Re: Boost 1.37 released!

2008-11-24 Thread Andrea Venturoli
Alexander Churanov ha scritto: ... To my mind suggested approach would simplify understanding of how to install boost. The user would ask a question like 'should I add python to my boost installation' instead of 'is my boost built with python support or not'. Sounds like a good idea to me. b

Current unassigned ports problem reports

2008-11-24 Thread FreeBSD bugmaster
(Note: an HTML version of this report is available at http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?category=ports .) The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users. These represent problem reports covering all versions including experimental development code and obsol

Re: Boost 1.37 released!

2008-11-24 Thread Alexander Churanov
Andrea, OK, after finishing with currently mutually exclusive "Boost without Python" and "Boost with Python" ports I will try to create "Base libraries from Boost" port and complementary "Boost.Python bridge" ports. Alexander Churanov 2008/11/24 Andrea Venturoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Alexander

always-interactive ports

2008-11-24 Thread Andriy Gapon
I wonder if we have any flag for always-interactive ports i.e. ports that prompt user for something regardless of all batch/interactivity options. One example is java/jdk* ports that prompt user for license acceptance. If we don't have such a flag, maybe we should add one. One use, for instance,

Re: always-interactive ports

2008-11-24 Thread Andrew D
Andriy Gapon wrote: I wonder if we have any flag for always-interactive ports i.e. ports that prompt user for something regardless of all batch/interactivity options. One example is java/jdk* ports that prompt user for license acceptance. You will probably find this is for legal reasons. If

Re: always-interactive ports

2008-11-24 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 24/11/2008 14:13 Andrew D said the following: > Andriy Gapon wrote: >> I wonder if we have any flag for always-interactive ports i.e. ports >> that prompt user for something regardless of all batch/interactivity >> options. One example is java/jdk* ports that prompt user for license >> acceptanc

Re: archivers/rar: lib32 is not actually needed on amd64

2008-11-24 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 20/10/2008 17:14 Andriy Gapon said the following: > I try to install archivers/rar on amd64 system without 32-bit userland > (NO_LIB32) but with 32-bit support in kernel (COMPAT_IA32) and I get the > following error: > > ** Port marked as IGNORE: archivers/rar: > requires 32-bit librari

Re: archivers/rar: lib32 is not actually needed on amd64

2008-11-24 Thread Gábor Kövesdán
Andriy Gapon escribió: on 20/10/2008 17:14 Andriy Gapon said the following: I try to install archivers/rar on amd64 system without 32-bit userland (NO_LIB32) but with 32-bit support in kernel (COMPAT_IA32) and I get the following error: ** Port marked as IGNORE: archivers/rar: requir

Re: always-interactive ports

2008-11-24 Thread RW
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:55:55 +0200 Andriy Gapon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I wonder if we have any flag for always-interactive ports i.e. ports > that prompt user for something regardless of all batch/interactivity > options. One example is java/jdk* ports that prompt user for license > accep

Re: Openoffice.org 2.4 & 3.0

2008-11-24 Thread Julian Stacey
Hi, Cy Schubert wrote: > Can Openoffice.org 2.4 and 3.0 coexist on the same system? I have compiled & installed both on amd64. The binaries do not conflict (see below), Both start OK announcing right version numbers. But I'm not a serious user & no idea if all libs & other includes etc are carefu

Re: always-interactive ports

2008-11-24 Thread Erik Trulsson
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 01:55:55PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > I wonder if we have any flag for always-interactive ports i.e. ports > that prompt user for something regardless of all batch/interactivity > options. One example is java/jdk* ports that prompt user for license > acceptance. > > If

Re: always-interactive ports

2008-11-24 Thread Julian Stacey
Andrew D wrote: > Andriy Gapon wrote: > > I wonder if we have any flag for always-interactive ports i.e. ports > > that prompt user for something regardless of all batch/interactivity > > options. One example is java/jdk* ports that prompt user for license > > acceptance. > > > > You will probabl

Re: always-interactive ports

2008-11-24 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 24/11/2008 15:49 Erik Trulsson said the following: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 01:55:55PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> I wonder if we have any flag for always-interactive ports i.e. ports >> that prompt user for something regardless of all batch/interactivity >> options. One example is java/jdk*

