Re: Recent Mk/bsd.perl.mk changes (r320679)

2013-06-26 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 08:40:52AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:12:19PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:42:37AM +0400, Andrej Zverev wrote: > > > Hello, and first please accept my apologies for this situation. > > > > Understood, I just

Re: rc.d scripts to control multiple instances of the same daemon?

2013-06-26 Thread Alex Dupre
Garrett Wollman ha scritto: > I've looked around for examples of good practice to emulate, and > haven't found much. The closest to what I want looks to be > vboxheadless, but I'm uncomfortable with the amount of mechanism from > rc.subr that it needs to reimplement. Are there any better examples

Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?

2013-06-26 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 2013-06-26 01:55, Michael Gmelin wrote: ... The problem is that static initialization happens in the expected order (same translation unit), but termination does *not* happen in the reverse order of initialization, which - according to the C++ standard section 3.6.3 should be guaranteed: "If

FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date

2013-06-26 Thread portscout
| 20130626 +-+ x11-toolkits/sakura | 2.4.2 | 3.1.0 +-+ If any of the above results are invalid, please check the

Re: Recent Mk/bsd.perl.mk changes (r320679)

2013-06-26 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:15:37AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 08:40:52AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:12:19PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:42:37AM +0400, Andrej Zverev wrote: > > > > Hello, and first p

Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?

2013-06-26 Thread Michael Gmelin
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:00:40 +0200 Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2013-06-26 01:55, Michael Gmelin wrote: > ... > > The problem is that static initialization happens in the expected > > order (same translation unit), but termination does *not* happen in > > the reverse order of initialization, which

Re: pkg & portmaster

2013-06-26 Thread Bryan Drewery
On 6/25/2013 8:48 PM, Adrian Murphy wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed portmaster developed a problem after a recent update to > ports-mgmt/pkg where the following appears in the output: > > [: false: bad number > > I traced it to lines in portmaster where np_orphan is set: > > np_orphan=`pkg query "%a

Re: Proposal: further OptionsNG improvements

2013-06-26 Thread Alexey Dokuchaev
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:04:51AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > Sorry it took time for me to reply, after we last talk about this, I > thought a lot about this, and while in principe I do like the idea, I have > a couple of concerns: > > 1: this reduces lots of flexibility we now have with t

Re: Proposal: further OptionsNG improvements

2013-06-26 Thread Alexey Dokuchaev
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:12:41PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > I've cooked something up just now, take a look at the attached diff. I've > only barely tested it, but it seems to work for a few of my hand-crafted > configurations. It also handles known options groups (single/multi/etc.), > te

Re: Recent Mk/bsd.perl.mk changes (r320679)

2013-06-26 Thread Jim Pingle
On 6/26/2013 2:40 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > No the justification is that we use to have a perl-after-upgrade script to > workaround the fact that we used major.minor.patchlevel my bypassing the > package > tool to modify directly the content of the package database and more some > files > o

Ports with a broken PKGORIGIN: devel/boost-all, mail/squirrelma...

2013-06-26 Thread erwin
** The following ports have an incorrect PKGORIGIN ** PKGORIGIN connects packaged or installed ports to the directory they originated from. This is essential for tools like pkg_version or portupgrade to work correctly. Wrong PKGORIGINs are often caused by a wrong order of CATEGORIES after a re

dovecot2 fails to update in combination with pigeonhole-0.4.0

2013-06-26 Thread Johan Hendriks
Hello all! I try to update my dovecot server. But the following error is printed. I use pkgng. # portmaster -d dovecot2 < snip> ===> Correct pkg-plist sequence to create group(s) and user(s) ===> Compressing manual pages for dovecot-2.2.4 ===> Running ldconfig /sbin/ldconfig -m /usr/local/li

[QAT] r321799: 4x leftovers, 4x dud, 4x success

2013-06-26 Thread Ports-QAT
Upgrade net-mgmt/netmagis-* ports to 2.2.0 PR: ports/18 Submitted by: maintainer - Build ID: 20130626165800-11105 Job owner: m...@freebsd.org Buildtime: 39 minutes Enddate:

Re: Proposal: further OptionsNG improvements

2013-06-26 Thread Alexey Dokuchaev
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:30:55PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:12:41PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > I've cooked something up just now, take a look at the attached diff. I've > > only barely tested it, but it seems to work for a few of my hand-crafted > > confi

Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Dimitry Andric
On Jun 26, 2013, at 13:31, Michael Gmelin wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:00:40 +0200 > Dimitry Andric wrote: >> On 2013-06-26 01:55, Michael Gmelin wrote: >> ... >>> The problem is that static initialization happens in the expected >>> order (same translation unit), but termination does *not* ha

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Michael Gmelin
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:26:09 +0200 Dimitry Andric wrote: > On Jun 26, 2013, at 13:31, Michael Gmelin wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:00:40 +0200 > > Dimitry Andric wrote: > >> On 2013-06-26 01:55, Michael Gmelin wrote: > >> ... > >>> The problem is that static initialization happens in the ex

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > This revision is not in 9.1-RELEASE, but it is in 9-STABLE, so the > problem can also be reproduced there. ... > This is roughly gcc 4.3.0 and later. For example, gcc 4.8 generates: I just tested the thing with gcc 4.8 on up to date

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Michael Gmelin
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:45:21 +0300 Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > This revision is not in 9.1-RELEASE, but it is in 9-STABLE, so the > > problem can also be reproduced there. > ... > > This is roughly gcc 4.3.0 and later. For exam

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:51:37PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote: > Could you replicate the problem using clang on stable/9 and HEAD? (I > didn't test gcc > 4.2.1 myself). On stable no, it is not reproducable. As I understand, stable clang is 3.2-something. On HEAD with clang, I do see the indentat

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Dimitry Andric
On Jun 26, 2013, at 22:45, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> This revision is not in 9.1-RELEASE, but it is in 9-STABLE, so the >> problem can also be reproduced there. > ... >> This is roughly gcc 4.3.0 and later. For example, gcc 4.8

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:59:24PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On Jun 26, 2013, at 22:45, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > >> This revision is not in 9.1-RELEASE, but it is in 9-STABLE, so the > >> problem can also be reproduced th

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Michael Gmelin
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:05:34 +0300 Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:59:24PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > On Jun 26, 2013, at 22:45, Konstantin Belousov > > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > >> This revision is not in 9.1-R

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Dimitry Andric
On Jun 26, 2013, at 23:05, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:59:24PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> On Jun 26, 2013, at 22:45, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: This revision is not in 9.1-RELEASE, but it is

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Michael Gmelin
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:11:34 +0200 Dimitry Andric wrote: > On Jun 26, 2013, at 23:05, Konstantin Belousov > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:59:24PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > >> On Jun 26, 2013, at 22:45, Konstantin Belousov > >> wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200,

Re: Ports with a broken PKGORIGIN: devel/boost-all, mail/squirrelma...

2013-06-26 Thread Stefan Bethke
Am 26.06.2013 um 14:54 schrieb er...@freebsd.org: > ** The following ports have an incorrect PKGORIGIN ** > > PKGORIGIN connects packaged or installed ports to the directory they > originated from. This is essential for tools like pkg_version or > portupgrade to work correctly. Wrong PKGORIGINs a

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:17:41PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote: > Are you both on the same architecture? I tested both on amd64 and i386. For i386, it was -m32 for clang, and native 32bit gcc 4.8.1, stock build from the tarball. pgpx_vSDnRqU4.pgp Description: PGP signature

[QAT] r321820: 4x leftovers

2013-06-26 Thread Ports-QAT
?view=revision&revision=321820 - Port:sysutils/acpica-tools 20130626 Buildgroup: 9.1-QAT/amd64 Buildstatus: LEFTOVERS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~j...@freebsd.org/20130626224800-4

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Michael Gmelin
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:28:33 +0300 Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:17:41PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote: > > Are you both on the same architecture? > > I tested both on amd64 and i386. For i386, it was -m32 for clang, and > native 32bit gcc 4.8.1, stock build from the tarb

Re: Ports with a broken PKGORIGIN: devel/boost-all, mail/squirrelma...

2013-06-26 Thread Jason Helfman
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Stefan Bethke wrote: > Am 26.06.2013 um 14:54 schrieb er...@freebsd.org: > > > ** The following ports have an incorrect PKGORIGIN ** > > > > PKGORIGIN connects packaged or installed ports to the directory they > > originated from. This is essential for tools like