On 2012-09-01 08:42, Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> An idea has been floating around for some time, and it was brought up again
> on the ports@ mailing list recently, please remove the extraneous header
> information from the Makefile, leaving only the $FreeBSD$ id on the first
> line.
>
> It is an idea
[ RW wrote on Sat 1.Sep'12 at 0:49:54 +0100 ]
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:27:14 -0700
> Jim Pazarena wrote:
>
>
> > Which is the recommended way to stay PORT current? portsnap or csup?
> > I will switch to portsnap, but it is pretty slow compared to csup.
>
> In normal use portsnap should be muc
On Saturday, September 01, 2012 06:42:57 Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> Also bear in mind that Redports/QAT queues a job for every change done to a
> Makefile, we do not want to overburden the QAT at this time. It is important
> to allow this service to run at peek efficiency at this time to ensure it's
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:02:46 +0200 Alexander Leidinger
wrote:
> And this one is tested (copy&paste, may have lost tabs and add
> linebreaks from my mailer):
> ---snip---
> # svn diff
> Index: perform.c
> ===
> --- perform.c (revisi
On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 07:27:40AM -0400, Jason E. Hale wrote:
> On Saturday, September 01, 2012 06:42:57 Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> > Also bear in mind that Redports/QAT queues a job for every change done to a
> > Makefile, we do not want to overburden the QAT at this time. It is important
> > to al
Hi,
According to /usr/ports/UPDATING we are supposed to switch to pkgconf.
20120726:
AFFECTS: users of devel/pkg-config
devel/pkg-config has been replaced by devel/pkgconf
I understand "replaced" to mean that pkg-config is out.
There does not appear to be a man page for pkgconf at the
Hi all,
I need some testers specially on 9/10-current to test the www/apache22
optionsNG rewrite.
I have a report from a 10-current user where we see a make regression, but
it is not clear if the regression is in make or the ports framework
therefore I need some more testers.
What does the patch
On 31-08-2012 14:22, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:10:50AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:59:10 am Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:02:06PM -1000, Doug Barton wrote:
I agree with John on all counts here. Further, the
Olli Hauer wrote ..
> Hi all,
>
> I need some testers specially on 9/10-current to test the www/apache22
> optionsNG rewrite.
>
> I have a report from a 10-current user where we see a make regression, but
> it is not clear if the regression is in make or the ports framework
> therefore I need so
On 2012-09-01 19:45, Waitman Gobble wrote:
> Olli Hauer wrote ..
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I need some testers specially on 9/10-current to test the www/apache22
>> optionsNG rewrite.
>>
>> I have a report from a 10-current user where we see a make regression, but
>> it is not clear if the regression is in
On 9/1/2012 7:43 PM, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
On 31-08-2012 14:22, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:10:50AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:59:10 am Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:02:06PM -1000, Doug Barton wrote:
I agree with Joh
Olli Hauer wrote ..
> On 2012-09-01 19:45, Waitman Gobble wrote:
> > Olli Hauer wrote ..
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I need some testers specially on 9/10-current to test the www/apache22
> >> optionsNG rewrite.
> >>
> >> I have a report from a 10-current user where we see a make regression, but
> >>
On 2012-09-01 20:28, Waitman Gobble wrote:
> Olli Hauer wrote ..
>> On 2012-09-01 19:45, Waitman Gobble wrote:
>>> Olli Hauer wrote ..
Hi all,
I need some testers specially on 9/10-current to test the www/apache22
optionsNG rewrite.
I have a report from a 10-current
olli hauer wrote ..
> On 2012-09-01 20:28, Waitman Gobble wrote:
> > Olli Hauer wrote ..
> >> On 2012-09-01 19:45, Waitman Gobble wrote:
> >>> Olli Hauer wrote ..
> Hi all,
>
> I need some testers specially on 9/10-current to test the www/apache22
> optionsNG rewrite.
>
On 2012-09-01 21:06, Waitman Gobble wrote:
> olli hauer wrote ..
>> On 2012-09-01 20:28, Waitman Gobble wrote:
>>> Olli Hauer wrote ..
On 2012-09-01 19:45, Waitman Gobble wrote:
> Olli Hauer wrote ..
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I need some testers specially on 9/10-current to test the
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 8/31/2012 10:15 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
>> On 31 August 2012 09:15, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>
>>> No, because it already knows which you installed and which were pulled
>>> in as dependencies. There's a recent thread on ports@ regarding pkg2n
On 9/1/2012 2:46 PM, Marin Atanasov Nikolov wrote:
> Support for plugins which provide new commands in pkgng has been committed.
Very cool!
--
Regards,
Bryan Drewery
bdrewery@freenode/EFNet
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebs
olli hauer wrote ..
> On 2012-09-01 21:06, Waitman Gobble wrote:
> > olli hauer wrote ..
> >> On 2012-09-01 20:28, Waitman Gobble wrote:
> >>> Olli Hauer wrote ..
> On 2012-09-01 19:45, Waitman Gobble wrote:
> > Olli Hauer wrote ..
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I need some testers
On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 06:42:57AM +, Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> An idea has been floating around for some time, and it was brought up again
> on the ports@ mailing list recently, please remove the extraneous header
> information from the Makefile, leaving only the $FreeBSD$ id on the first
> lin
I had backported denial-of-service fixes from version 3.1,
http://codelabs.ru/fbsd/ports/gatekeeper/gnugk-fix-cve-2012-3534.diff
but I don't use GNU gatekeeper in production.
Patched version contains new configuration knob, MaxStatusClients,
that is 20 by-default and is used to limit the number
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As far as I'm concerned, the commiters will take care of this when
they need to. Leaving current port headers in-tact is the best way to
go regardless of this discussion...
On 09/01/2012 10:00 PM, Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 06:42
21 matches
Mail list logo
