06.01.2012 06:20, Doug Barton wrote:
I do package build systems that support a variety of types of end
systems. (Nearly) all of them use php in some form or another, but a
substantial portion of them don't have web servers, and therefore don't
need the cgi, apache module, or the apache dependency
On 01/08/2012 04:59, Martin Kropfinger wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> The porters handbook describes a way to handle config files:
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/plist-config.html
>
> It is recommended to do it this way for keeping changed files after
> deinstallation on the sy
On 9 Jan 2012 06:01, "Da Rock"
wrote:
>
> All arguments aside, I've finally made headway - I think... its really
frustrating for me because to me it seems a bit of a "blackbox" atm. I'm
still trying to untangle the threads.
>
> I fiddled and tweaked and finally got make to run. I then ran make
-DP
(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
Doug Barton ha scritto:
What would make my life a whole lot simpler is if lang/php5 were the
command line version, and the cgi and apache modules were separate
ports. Is this feasible?
Short answer: no. Long answer: nothing is impossible ;-)
Extensions are compiled based on settings of the core
Il giorno 08/gen/2012, alle ore 21:43, Maxim Khitrov ha scritto:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm not sure whether this is a FreeBSD or uwsgi problem, but the
> current port (uwsgi 1.0) isn't compiling on FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE amd64
> for the following reasons:
>
> 1. In uwsgiconfig.py:534 uwsgi checks for the
Hi,
Just in case this isn't a known issue..
cheers
Paul.
---> Upgrading 'opendkim-2.4.1' to 'opendkim-2.4.2' (mail/opendkim)
---> Building '/usr/ports/mail/opendkim'
===> Cleaning for opendkim-2.4.2
===> License BSD SENDMAIL accepted by the user
===> Found saved configuration for opendkim
> I'm trying to fix a port which absolutely will not build with clang,
> since clang does not support the gcc extension used by this port. I set
> USE_GCC=4.2+, which is the lowest version of GCC which will work, but it
> doesn't properly override CC=clang.
>
> wxs at ack spamdyke % env CC=clang ma
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Roberto De Ioris wrote:
>
> Il giorno 08/gen/2012, alle ore 21:43, Maxim Khitrov ha scritto:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm not sure whether this is a FreeBSD or uwsgi problem, but the
>> current port (uwsgi 1.0) isn't compiling on FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE amd64
>> for the foll
Hi.
There is PR: http://bugs.freebsd.org/163687
It tries to fix port building when user built it's perl installation
with USE_PERL option (creating symlinks in /usr/bin) set to off (not the
default). Patch in PR just replaces static shebang with ${PERL} variable
from Mk/bsd.perl.mk. But it doe
Adding perl and skv@
On 9 January 2012 18:49, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
> Hi.
>
> There is PR: http://bugs.freebsd.org/163687
> It tries to fix port building when user built it's perl installation with
> USE_PERL option (creating symlinks in /usr/bin) set to off (not the
> default). Patch in PR
On 9.1.2012 19:35, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
FreeBSD9 capabilities are completely different from linux one.
I will try to make a port, otherwise i will enable to check only for linux.
Yea, I spent a bit more time looking at it and the FreeBSD version of
sys/capability.h seems to be related to libca
2012/1/9 Chris Rees :
> 1. Fix devel/automake too (by replacing /usr/bin/perl with ${PERL})
>> 2. Create symlinks unconditionally in perl port and drop USE_PERL option
/usr/bin is in LOCALBASE which may be read only.
--
Eitan Adler
___
freebsd-ports@fr
Eitan Adler wrote on 09.01.2012 23:32:
2012/1/9 Chris Rees:
1. Fix devel/automake too (by replacing /usr/bin/perl with ${PERL})
2. Create symlinks unconditionally in perl port and drop USE_PERL option
/usr/bin is in LOCALBASE which may be read only.
Ok, but if so most part of ports tree wil
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
> Eitan Adler wrote on 09.01.2012 23:32:
>
>> 2012/1/9 Chris Rees:
>>>
>>> 1. Fix devel/automake too (by replacing /usr/bin/perl with ${PERL})
2. Create symlinks unconditionally in perl port and drop USE_PERL option
>>
>>
>> /usr
On 1/9/2012 8:42 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
Eitan Adler wrote on 09.01.2012 23:32:
2012/1/9 Chris Rees:
1. Fix devel/automake too (by replacing /usr/bin/perl with ${PERL})
2. Create symlinks unconditionally in perl port and drop USE_PER
On 2012-01-09 18:23, Paul Macdonald wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Just in case this isn't a known issue..