IS_INTERACTIVE for java/jdk* ports

2008-11-24 Thread Andriy Gapon
At least jdk15 and jdk16 ports should be marked with IS_INTERACTIVE because they always ask user about license acceptance. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe

Re: always-interactive ports

2008-11-24 Thread Peter Pentchev
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:47:13PM +, RW wrote: > On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:55:55 +0200 > Andriy Gapon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I wonder if we have any flag for always-interactive ports i.e. ports > > that prompt user for something regardless of all batch/interactivity > > options. O

devel/subversion-freebsd: libsvn_client-1.0 symlink

2008-11-24 Thread Andriy Gapon
I am using subversion-freebsd port as a replacement for "normal" subversion. Recently I tried to install kdesdk port and was quite surprised to see that it wants to pull in devel/subversion. It turns out that kdesdk checks for svn_client-1.0 in its LIB_DEPENDS, but subversion-freebsd installs/sym

Re: devel/subversion-freebsd: libsvn_client-1.0 symlink

2008-11-24 Thread Andriy Gapon
I was confused. Sorry! on 24/11/2008 18:24 Andriy Gapon said the following: > I am using subversion-freebsd port as a replacement for "normal" subversion. > > Recently I tried to install kdesdk port and was quite surprised to see > that it wants to pull in devel/subversion. > It turns out that k

Re: always-interactive ports

2008-11-24 Thread Mark Linimon
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 01:48:10PM +0100, Julian Stacey wrote: > > Doing this could make fBSD liable which we certainly don't want. > > FUD, IMO :-) Where you live, you have the German legal system. Where I live, I have the US legal system. Remember, "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean t

A place to upload distfiles?

2008-11-24 Thread freebsd
I maintain a port for which the vendor provided me a customized distfile. They don't have it available for download from their site, so I need to find a home for it. Does the FreeBSD Project or Foundation provide hosting space for such cases or do I need to find my own space?

Re: ports/128999: [vuxml] [patch] update audio/streamripper to 1.64.0, fix CVE-2008-4829

2008-11-24 Thread William Palfreman
2008/11/23 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Synopsis: [vuxml] [patch] update audio/streamripper to 1.64.0, fix > CVE-2008-4829 Can we not have these on the freebsd-secuirty list please? I subscribe to freebsd-security to get security alerts, not to get emails every time a port is changed. William Palfre

Re: A place to upload distfiles?

2008-11-24 Thread Brooks Davis
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:58:28AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I maintain a port for which the vendor provided me a customized distfile. > They don't have it available for download from their site, so I need to > find a home for it. Does the FreeBSD Project or Foundation provide hosting

Re: Openoffice.org 2.4 & 3.0

2008-11-24 Thread Nikola Lečić
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:36:54 -0800 Cy Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, importing spellcheck dictionaries into either version results > in "bad tranfer url". Is there a solution to this? This might serve as a temporary solution: ht

Re: ports/128999: [vuxml] [patch] update audio/streamripper to 1.64.0, fix CVE-2008-4829

2008-11-24 Thread William Palfreman
2008/11/24 Volker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 11/24/08 19:55, William Palfreman wrote: >> 2008/11/23 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> Synopsis: [vuxml] [patch] update audio/streamripper to 1.64.0, fix >>> CVE-2008-4829 >> >> Can we not have these on the freebsd-secuirty list please? I >> subscribe to free

Re: ports/128999: [vuxml] [patch] update audio/streamripper to 1.64.0, fix CVE-2008-4829

2008-11-24 Thread Volker
On 11/24/08 19:55, William Palfreman wrote: > 2008/11/23 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Synopsis: [vuxml] [patch] update audio/streamripper to 1.64.0, fix >> CVE-2008-4829 > > Can we not have these on the freebsd-secuirty list please? I > subscribe to freebsd-security to get security alerts, not to ge

Re: ports/128999: [vuxml] [patch] update audio/streamripper to 1.64.0, fix CVE-2008-4829

2008-11-24 Thread matt donovan
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:06 PM, William Palfreman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > 2008/11/24 Volker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 11/24/08 19:55, William Palfreman wrote: > >> 2008/11/23 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> Synopsis: [vuxml] [patch] update audio/streamripper to 1.64.0, fix > CVE-2008-4829 > >>