>From: "Thomas Mueller"
>To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
>Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm
> unsubscribing
>
>There are many messages on this thread, and I don't know which or what to
>quote, but I agree on send-pr being user-unfriendly.
I disagree.
I u
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:13:44AM +, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to summarize the feedback I've received from pkg users during
> that event. I got many questions about ports and packages and I think
> that questions are useful for the overall pkg development.
First thank yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19/12/13 11:19, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:13:44AM +, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Q: What if I have a package built from ports with some custom
>> options and a repository has newer package but with differen
Dear port maintainer,
The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your
ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check
each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate,
submit/commit an update. If any ports have already been updated, you
On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not marked
> broken has to work.
I build the entire port tree several times a month. I can tell you from
experience that this assumption is not valid.
> So, the fault is on our side. Why shou
On 12/17/13 17:28, Aleksandr Rybalko wrote:
On 18.12.2013 01:27, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 12/17/13 15:32, Aleksandr Rybalko wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:12:05 -0600
Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 12/17/13 14:07, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 12:20:53PM +0100, Niclas Zeising wrot
Hi,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
John Marino wrote:
> On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not marked
> > broken has to work.
>
> I build the entire port tree several times a month. I can tell you
> from experience tha
On 12/19/2013 14:41, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
> John Marino wrote:
>
>> On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote:
>>> you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not marked
>>> broken has to work.
>>
>> I build the entire port tree seve
On 19/12/13 21:41 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
> John Marino wrote:
>
> > On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > > you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not marked
> > > broken has to work.
> >
> > I build the entire po
Hi,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:46:41 +0100
Rodrigo Osorio wrote:
> On 19/12/13 21:41 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
> > John Marino wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > > > you got the point. We have to assume that a po
On 19/12/13 22:09 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:46:41 +0100
> Rodrigo Osorio wrote:
>
> > On 19/12/13 21:41 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
> > > John Marino wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich
Or so the Makefile says.
What's the canonical replacement?
Respectfully,
Robert Huff
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubsc
On 12/17/2013 4:33 PM, John Marino wrote:
> Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
> mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to
> discourage that behavior but other members of this mail list encourage
> this method of bypassing writing PRs.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>
> I sincerely disagree and think it's quite rude to users to not accept
> their reports however they send them to us. current@ constantly has
> build failures on it, even automated. There's no reason ports@ shouldn't
> either. It tells everyo
On 12/19/2013 20:07, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>
> I sincerely disagree and think it's quite rude to users to not accept
> their reports however they send them to us. current@ constantly has
> build failures on it, even automated. There's no reason ports@ shouldn't
> either. It tells everyone that "yes
On 12/19/2013 1:21 PM, John Marino wrote:
> On 12/19/2013 20:07, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>
>> I sincerely disagree and think it's quite rude to users to not accept
>> their reports however they send them to us. current@ constantly has
>> build failures on it, even automated. There's no reason ports@
On 12/19/2013 20:28, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> I didn't say I spoke for portmgr. I just don't see the big deal and it's
> odd that it's OK on 1 list but not another. It's anti-user to get mad at
> them for trying to get help or report it for others. Of course we prefer
> they use GNATS, but go look in
On 19/12/13 19:10, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 12/17/2013 6:13 PM, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote:
>> Hello,
>
>> I'd like to summarize the feedback I've received from pkg users
>> during that event. I got many questions about ports and packages
>> and I think that questions are useful for the overall pkg
>
I am pleased to announce that portmgr@ now has a Google Community. We have
very slowly been building up membership through our Circles, and now it
it time to announce it to all!
You can find us at https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/108335846196454338383
Come join our Community and G+1 us :)
19.12.2013 23:35, John Marino пишет:
> I don't find the status quo personally acceptable, but I only have
> control of my actions, therefore "my threats" are the only recourse I
> have and thus they are appropriate.
May be you just ignore those emails? I don't think that there are
plenty of them.
Bryan Drewery wrote:
>> If FreeBSD isn't going to enforce their own procedures and use of
>> infrastructure, I will limit my exposure to the continuing anarchy and
>> let "customer service" to those that agree that ports@ is a
>> free-for-all.
>
[snip]
> ports@ is a community that more people read
I wrote:
> In short: if the way this list is being used (at least by some,
> vis-a-vis the "dump an error log without as much as a hello")
Was supposed to be followed by
"bothers certain people here"
> I wouldn't mind if people were more encouraged to try the forums,
[snip]
Sorry for the omis
On 12/19/13 17:25, Robert Huff wrote:
>
> Or so the Makefile says.
> What's the canonical replacement?
>
xf86-video-ati. The xf86-video-radeonhd hasn't seen any upstream
development since 2010.
Regards!
--
Niclas Zeising
___
freebsd-ports
Niclas Zeising writes:
> >Or so the Makefile says.
> >What's the canonical replacement?
>
> xf86-video-ati. The xf86-video-radeonhd hasn't seen any upstream
> development since 2010.
Thanks.
Robert Huff
___
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 01:44:57AM -0800, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> >
> >From: "Thomas Mueller"
> >
> >There are many messages on this thread, and I don't know which or
> >what to quote, but I agree on send-pr being user-unfriendly.
>
> I disagree.
> I use only send-pr to send PRs.
> I use sendm
Hi All!
The last week I started to get pkg-fallout@ emails about x11/fbpanel
error:
-
cc panel.o misc.o plugin.o gtkbar.o bg.o gtkbgbox.o ev.o run.o xconf.o
gconf.o gconf_panel.o gconf_plugins.o -o fbpanel -L/usr/local/lib
-lglib-2.0 -lintl -lgtk-x11-2.0 -lgdk-x11-2.0 -lpangocairo-1.0
-latk
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:42:38AM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
> Hi All!
>
> The last week I started to get pkg-fallout@ emails about x11/fbpanel
> error:
> -
> cc panel.o misc.o plugin.o gtkbar.o bg.o gtkbgbox.o ev.o run.o xconf.o
> gconf.o gconf_panel.o gconf_plugins.o -o fbpanel -L/usr/l
On 20-12-2013 7:58, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:42:38AM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
Hi All!
The last week I started to get pkg-fallout@ emails about x11/fbpanel
error:
-
cc panel.o misc.o plugin.o gtkbar.o bg.o gtkbgbox.o ev.o run.o xconf.o
gconf.o gconf_panel.o g
28 matches
Mail list logo