>
> cheers
> Paul.
>
> ---> Upgrading 'opendkim-2.4.1' to 'opendkim-2.4.2' (mail/opendkim)
> ---> Building '/usr/ports/mail/opendkim'
[...]
> => Couldn't fetch it - please try to retrieve this
> =>
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 09:04:25PM +0100, Olli Hauer wrote:
> On 2012-01-09 18:23, Paul Macdonald wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just in case this isn't a known issue..
> >
> > cheers
> > Paul.
> >
> > ---> Upgrading 'opendkim-2.4.1' to 'opendkim-2.4.2' (mail/opendkim)
> > ---> Building '/usr/por
so maybe there is package to make existing php5 package that would
work w/ apache and not just fastcgi
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2012, at 12:02 PM, alexus wrote:
>> there is no way to make it like that? so it has to be build via ports?
>
> The PHP maintainer
On 1/9/12 3:17 PM, Andrey Chernov wrote:
Is it hard to just update this port to the latest version instead?
(CC'ed to the maintainer)
I have seen several of these before.
problem is, tuesday, you update the port. works wednesday, thursday and
friday.
by monday, they moved it.
so, you HOP
I think I saw something in the list that FreeBSD 9.x has zip already
built in? so, ports that need 'zip' won't need zip?
for maintainers, they should use something like:
USE_ZIP=yes
to:
if ${OSVERSION} <= 90
USE_ZIP=yes
.endif
and/or BUILD_DEPENDS+=zip:${PORTSDIR}/archive
I think I saw something in the list that FreeBSD 9.x has zip already
built in? so, ports that need 'zip' won't need zip?
for maintainers, they should use something like:
USE_ZIP=yes
to:
if ${OSVERSION} <= 90
USE_ZIP=yes
.endif
and/or BUILD_DEPENDS+=zip:${PORTSDIR}/archive
Michael Scheidell wrote on 10.01.2012 00:30:
I think I saw something in the list that FreeBSD 9.x has zip already
built in? so, ports that need 'zip' won't need zip?
for maintainers, they should use something like:
USE_ZIP= yes
to:
if ${OSVERSION} <= 90
USE_ZIP= yes
.endif
and/or BUILD_D
On 2012-01-09 21:17, Andrey Chernov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 09:04:25PM +0100, Olli Hauer wrote:
>> On 2012-01-09 18:23, Paul Macdonald wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just in case this isn't a known issue..
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> Paul.
>>>
>>> ---> Upgrading 'opendkim-2.4.1' to 'opendkim-2.4.2' (m
Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote on 10.01.2012 01:06:
Michael Scheidell wrote on 10.01.2012 00:30:
I think I saw something in the list that FreeBSD 9.x has zip already
built in? so, ports that need 'zip' won't need zip?
for maintainers, they should use something like:
USE_ZIP= yes
to:
if ${OSVERSIO
On 1/9/12 4:06 PM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
(at what OSVERSION was zip included in the base?)
unzip, not zip. I believe it should be handled in bsd.port.mk like it
done for USE_XZ. Something like:
.if defined(USE_ZIP) && ${OSVERSION} < 90
EXTRACT_DEPENDS+=
${LOCALBASE}/bin/
On 1/9/12 4:10 PM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
.if exists(/usr/bin/unzip)
UNZIP_CMD?=/usr/bin/unzip
.else
UNZIP_CMD?=${LOCALBASE}/bin/unzip
.endif
in bsd.commands.mk
not in 900044
grep /usr/bin/zip /usr/ports/Mk/*
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 1/9/12 4:14 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
>
> On 1/9/12 4:10 PM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
>>
>> .if exists(/usr/bin/unzip)
>> UNZIP_CMD?=/usr/bin/unzip
>> .else
>> UNZIP_CMD?=${LOCALBASE}/bin/unzip
>> .endif
>>
>> in bsd.command
On 1/9/12 4:23 PM, Greg Larkin wrote:
This list of version values is very helpful in these cases:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/freebsd-versions.html
Unfortunately, the version was not bumped when unzip was added to base,
but you'll probably be able to narrow down where
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 01:06:04AM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
> Michael Scheidell wrote on 10.01.2012 00:30:
>> I think I saw something in the list that FreeBSD 9.x has zip already
>> built in? so, ports that need 'zip' won't need zip?
