On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
> Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if
> somehow
> you could select the version of node that the ports tree builds via
> some
> (as yet unspecified) mechanism?
I've also think about that but I'm not sure if it's easier
On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 00:31 +, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
> A user would probably start with precompiled packages. Only power
> users
> who know what they are doing would try to compile the packages
> themselves, and at that point I would expect them to know a thing or
> two
> about verifying tha
On 2017-06-23 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Release branches won't have many maintenance except individual bug
fixes when security advisories are found. No backport, no updates.
Nothing prevents the maintainers from doing exactly that right now. But
you see, there are two kinds of po
On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 16:11 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> > My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing
> > the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be
> > a Really Good Thing for everyo
On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if
somehow
you could select the version of node that the ports tree builds via
some
(as yet unspecified) mechanism?
I've also think
Hello,
I need to organize file exchange between between daemon and windows
program. Daemon is sitting in jail, windows - in bhyve, both on the same
host. Daemon is writing lines into file, windows program reads them.
The obvious choose was to install samba46 into jail and provide share to
wi
On 06/23/17 09:47, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 16:11 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
>>> My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing
>>> the frequency of port releases is practically
On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 10:38 +0200, Vlad K. wrote:
> But again, that's all doable without having to introduce new
> infrastructure. The ports tree as is can be maintained like this and
> quarterly repos would NOT be required. All it's needed is for
> maintainers to keep a stable version and a lat
On 2017-06-23 11:35, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Release branches do not need backports.
I think we have different concepts of "backport" here. I'm not talking
about backports as defined by debian backports repository. I'm talking
about taking a piece of code from NEWER version and turni
Dear committers,
Would someone please commit following 2 PRs?
Bug 213187 - graphics/xface.el: simplify makefile and plist
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213187
Bug 213328 - japanese/mecab-ipadic: Add LICENSE and etc.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213328
Be
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:03:35 -0400
Baho Utot wrote:
> The pre-compiled packages is what drove me to build the entire system
> as it gave me a broken system that would not work and upon getting it
> to function would/**/spontaneous reboot. My hand built packages
> stopped that.
>
> I have built
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 02:29:49PM +1000, Dewayne Geraghty wrote:
> Rightly or wrongly I haven't tested with apr-1.6. I pretty much adhere
> to the versions within /usr/ports. Only when there's a CVE do I break
> ranks - and usually after I've filed a PR for the (security) issue to be
> addressed
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:36:19 +0200, Miroslav Lachman
<000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
>scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15:
>> [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
My problem is t
On 06/23/17 07:48, RW via freebsd-ports wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:03:35 -0400
Baho Utot wrote:
The pre-compiled packages is what drove me to build the entire system
as it gave me a broken system that would not work and upon getting it
to function would/**/spontaneous reboot. My hand bui
On Jun 23 08:02, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:36:19 +0200, Miroslav Lachman
<000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65..
On 06/23/17 04:53, Guido Falsi wrote:
On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if
somehow
you could select the version of node that the ports tree builds via
some
(as yet
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 01:09:26AM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
> I'll go back to what I was doing before
This was an unkind comment and I should not have made it. My
apologies to all.
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.
On 06/23/17 00:49, Jan Beich wrote:
> George Mitchell writes:
>
>> Consequently, the configure script dies at line 26248, complaining
>> that "Option, jemalloc, does not take an argument (4)".
>
> Sorry for the bustage. It should be fixed now.
>
> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/4441
On 06/23/17 15:11, Baho Utot wrote:
>
>
> On 06/23/17 04:53, Guido Falsi wrote:
>> On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if
somehow
you could select the
On 06/23/17 10:53, Guido Falsi wrote:
> On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
>>> Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if
>>> somehow
>>> you could select the version of node that the ports tree builds via
>>
On 06/23/17 10:30, Guido Falsi wrote:
On 06/23/17 15:11, Baho Utot wrote:
On 06/23/17 04:53, Guido Falsi wrote:
On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if
somehow
you
On 23/06/2017 03:58, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 23/6/17 6:36 am, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
My problem is that
On 23/6/17 4:38 pm, Vlad K. wrote:
On 2017-06-23 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Release branches won't have many maintenance except individual bug
fixes when security advisories are found. No backport, no updates.
Nothing prevents the maintainers from doing exactly that right now.
Bu
On 23/6/17 11:47 pm, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
On 23/06/2017 03:58, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 23/6/17 6:36 am, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scra
On 23/06/2017 12:32, Baho Utot wrote:
On 06/23/17 07:48, RW via freebsd-ports wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:03:35 -0400
Baho Utot wrote:
The pre-compiled packages is what drove me to build the entire system
as it gave me a broken system that would not work and upon getting it
to function w
Can't you just create the branch yourself? It's open source. You just
clone it and can keep it in Github for free. Then you can apply
security patches to just the applications you need yourself. If it's
too difficult you can hire people to apply just specific patches.
With Github pull request
Julian Elischer wrote:
(*) From my experience, the best way to cope with openssl is to have
everything link with
the system openssl and issue security upgrades to the base OS that
upgrades that when there is a need.
(this may change, but it's been my experience so far).
Agree on previous pa
On 2017-06-23 23:09, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
Fine. Considering that maintainers already apply patches to the latest
quarterly branch. If there were to be OS version branches, it would
mean that maintainers apart from what they are doing now would
additionally need to apply selected patches to thos
Matt Smith wrote:
I use FreeBSD *precisely* because it mostly keeps up with the latest
stable versions of things. I have postfix 3.2, pgsql 9.6, nginx 1.13,
libressl 2.5 etc. It's usually impossible to do this with linux unless
you install things directly from source.
And me I came to FreeB
> Am 23.06.2017 um 23:53 schrieb Michelle Sullivan :
>
> Matt Smith wrote:
>>
>> I use FreeBSD *precisely* because it mostly keeps up with the latest stable
>> versions of things. I have postfix 3.2, pgsql 9.6, nginx 1.13, libressl 2.5
>> etc. It's usually impossible to do this with linux unle
30 matches
Mail list logo
