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ports appears to be out of date.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
Dear all,
Am 13.02.2016 um 11:40 schrieb Matthias Fechner:
> Yuri us are currently working on a new port for gogs:
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205283
>
> For this a new user and group is required.
> I already checked the file and I would like to add the following files:
>
Hi!
> > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205283
[...]
> I created for this now:
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207206
The blocker for gogs is not the additional users, the blockers are
the GH_TUPLE and the Uses/go.mk changes:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzill
Hello.
It seems mail/pear-Mail_Queue is broken since devel/pear was upgraded to
1.10.1.
The message I get is:
PHP Fatal error: Cannot make static method PEAR::isError() non static in class
Mail_Queue in /usr/local/share/pear/Mail/Queue.php on line 126
This is widely found on the web and ev
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:56:25AM -0500, Jason Unovitch wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Lars Engels wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:59:26AM -0500, Richard Kuhns wrote:
> >> Apologies; it was apparently libgcrypt, not nettle.
> >>
> >> On 02/12/16 09:29, Richard Kuhns wrote:
> >>
Steven Hartland wrote:
> On 14/02/2016 11:25, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>> Kevin Oberman wrote:
>>> My experience is that pkg(8) has been wonderfully robust since 1.3.
>>> before
>>> 1.3 it was a real pain in the neck, though I never had a need to
>>> rebuild
>>> the DB, I did ave to do a bit of fix
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207212
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Hi,
I'll have a look, thanks for your report.
- Martin
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> Hello.
>
> It seems mail/pear-Mail_Queue is broken since devel/pear was upgraded to
> 1.10.1.
>
> The message I get is:
>
>> PHP Fatal error: Cannot make static method PEAR::isErro
Michelle wrote:
> The way it was forced down everyone's necks pushed it to 8.4 and 9.x
> systems as well as 10.x, this was a bad decision. It was a decision
> made by someone who doesn't live in the real world of production servers
> and production services...
Michelle, I sympathize, but you're
Am 15.02.2016 um 10:49 schrieb Kurt Jaeger:
> The blocker for gogs is not the additional users, the blockers are
> the GH_TUPLE and the Uses/go.mk changes:
>
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204772
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205282
it is not blocking in
Hi!
> Am 15.02.2016 um 10:49 schrieb Kurt Jaeger:
> > The blocker for gogs is not the additional users, the blockers are
> > the GH_TUPLE and the Uses/go.mk changes:
> >
> > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204772
> > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205282
>
>
Michelle wrote:
The way it was forced down everyone's necks pushed it to 8.4 and 9.x
systems as well as 10.x, this was a bad decision. It was a decision
made by someone who doesn't live in the real world of production servers
and production services...
It was actually worse than that. Those o
On 2/15/2016 5:59 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
> It was actually worse than that. Those of us who questioned the wisdom
> of such disruptive and backwards-incompatible changes being implemented
> mid-release instead of at a release boundry were A) ignored, B) told that
> there were not enough (develop
Hi!
> The FreeBSD Foundation SHOULD have played a part in insuring
> a smoother transition to pkgng (much less portsng and, gack, rcng) but
> this doesn't seem to have been on their radar.
I don't know if it was on their radar, but I saw at that time that
the community lost users due to the techn
John Marino wrote:
> On 2/15/2016 5:59 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>
>> It was actually worse than that. Those of us who questioned the wisdom
>> of such disruptive and backwards-incompatible changes being implemented
>> mid-release instead of at a release boundry were A) ignored, B) told that
>>
This makes no sense. Ports are not tied to base releases.
And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know. The issue was
with ports and by extension pkgng (and related -ngs).
You know good and well that people kick the
On 2/15/2016 6:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>> This makes no sense. Ports are not tied to base releases.
>> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
>
> There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know. The issue was
> with ports and by extension pkgng (and related
Marko Cupać wrote:
Hi,
I have working pure-ftpd server on vmware-based 9.3-RELEASE-p33. It
authenticates virtual users from mysql server over tcp, and chroots them
to their directories.
Any idea why the same configuration does not work in jail-based host?
I can only guess wide: there's no c
So, if it was too burdensome for the whole project to support
two trees (that probably was the estimate for the core developers
involved [and I'm not one of them]), why, do you think, would
it have worked for a sub-fraction of the project ?
Thanks Kurt, for cutting to the core issue. It's one t
On 2/15/2016 6:31 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> Actually it made perfect sense... (for a change) ... make pkgng the
> default on 10.x and allow people to use either on 8.4 and 9.x ... this
> made perfect sense... Make base packaging using similar/same tools as
> part of 11+ makes perfect sense..
Am Montag, 15. Februar 2016 schrieb Roger Marquis:
> There are lots of reasons why Linux has effectively eclipsed BSD
> including device drivers, unattended deployments and install menus but
> 8.X's wholesale throwing of so many of us under the bus was by far the
> worst.
Well, have you experience
Hi!
> > So, if it was too burdensome for the whole project to support
> > two trees (that probably was the estimate for the core developers
> > involved [and I'm not one of them]), why, do you think, would
> > it have worked for a sub-fraction of the project ?
>
> Thanks Kurt, for cutting to the
Ports have to support all supported releases, that's the only connection.
