by default, securely installed in the base
> > system.
>
> I really wish it wasn't
> Ports are an integral part of the OS, and base should be minimal.
> >
>
> For me, the only thing that should go to base is svnup.
>
>
> +1 this, it is a real headache to not be able to svn up, without first
installing a bunch of stuff via ports...
I Love the idea of having a minimal system... i
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Darren Pilgrim
wrote:
> On 2013-04-08 10:22, Florent Peterschmitt wrote:
>>
>> Yep, OpenSSH is tiny enought to keep it in base system. It would be a
>> big loss not to have it by default, securely installed in the base
>> system.
>
>
> I really wish it wasn't. Havi
On 2013-04-08 10:22, Florent Peterschmitt wrote:
Yep, OpenSSH is tiny enought to keep it in base system. It would be a
big loss not to have it by default, securely installed in the base
system.
I really wish it wasn't. Having OpenSSH (and thus OpenSSL) in the base
means FreeBSD has an outdate
On 2013-04-08 08:26, Freddie Cash wrote:
The really hard part is coming up with a migration path for those who
upgrade via source builds.
It already exists:
1. Update to release that doesn't include $thing;
2. make -C /usr/src delete-old delete-old-libs;
3. Install $thing or $thing_alternative
2013/4/8 Chris Rees :
> On 8 Apr 2013 08:55, "Robert Simmons" wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala
> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:
Le lundi 08 avril 2013 à 17:40 +0200, Daniel Nebdal a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
> > Note: I may have messed up the quoting/attribution by snipping things.
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Ki
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
> Note: I may have messed up the quoting/attribution by snipping things.
>
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>>
>> > > On the other hand, there are a number of th
Note: I may have messed up the quoting/attribution by snipping things.
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>
> > > On the other hand, there are a number of things that I think should be
> > > pulled out of base. Some al
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Robert Simmons wrote:
> Are there plans to get the following ports moved into HEAD?
>
> 1) ports-mgmt/pkg
>
> The bootstrap code is in base. There's no need to tie the actual pkg
development to the base, though.
> 2) ports-mgmt/dialog4ports
>
> This is used by t
On 4/8/2013 2:57 AM, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:31:50 +0200
> David Demelier wrote:
>
>>
>> For me I also wanted pkg to be in base but they made a bootstrap that
>> does not need any other requirement so I stick with that and I'm
>> happy.
>>
>
> Last time I checked the bootst
On 4/8/2013 1:55 AM, Robert Simmons wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons
>>> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery
wrote:
> On 4
On 8 Apr 2013 08:55, "Robert Simmons" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala
wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery
> >> > wrot
> check it now, AFAIK now it is lattest
Looks like it (1.0.11). Thanks.
--
Michael Gmelin
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@fr
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:05:31 +0300
Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>
> The outdated version is simple to update, that's the whole point of it
> staying in ports.
>
> -Kimmo
I understand this, but it should be easy enough to make the
bootstrapping mechanism install the current version (otherwise you
could
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:57:02 +0200
Michael Gmelin wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:31:50 +0200
> David Demelier wrote:
>
> >
> > For me I also wanted pkg to be in base but they made a bootstrap
> > that does not need any other requirement so I stick with that and
> > I'm happy.
> >
>
> Last tim
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:31:50 +0200
> David Demelier wrote:
>
>>
>> For me I also wanted pkg to be in base but they made a bootstrap that
>> does not need any other requirement so I stick with that and I'm
>> happy.
>>
>
> Last time I checked
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:31:50 +0200
David Demelier wrote:
>
> For me I also wanted pkg to be in base but they made a bootstrap that
> does not need any other requirement so I stick with that and I'm
> happy.
>
Last time I checked the bootstrapping mechanism installed an outdated
version of pkg (
2013/4/8 Kevin Oberman :
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery
>> wrote:
>> >> On 4/7/2013 8:47 PM, Robert Simmons wrote:
>> >>> Are there plans to get the followin
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 4/7/2013 8:47 PM, Robert Simmons wrote:
>> >>> Are
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery
> wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2013 8:47 PM, Robert Simmons wrote:
> >>> Are there plans to get the following ports moved into HEAD?
> >>>
> >
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Robert Simmons wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>> On 4/7/2013 8:47 PM, Robert Simmons wrote:
>>> Are there plans to get the following ports moved into HEAD?
>>>
>>> 1) ports-mgmt/pkg
>>>
>>> 2) ports-mgmt/dialog4ports
>>>
>>> 3) ports
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 4/7/2013 8:47 PM, Robert Simmons wrote:
>> Are there plans to get the following ports moved into HEAD?
>>
>> 1) ports-mgmt/pkg
>>
>> 2) ports-mgmt/dialog4ports
>>
>> 3) ports-mgmt/portaudit
>>
>> 4) ports-mgmt/portmaster
>>
>> It seems to
On 4/7/2013 8:47 PM, Robert Simmons wrote:
> Are there plans to get the following ports moved into HEAD?
>
> 1) ports-mgmt/pkg
>
> 2) ports-mgmt/dialog4ports
>
> 3) ports-mgmt/portaudit
>
> 4) ports-mgmt/portmaster
>
> It seems to me like these belong in the base system.
On the contrary, the
Are there plans to get the following ports moved into HEAD?
1) ports-mgmt/pkg
2) ports-mgmt/dialog4ports
3) ports-mgmt/portaudit
4) ports-mgmt/portmaster
It seems to me like these belong in the base system.
Also, is there a reason why dialog4ports's functionality wasn't added
to dialog(1) as
28 matches
Mail list logo