>>
>> for maintainers, they should use something like:
>
On 2012-01-09 22:23, Greg Larkin wrote:
> On 1/9/12 4:14 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
>
>> On 1/9/12 4:10 PM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
>>>
>>> .if exists(/usr/bin/unzip)
>>> UNZIP_CMD?=/usr/bin/unzip
>>> .else
>>> UNZIP_CMD?=${LOCALBASE}/bin/unzip
>>> .endif
>>>
>>> in bsd.com
On 1/9/12 4:46 PM, olli hauer wrote:
Have at the moment no 7.x machine handy but zip files can be handled by tar, at
last here on a 8.2 machine and I have no unzip installed.
hey, don't confuse me.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
>*| *SECNAP Network Security Corpor
Hello
I'm trying to migrate from REDHAT EL world to FREEBSD. We have a policy of
installing binary packages and stay away from compiling source code.
I have FreeBSD-9.0RC3 and I did pkg_add -r apache22 pkg_add -r php5, so now I
have both packages installed but I can't get them to work together..
On 9 Jan 2012 21:16, "Michael Scheidell" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/9/12 4:10 PM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
>>
>>
>> .if exists(/usr/bin/unzip)
>> UNZIP_CMD?=/usr/bin/unzip
>> .else
>> UNZIP_CMD?=${LOCALBASE}/bin/unzip
>> .endif
>>
>> in bsd.commands.mk
>>
> not in 900044
>
> grep /usr/b
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:52:19 -0600, wrote:
Hello
I'm trying to migrate from REDHAT EL world to FREEBSD. We have a policy
of installing binary packages and stay away from compiling source code.
I have FreeBSD-9.0RC3 and I did pkg_add -r apache22 pkg_add -r php5, so
now I have both packages
On 2012-01-09 23:18, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
>
> On 1/9/12 4:46 PM, olli hauer wrote:
>> Have at the moment no 7.x machine handy but zip files can be handled by tar,
>> at last here on a 8.2 machine and I have no unzip installed.
>
> hey, don't confuse me.
>
Don't worry, I believe you will d
On 1/9/12 5:36 PM, Olli Hauer wrote:
Don't worry, I believe you will do the right thing ;)
( Chris just confirmed that tar can extract zip files also on 7.4 and he use
this in games/ioquake3)
so, that means we can use tar in 8.x and 9.x. we didn't need unzip... :0-)
so, I am a ports commit
--On January 9, 2012 3:55:48 PM +1000 Da Rock
wrote:
I just need to work out how to check the checksum against a linux source.
I haven't found that yet.
My brief search was unsuccessful as well. Is it really possible that the
LInux community has abandoned providing checksums for RPM packag
On 1/9/12 4:52 PM, alexus wrote:
Hello
I'm trying to migrate from REDHAT EL world to FREEBSD. We have a policy of
installing binary packages and stay away from compiling source code.
I have FreeBSD-9.0RC3 and I did pkg_add -r apache22 pkg_add -r php5, so now I
have both packages installed bu
On 2012-01-09 23:31, Mark Felder wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:52:19 -0600, wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> I'm trying to migrate from REDHAT EL world to FREEBSD. We have a policy of
>> installing binary packages and stay away from compiling source code.
>> I have FreeBSD-9.0RC3 and I did pkg_add -r a
On 09/01/2012 22:28, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On January 9, 2012 3:55:48 PM +1000 Da Rock
> wrote:
>>
>> I just need to work out how to check the checksum against a linux source.
>> I haven't found that yet.