They have historically and for good reason. Cross-platform ports are
FreeBSD's strongest feature, but it would not have taken a tremendous
amount of effort to have supported both pre- and post- ng trees in tandem
for say
Hi Olli —
On 14.02.2016, at 22:37, olli hauer wrote:
> On 2016-02-08 20:13, Michael Grimm wrote:
>> I am wondering why postfix-current is still marked broken regarding SPF
>> support:
>>
>> | poudriere build log file excerpt:
>> |Finished build of mail/postfix-current: Ignored: is marked a
I've never met bapt, who implemented pkg, or bdrewery, but from
what I can see, implementing pkg was not a short-term project for them.
Short-term perspective != short-term project considering they're both
relative to the ecosystem.
It was the only way out from the technical burden of the old
John Marino wrote:
> On 2/15/2016 6:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>
>>> This makes no sense. Ports are not tied to base releases.
>>> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
>>>
>> There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know. The issue was
>> with por
Hi!
What is the correct way to set the DEFAULT_VERSIONS to mariadb
in /etc/make.conf ?
I looked at /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk.
In /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.database.mk it looks like 101m is a valid value,
which would map to
DEFAULT_VERSIONS= mysql=10.1m
Would this work ?
--
p...@opsec.eu
> Hi!
>
> What is the correct way to set the DEFAULT_VERSIONS to mariadb
> in /etc/make.conf ?
>
> I looked at /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk.
>
> In /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.database.mk it looks like 101m is a valid value,
> which would map to
>
> DEFAULT_VERSIONS= mysql=10.1m
DEFAULT_MYSQL_
On 2/15/2016 9:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> Yeah, I'd agree with this... except...
>
> pkg_* tools don't exist on 10.x only pkgng... that makes it base os
> thing.. even if it's downloaded in/via ports..
>
> So sorry don't claim it's only part of the ports system, because whilst
> it maybe
Kurt Jaeger wrote on 02/15/2016 22:10:
Hi!
What is the correct way to set the DEFAULT_VERSIONS to mariadb
in /etc/make.conf ?
I looked at /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk.
In /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.database.mk it looks like 101m is a valid value,
which would map to
DEFAULT_VERSIONS= mysql=10.
> I think DEFAULT_MYSQL_VER=101m is wrong. bsd.detabase.mk has this warning:
>
> .if defined(DEFAULT_MYSQL_VER)
> WARNING+= "DEFAULT_MYSQL_VER is defined, consider using
> DEFAULT_VERSIONS=mysql=${DEFAULT_MYSQL_VER} instead"
> .endif
Ah, I didn't realize it was deprecated. I had set this
On 02/15/2016 09:32, Roger Marquis wrote:
>> This makes no sense. Ports are not tied to base releases.
>> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
>
> There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know. The issue was
> with ports and by extension pkgng (and relat
Am 15.02.2016 um 16:24 schrieb Kurt Jaeger:
>> it is not blocking in a hard way.
>> But if you have it installed you deinstall it and reinstall it again,
>> you maybe get permission problems, because the UID/GID for the gogs user
>> can change.
>
> That's a valid point.
>
> Is there a reason for
Hello,
On 2/15/16 3:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
John Marino wrote:
On 2/15/2016 6:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
This makes no sense. Ports are not tied to base releases.
And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I k
On 2/15/2016 2:46 PM, Matthias Fechner wrote:
> Am 15.02.2016 um 16:24 schrieb Kurt Jaeger:
>>> it is not blocking in a hard way.
>>> But if you have it installed you deinstall it and reinstall it again,
>>> you maybe get permission problems, because the UID/GID for the gogs user
>>> can change.
>>
John Marino wrote:
> On 2/15/2016 9:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I'd agree with this... except...
>>
>> pkg_* tools don't exist on 10.x only pkgng... that makes it base os
>> thing.. even if it's downloaded in/via ports..
>>
>> So sorry don't claim it's only part of the ports syst
Michelle Sullivan wrote:
John Marino wrote:
On 2/15/2016 5:59 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
It was actually worse than that. Those of us who questioned the wisdom
of such disruptive and backwards-incompatible changes being implemented
mid-release instead of at a release boundry were A) ignored,
Jim Ohlstein wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 2/15/16 3:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>> John Marino wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2016 6:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>>>
> This makes no sense. Ports are not tied to base releases.
> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
>
Th
Hello,
I recently upgraded textproc/xqilla from version 2.3.0_3,1 to 2.3.2,1 and I
have noticed that my applications have stopped working. The main problem is
that libxqilla.so.6 is not found after the upgrade, only libxqilla.so.4.2.0 is
available. Doing a pkg info for xqilla shows that libxqil
Hi committers,
is someone willing to commit bug 206834 [1]?
It is about activating some features by new options in QGIS and it is
maintainer approved (by me).
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Rainer Hurling
[1] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206834
__
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 07:18:47AM +0100, Rainer Hurling wrote:
> Hi committers,
>
> is someone willing to commit bug 206834 [1]?
>
> It is about activating some features by new options in QGIS and it is
> maintainer approved (by me).
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Best regards,
> Rainer Hurling
>
41 matches
Mail list logo
