Re: Doc update for java/jdk8-doc

Hi! > Any committer willing to review and commit the java/jdk8-doc PR: > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223172 > > It's been on the queue for almost 2 months now. Done, thanks for the heads-up! -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 3 years to go

Re: FreeBSD Port: php72-7.2.0 : trouble with lang/php72 & libargon2

On 11/12/17 02:30, Christopher Hall wrote: >> Error: /usr/local/bin/php is linked to /usr/local/lib/libargon2.so >> which does not have a SONAME. security/libargon2 needs to be fixed. >> >> I would say that this is the cause of the problem. So at first >> Christopher - the maintainer of libargon2

Re: Flavor part of package origin?

Am 10.12.17 um 21:20 schrieb Kurt Jaeger: > Hi! > >> Shouldn't the FLAVOR be part of the package origin? >> >> $ pkg info -o '*setuptools*' >> py27-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools >> py36-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools > > Yes, but it seems this works: > > $ pkg info

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 09:09:39AM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote: > On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > > DMA is a phenomenal program and is totally sufficient for a large > > percentage of our user-base. I wasn’t aware of the lack of .forward > > support, and I completely agree that th

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 02:58:29PM -0800, Chris H wrote: > OK I'm puzzled a bit. FreeBSD' motto has always been: > FreeBSD > The power to serve! > > but many of the proposed, and recent changes/removals end up more like: > FreeBSD > I's castrated! > So, then we should add a web server into our b

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

Lars Engels wrote: On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 09:09:39AM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote: On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, Adam Weinberger wrote: DMA is a phenomenal program and is totally sufficient for a large percentage of our user-base. I wasn’t aware of the lack of .forward support, and I completely agree th

FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date

Dear port maintainer, The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your ports appears to be out of date.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

Re: make reinstall does not work

Am 09.12.17 um 00:22 schrieb Kevin Oberman: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey > wrote: > >> [rearranged] >> >> On Friday, 8 December 2017 at 23:42:40 +0100, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: On Dec 8, 2017, at 22:35, Walter Schwarzenfeld < >> w.schwarzenf...@utanet.at> wrote: >

Re: make reinstall does not work

Am 09.12.17 um 00:29 schrieb Shawn Webb: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:35:50PM +0100, Walter Schwarzenfeld wrote: >> I had a strange error: Make reinstall does not work anymore in the port >> (10.3-amd64) also FORCE_PKG_REGISTER. >> >> All other make commands works fine. I don't know if it is relate

Re: make reinstall does not work

I filed a PR. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224244 ___ 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"

Re: make reinstall does not work

Am 11.12.17 um 12:38 schrieb Stefan Esser: > Am 09.12.17 um 00:29 schrieb Shawn Webb: >> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:35:50PM +0100, Walter Schwarzenfeld wrote: >>> I had a strange error: Make reinstall does not work anymore in the port >>> (10.3-amd64) also FORCE_PKG_REGISTER. >>> >>> All other make

Re: make reinstall does not work

Le 08/12/2017 à 23:46, Walter Schwarzenfeld a écrit : > Sorry for the noise. I had overlooked 10.3 was EOL on 30.11. 11.0 was, 10.3 is still supported. -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: make reinstall does not work

Yes, someone told me on freebsd irc-channel EOL is 30.11. Later I see EOL really is on 30.4.2018. But no problem, now I have 10.4. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send

Re: Flavor part of package origin?

Le 10/12/2017 à 20:17, Christian Weisgerber a écrit : > Shouldn't the FLAVOR be part of the package origin? > > $ pkg info -o '*setuptools*' > py27-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools > py36-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools The flavor is registered as an annotation: # pkg i

Re: Flavor part of package origin?

Le 11/12/2017 à 10:12, Stefan Esser a écrit : > $ pkg info -o '*setuptools*' > py27-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools@py27 > py36-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools@py36 I really do not like the look of this. The origin always has been a directory name, with this change, it

Re: The ports@ list is now subscriber-post only

"Thomas Mueller" writes: > Why only the freebsd-ports mailing list and no others? > > Other FreeBSD mailing lists get spam, and I thought freebsd-questions was the > biggest target for spam. A fair number of FreeBSD lists *are* subscriber-only already. However -questions isn't one of them, be

RE: The ports@ list is now subscriber-post only

On Monday, December 11, 2017 9:17 AM, Lowell Gilbert stated: > "Thomas Mueller" writes: > > > Why only the freebsd-ports mailing list and no others? > > > > Other FreeBSD mailing lists get spam, and I thought freebsd-questions was > the biggest target for spam. > > A fair number of FreeBSD lists

somone able to make a simple fix to net/ftp?

change 445013 added the following patch. unfortunatly it need to to be only applied if we are in 11 or 12. Two possibilities: 1/ add a term to only act if __FreeBSD_version < 110 or 2/ don't apply the patch under 10x. not sure which is easier. Julian 1

Re: Flavor part of package origin?

