Seeking testers for port of SikuliX-2014

I got the code to build and install on FreeBSD. The application starts, but I don't really know, how to use it. If you, or someone you know, do -- and have used it before on other platforms -- please, contact me directly. Thank you! -mi ___ freebs

Re: Remove options from poudriere option files for ports which were removed in the port

Matthias Fechner wrote on 07/01/2016 12:17: Dear all, it seems that poudriere can only add new options to its own options tracking, but cannot remove options that where removed from the Makefile of the port. Concrete example is for mail/postfix The option SPF was removed (2016-02-28): https://

Re: python 3.4.5 update

On Thu, 2016-06-30 at 09:02 +, Otacílio de Araújo Ramos Neto wrote: > > > > > Em qua, 29 de jun de 2016 20:16, Stari Karp > escreveu: > > > > > > Hi! > > > > I tried to update Python on my  > > 10.3-RELEASE-p5 (akd64) and I got: > > > > > > > > > > ports/lang/python34/work/

OrbFit Software on FreeBSD

Hi, I was wondering it OrbFit was in the ports. I really haven't looked yet. It is what MPC uses, the nerve center for international asteroid detection. http://adams.dm.unipi.it/orbfit/ Thanks, Jonathan Moore ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing lis

Re: qmail maintainer looking for committer, added rc-scripts

On 25.06.16 16:45, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Done. I noticed the port having several issues with portlint. If I start fixing them now, is there a way to release the port with identical ports version and patch level? I would not want users bothering to install "new" versions that only differ in the po

Re: qmail maintainer looking for committer, added rc-scripts

+--On 1 juillet 2016 14:23:53 +0200 Dirk Engling wrote: | On 25.06.16 16:45, Kurt Jaeger wrote: | |> Done. | | I noticed the port having several issues with portlint. If I start | fixing them now, is there a way to release the port with identical ports | version and patch level? | | I would not

Re: qmail maintainer looking for committer, added rc-scripts

Hi! > > Done. > > I noticed the port having several issues with portlint. If I start > fixing them now, is there a way to release the port with identical ports > version and patch level? That depends on the changes. If the files ending up in the stagedir are different, then the PORTREVISION++ ru

Re: OrbFit Software on FreeBSD

Jonathan Moore wrote: > I was wondering it OrbFit was in the ports. I really haven't looked yet. I can't find it in the ports tree. I'd be happy to see if I can create a port for it, *provided* I can find the time. HTH, Fonz -- A.J. "Fonz" van Werven mailsig: Help! I'm a prisoner in a Chines

Re: Remove options from poudriere option files for ports which were removed in the port

Miroslav Lachman wrote: I don't think it's worth the effort. The old no longer existent options stored in the options files are harmless and simply unused by the ports Makefile. The options files are not intended to be user editable / viewable. The old options will be removed when some chang

Re: Remove options from poudriere option files for ports which were removed in the port

Am 01.07.2016 um 12:39 schrieb Kimmo Paasiala: > This is not a feature/bug of poudriere but of the ports system itself. > There's no tracking of obsoleted or removed options and no clever > methods to clean them up. It's only when you remove the options with > 'make rmconfig' and rewrite them again

Re: what to do when base openssl isn't suitable

Hi Don, > On 01.07.2016, at 20:59, Don Lewis wrote: > > I've got a port that does not work with base openssl because it looks > for libssl.pc. Other than that, I don't think it is picky about what > flavor of ports ssl is installed. Because the default version of ssl > still defaults to base,

Re: what to do when base openssl isn't suitable

On 1 Jul, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Don Lewis wrote on 07/01/2016 20:59: >> I've got a port that does not work with base openssl because it looks >> for libssl.pc. Other than that, I don't think it is picky about what >> flavor of ports ssl is installed. Because the default version of ssl >> sti

Re: what to do when base openssl isn't suitable

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Don Lewis wrote > On 1 Jul, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > > Don Lewis wrote on 07/01/2016 20:59: > >> I've got a port that does not work with base openssl because it looks > >> for libssl.pc. Other than that, I don't think it is picky about what > >> flavor o

Re: what to do when base openssl isn't suitable

On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 04:15:12PM -0700, Chris H wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Don Lewis wrote > > > On 1 Jul, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > > > Don Lewis wrote on 07/01/2016 20:59: > > >> I've got a port that does not work with base openssl because it looks > > >> for libssl.pc.

Re: what to do when base openssl isn't suitable

On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 16:15:12 -0700 "Chris H" wrote > On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Don Lewis > wrote > > > On 1 Jul, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > > > Don Lewis wrote on 07/01/2016 20:59: > > >> I've got a port that does not work with base openssl because it looks > > >> for libssl.pc.

Re: what to do when base openssl isn't suitable

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 01:16:36 +0200 Baptiste Daroussin wrote > On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 04:15:12PM -0700, Chris H wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Don Lewis > > wrote > > > On 1 Jul, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > > > > Don Lewis wrote on 07/01/2016 20:59: > > > >> I've got a port th

Re: what to do when base openssl isn't suitable

On 2 Jul, Jan Beich wrote: > Don Lewis writes: > >> I've got a port that does not work with base openssl because it looks >> for libssl.pc. Other than that, I don't think it is picky about what >> flavor of ports ssl is installed. Because the default version of ssl >> still defaults to base, I