>>
>
> My brief search was unsuccessful as well. Is it really possible that
> the LInux c
On Jan 9, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> My brief search was unsuccessful as well. Is it really possible that the
> LInux community has abandoned providing checksums for RPM packages? If so,
> that boggles the mind. Surely they don't believe their repositories are
> unassailable?
rp
On 2012-01-09 23:39, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
>
> On 1/9/12 5:36 PM, Olli Hauer wrote:
>> Don't worry, I believe you will do the right thing ;)
>> ( Chris just confirmed that tar can extract zip files also on 7.4 and he use
>> this in games/ioquake3)
>>
> so, that means we can use tar in 8.x a
Ruslan Mahmatkhanov writes:
> There is PR: http://bugs.freebsd.org/163687
> It tries to fix port building when user built it's perl installation
> with USE_PERL option (creating symlinks in /usr/bin) set to off (not
> the default). Patch in PR just replaces static shebang with ${PERL}
> variable
On 09/01/2012 21:52, alexus wrote:
> I'm trying to migrate from REDHAT EL world to FREEBSD. We have a
> policy of installing binary packages and stay away from compiling
> source code. I have FreeBSD-9.0RC3 and I did pkg_add -r apache22
> pkg_add -r php5, so now I have both packages installed but I
On Jan 9, 2012, at 2:00 PM, alexus wrote:
> One of the things I'm seeing is that unfortunately packages are
> somewhat limited vs ports...
Packages come precompiled with default options. For people who want
non-default options, you would need to build your own package from ports rather
than usi
On 01/10/12 08:28, Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On January 9, 2012 3:55:48 PM +1000 Da Rock
wrote:
I just need to work out how to check the checksum against a linux
source.
I haven't found that yet.
My brief search was unsuccessful as well. Is it really possible that
the LInux community has ab
Op ma 09 jan 2012 22:49:33 schreef Ruslan Mahmatkhanov:
> Hi.
>
> There is PR: http://bugs.freebsd.org/163687
> It tries to fix port building when user built it's perl installation
> with USE_PERL option (creating symlinks in /usr/bin) set to off (not the
> default). Patch in PR just replaces stat
On 01/09/2012 12:08, alexus wrote:
> so maybe there is package to make existing php5 package that would
> work w/ apache and not just fastcgi
There is not a package with that option enabled. You will need to build
/usr/ports/lang/php5 and run 'make config' to enable it.
Hope this helps,
Doug
-
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 05:39:03PM -0500, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> so, I am a ports committer, how about I hack bsd.port.*.mk files :-)
Commits to bsd.port.mk need to be approved by portmgr, preferably after
regression-testing on the cluster.
mcl
___
ok, thanks
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 01/09/2012 12:08, alexus wrote:
>> so maybe there is package to make existing php5 package that would
>> work w/ apache and not just fastcgi
>
> There is not a package with that option enabled. You will need to build
> /usr/ports/
I'm having some trouble using knobs and "defined" in the Makefile. It
keeps complaining about the unexpected.
I've tried .if defined(WITH_PAM) and .ifdefined(WITH_PAM) and it
complains about an unexpected "(" in the first, and an unexpected word
in the second.
How do I conditionally handle t
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 06:22:58PM +, b. f. wrote:
> > I'm trying to fix a port which absolutely will not build with clang,
> > since clang does not support the gcc extension used by this port. I set
> > USE_GCC=4.2+, which is the lowest version of GCC which will work, but it
> > doesn't proper
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Wesley Shields wrote:
> I guess I'll set the IGNORE line if using clang for now. No point in
> wasting cycles on a port which won't compile for a long time, if ever.
Please use ${CC:T:Mclang} == "clang" as it works with path relative
paths and absolute paths and do
Jan Beich wrote on 10.01.2012 03:06:
Ruslan Mahmatkhanov writes:
There is PR: http://bugs.freebsd.org/163687
It tries to fix port building when user built it's perl installation
with USE_PERL option (creating symlinks in /usr/bin) set to off (not
the default). Patch in PR just replaces static
The updated PREFIX and DESTDIR section has been committed. Thanks for
the feedback and suggestions!
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsub
I'd like to install a couple of the python module ports as part of my python32
install (also from ports). Is there an incantation I can use with portinstall
or the ports Makefile that will allow me to tell typical py-* modules in my
python 3.2 libraries instead of with python 2.7, or should I
Try add this line in /etc/make.conf
PYTHON_DEFAULT_VERSION=python3.2
wen
2012/1/10 Matthew Pounsett
>
> I'd like to install a couple of the python module ports as part of my
> python32 install (also from ports). Is there an incantation I can use with
> portinstall or the ports Makefile that w
On 2012/01/10, at 01:16, wen heping wrote:
> Try add this line in /etc/make.conf
>
> PYTHON_DEFAULT_VERSION=python3.2
Perfect! Thanks very much!
One of the dependencies turns out to have a syntax dependency on python2.x, but
I can work with that.
___
59 matches
Mail list logo