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:38:59 +0100 Mathieu Arnold wrote: > Le 11/12/2017 à 10:12, Stefan Esser a écrit : > > $ pkg info -o '*setuptools*' > > py27-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools@py27 > > py36-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools@py36 > > > I really do not like the look

Re: Flavor part of package origin?

Am 11.12.17 um 16:10 schrieb RW via freebsd-ports: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:38:59 +0100 > Mathieu Arnold wrote: > >> Le 11/12/2017 à 10:12, Stefan Esser a écrit : >>> $ pkg info -o '*setuptools*' >>> py27-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools@py27 >>> py36-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/p

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 11:49:06 +0100 "Lars Engels" said On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 02:58:29PM -0800, Chris H wrote: > OK I'm puzzled a bit. FreeBSD' motto has always been: > FreeBSD > The power to serve! > > but many of the proposed, and recent changes/removals end up more like: > FreeBSD > I's ca

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

Hi! > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 02:58:29PM -0800, Chris H wrote: > > > OK I'm puzzled a bit. FreeBSD' motto has always been: > > > FreeBSD > > > The power to serve! > > > > > > but many of the proposed, and recent changes/removals end up more like: > > > FreeBSD > > > I's castrated! > > So, then

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 11:10:32 + "Matt Smith" said On Dec 10 14:58, Chris H wrote: >OK I'm puzzled a bit. FreeBSD' motto has always been: >FreeBSD >The power to serve! > >but many of the proposed, and recent changes/removals end up more like: >FreeBSD >I's castrated! The problem with softwar

Re: Flavor part of package origin?

On 11/12/17 9:38 pm, Mathieu Arnold wrote: Le 11/12/2017 à 10:12, Stefan Esser a écrit : $ pkg info -o '*setuptools*' py27-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools@py27 py36-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools@py36 I really do not like the look of this. The origin always has bee

Re: OSS Audio

I'm taking a look at soundcard.h in /usr/include/sys/soundcard.h in FreeBSD vs the soundcard.h in the offical OSS 4.01 https://sourceforge.net/p/opensound/git/ci/master/tree/include/soundcard.h It seems like there's been a lot of changes between FreeBSD 3.8ish version and the 4.0 version. I was g

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:42:57 +0100 "Kurt Jaeger" said Hi! > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 02:58:29PM -0800, Chris H wrote: > > > OK I'm puzzled a bit. FreeBSD' motto has always been: > > > FreeBSD > > > The power to serve! > > > > > > but many of the proposed, and recent changes/removals end up m

What is the preferred MASTER_SITES for python port?

Hello. Suppose I want to port some python package that exists in the Python Package Index (PyPI) and has it's source code available on some official website or github. Is there any policy or recommended practice for choosing MASTER_SITES? Should I use "USE_GITHUB=yes" or "MASTER_SITES= CHEES

INDEX build failed for 10.x

INDEX build failed with errors: Generating INDEX-10 - please wait..--- describe.accessibility --- --- describe.arabic --- --- describe.archivers --- --- describe.astro --- --- describe.audio --- --- describe.benchmarks --- --- describe.biology --- --- describe.cad --- --- describe.chinese --- --- d

Re: What is the preferred MASTER_SITES for python port?

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 20:46:43 +0300 "Sergey Akhmatov" said Hello. Suppose I want to port some python package that exists in the Python Package Index (PyPI) and has it's source code available on some official website or github. Is there any policy or recommended practice for choosing MASTER_

Re: What is the preferred MASTER_SITES for python port?

Le 11/12/2017 à 18:46, Sergey Akhmatov a écrit : > Suppose I want to port some python package that exists in the Python > Package Index (PyPI) and has it's source code available on some > official website or github. > > Is there any policy or recommended practice for choosing MASTER_SITES? > Should

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017, Matthias Apitz wrote: On Monday, 11 December 2017 04:56:04 CET, Warren Block wrote: On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Matthias Apitz wrote: El día viernes, diciembre 08, 2017 a las 03:13:02p. m. -0700, Warren Block escribió: Hmm, why -d ${USER} if this is already known who I am fro

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

Hi! > if the majority of people install their systems via packages, that makes for > a fairly common FreeBSD base across all users. Why would a system installed via packaged be more homogenous than one installed as base, and updated via freebsd-update ? I don't understand this -- can you elaborat

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

Hi! > If you, as an administrator of a/your system(s), see no problem with > (port) scanners, and take no action to thwart such activity. You are > more than likely to encounter trouble(s) down the road. Right, portscanning is bad, if not done in a transparent way, so as sys-admin I have to reduc

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:39:02 -0800 said On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 11:10:32 + "Matt Smith" said > On Dec 10 14:58, Chris H wrote: >>OK I'm puzzled a bit. FreeBSD' motto has always been: >>FreeBSD >>The power to serve! > > >>but many of the proposed, and recent changes/removals end up more like:

