from Vlad K:
> 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
In , libressl-2.5.4 specifies
#define OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER 0x2000L
but doesn't provide an API compatible with OpenSSL. In particular,
it's missing (at least) SSL_CTX_set_max_proto_version() and
SSL_CTX_set_min_proto_version(), which were added in OpenSSL 1.1.0.
This breaks (at least) apache
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 those OS version
branches?
"OS version branche
Hi,
GNU libffcall 1.13 is released. You find the download link at the homepage
https://www.gnu.org/software/libffcall/
New in 1.13:
* The license has been changed from GPLv2 to GPLv2+.
* Added support for the following platforms:
(Previously, a build on these platforms failed.)
- x86_64: Ma
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for your work！I submitted an update PR
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220250,and add you to the
CC list.
Jov
2017-06-24 19:27 GMT+08:00 Bruno Haible :
> Hi,
>
> GNU libffcall 1.13 is released. You find the download link at the homepage
> https://www.gnu.org/s
> On 24 Jun, 2017, at 3:27, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>
> In , libressl-2.5.4 specifies
> #define OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER 0x2000L
> but doesn't provide an API compatible with OpenSSL. In particular,
> it's missing (at least) SSL_CTX_set_max_proto_version() and
> SSL_CTX_set_min_proto_version(), wh
There is a working patch:
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61184
___
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"
The port version of "clamav-unofficial-sigs" is 5.3.2; however a newer
version 5.6.2 is available. The port version is quite old. Are there
any plans to update the port?
--
Carmel
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mail
Before I submit an actual bug report, I wanted advice as to whether I'm
doing something silly!
I've been using Easytag for about 3 years now. All has been fine.
I recently upgraded from 10.3-RELEASE to 11.0-STABLE. I also updated
the ports (built locally).
Easytag now crashes as soon as I try to
amd64 or i386?
On 24/06/2017 22:15, Bob Eager wrote:
Before I submit an actual bug report, I wanted advice as to whether I'm
doing something silly!
I've been using Easytag for about 3 years now. All has been fine.
I recently upgraded from 10.3-RELEASE to 11.0-STABLE. I also updated
the ports (
Sorry, I always leave something out!
i386
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 22:54:56 +0100
Steven Hartland wrote:
> amd64 or i386?
>
> On 24/06/2017 22:15, Bob Eager wrote:
> > Before I submit an actual bug report, I wanted advice as to whether
> > I'm doing something silly!
> >
> > I've been using Easytag
The following is based mostly on an extraction from a
private exchange in which a question was asked and my
answer was unsettling: incompatibilities within the
11.* family. I would not normally send to re but doing
so was explicitly mentioned. Hopefully this example is
reasonable for doing that.
2 [FreeBSD-ports]
llvm40: 4.0.1.r1_5 -> 4.0.1 [FreeBSD-ports]
libreoffice: 5.3.3_2 -> 5.3.4 [FreeBSD-ports]
gutenprint: 5.2.12_1 -> 5.2.12_2 [FreeBSD-ports]
freebsd-release-manifests: 20170617 -> 20170624 [FreeBSD-ports]
Installed packages to be REI
> > I personally can't see the rationale of many OS version branches of ports:
> > far too much work.
> > I had the thought of something like that for (NetBSD) pkgsrc: a very tall
> > order, considering that pkgsrc has been ported to many OSes besides NetBSD.
> > Imagine a separate branch of pk
14 matches
Mail list logo
