Hi!
> > I tried this for PAM:
> >
> > PAM_CONFIGURE_WITH+=pam
> > PAM_USE=PAM=yes
[...]
> You don't need += there -- just plain =
That '+' does not make a difference, I tried both versions.
> That should have resulted in configure being called with the argume
On 17/06/2014 20:09, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> matthew@ wrote:
>
>> There's a number of things wrong with this port, some inherited from the
>> pgpool-II port you copied, and some where you're using outmoded constructs.
> [...]
>> - Use options helpers rather than if $(PORT_OPTIONS:MFoo).
Hi!
matthew@ wrote:
> There's a number of things wrong with this port, some inherited from the
> pgpool-II port you copied, and some where you're using outmoded constructs.
[...]
> - Use options helpers rather than if $(PORT_OPTIONS:MFoo). Eg.
> instead of
>
> .if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MSSL}
Hi!
> Now, who's in charge to merge all your recommendations ? Michelle ?
I'll give it a try this evening to merge them.
--
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 6 years to go !
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
htt
Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 15/06/2014 22:49, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Personally I think:
>>
>> databases/pgpool (3.1.x)
>> databases/pgpool-devel (3.3.x)
>>
Given the lack of history in the ports, I'd say lets just skip
pgpool-II-3.2
>> Agreed. (effectively alr
On 15/06/2014 22:49, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> Personally I think:
>
> databases/pgpool (3.1.x)
> databases/pgpool-devel (3.3.x)
>> > Given the lack of history in the ports, I'd say lets just skip
>> > pgpool-II-3.2
> Agreed. (effectively already done)
Except that pgpool-II-3.3.3 is a stable rel
Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 15/06/2014 17:11, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>> Heh. I was just starting to look at writing a pgpool-II-33 port, but it
>>> seems you have beaten me to it.
>>>
>> Well, and you provided a thorough review, thanks for that!
>>
>> Now, who's in cha
On 15/06/2014 17:11, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> Heh. I was just starting to look at writing a pgpool-II-33 port, but it
>> seems you have beaten me to it.
>
> Well, and you provided a thorough review, thanks for that!
>
> Now, who's in charge to merge all your recommendations ? Michelle ?
Hello,
> Heh. I was just starting to look at writing a pgpool-II-33 port, but it
> seems you have beaten me to it.
Well, and you provided a thorough review, thanks for that!
Now, who's in charge to merge all your recommendations ? Michelle ?
> >>> Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool
Heh. I was just starting to look at writing a pgpool-II-33 port, but it
seems you have beaten me to it.
On 15/06/2014 15:29, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
>
>>> Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool related ports into one ?
>
>> Maybe pg-pool-II and pg-pool-devel...? (3.1/2 in stable and
Hi!
> > Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool related ports into one ?
> Maybe pg-pool-II and pg-pool-devel...? (3.1/2 in stable and 3.3 in
> devel - until it changes?)
I assume that all the pgpool ports can be consolidated into one (3.3).
Maybe if we start by DEPRECATing the old ones
Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
>> Can someone take a look at 189880 please... been a few weeks now, still
>> not heard from the maintainer.
>>
>
> It took a while to get it building in poudriere without side effects.
>
> Now prepared as new port databases/pgpool-II-33.
>
> Please test and app
Hi!
> Can someone take a look at 189880 please... been a few weeks now, still
> not heard from the maintainer.
It took a while to get it building in poudriere without side effects.
Now prepared as new port databases/pgpool-II-33.
Please test and approve.
Second step: merging the diverse set of
Can someone take a look at 189880 please... been a few weeks now, still
not heard from the maintainer.
Thanks
Michelle
freebsd-gnats-sub...@freebsd.org wrote:
> Thank you very much for your problem report.
> It has the internal identification `ports/189880'.
> The individual assigned to look at
14 matches
Mail list logo