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

El día lunes, diciembre 11, 2017 a las 11:26:44a. m. -0700, Warren Block escribió: > > Warren, you have not got my point: Why specfying '-d ${USER}' is required > > in > > a per user file in its HOME? The maildrop is started as the user 'foo' by a line in a file ~foo/.forward, as you say: mai

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

Hi! > Let me attempt to make my point another way (and stay closer to topic). > A user is able to accomplish more from sendmail in base, than with any > other MX port in base alone. [list of sendmail features shortend for brevity] > Many of the other MX software in the ports tree provide a subset

Re: The ports@ list is now subscriber-post only

Lowell Gilbert wrote: "Thomas Mueller" writes: Why only the freebsd-ports mailing list and no others? Other FreeBSD mailing lists get spam, and I thought freebsd-questions was the biggest target for spam. Why? 1) lack of volunteers with sufficent mailman and/or spam-filtering experience, 2) l

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:36:49 +0100 "Kurt Jaeger" said Hi! > if the majority of people install their systems via packages, that makes for > a fairly common FreeBSD base across all users. Why would a system installed via packaged be more homogenous than one installed as base, and updated via fr

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

Michelle Sullivan wrote: Personally I think if you remove Sendmail you should not replace it with something else... but then FreeBSD is not about what I want or what the users want anymore. I thought there already was a viable replacement in OpenSMTPD? The fact that OpenBSD migrated 3 years ag

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:46:55 +0100 "Kurt Jaeger" said Hi! > If you, as an administrator of a/your system(s), see no problem with > (port) scanners, and take no action to thwart such activity. You are > more than likely to encounter trouble(s) down the road. Right, portscanning is bad, if not

INDEX now builds successfully on 10.x

___ 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"

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 20:45:11 +0100 "Kurt Jaeger" said Hi! > Let me attempt to make my point another way (and stay closer to topic). > A user is able to accomplish more from sendmail in base, than with any > other MX port in base alone. [list of sendmail features shortend for brevity] > Many o

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017, Chris H wrote: pf(4) has dropped any/all communication from the showdan "project" *long* ago for all the systems I'm responsible for, and along with all the myriad of other "like" projects. They all have the policy backward; ask *before* not *after*. I'd love to do that;

Re: License and adopting software

[format recovered] On Sunday, 10 December 2017 at 23:31:33 -0800, Chris H wrote: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:24:53 +0800 "blubee blubeeme" > said >> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Jonathan Chen wrote: >>> On 11 December 2017 at 17:17, blubee blubeeme wrote: I like some old software that's

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:54:26 +1100 (EST) "Dave Horsfall" said On Mon, 11 Dec 2017, Chris H wrote: > pf(4) has dropped any/all communication from the showdan "project" > *long* ago for all the systems I'm responsible for, and along with all > the myriad of other "like" projects. They all hav

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

On 2017-12-10, Stefan Esser wrote: > Debugging shell scripts is a lot of work, since you cannot > single step through them. There are a few shell debuggers: - http://bashdb.sourceforge.net/ - https://github.com/rocky/kshdb/ - https://github.com/rocky/zshdb/ However none of them is for plain POSI

Re: FreeBSD Port: php72-7.2.0 : trouble with lang/php72 & libargon2

On 11/12/17 23:28, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: >> pkg check --dependencies reports problem. > This seems the separate issue already being convered. > > and it solves my issue as well. All tested just waiting for commit of this ports tree: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=188700&act

Re: FreeBSD Port: php72-7.2.0 : trouble with lang/php72 & libargon2

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 08:21:05PM + I heard the voice of Oliver Schonrock, and lo! it spake thus: > > pkg check --dependencies reports problem. This seems the separate issue already being convered. > 1. In the worst case (when built on remote poudriere) php72 crashes when > using the PASSW

Re: FreeBSD Port: php72-7.2.0 : trouble with lang/php72 & libargon2

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:32:08PM + I heard the voice of Oliver Schonrock, and lo! it spake thus: > > and it solves my issue as well. Don't think the CPUTYPE stuff comes > into it. Well, maybe. From your mail, though, it looks like you did that testing by rebuilding/installing the ports _on

Re: FreeBSD Port: php72-7.2.0 : trouble with lang/php72 & libargon2

On 11/12/17 23:41, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:32:08PM + I heard the voice of > Oliver Schonrock, and lo! it spake thus: >> and it solves my issue as well. Don't think the CPUTYPE stuff comes >> into it. > Well, maybe. From your mail, though, it looks like you did th

Re: What is the preferred MASTER_SITES for python port?

On 12/12/2017 1:28 am, Sergey Akhmatov wrote: > Hello. > > Suppose I want to port some python package that exists in the Python > Package Index (PyPI) and has it's source code available on some official > website or github. > > Is there any policy or recommended practice for choosing MASTER_SITES

Re: What is the preferred MASTER_SITES for python port?

On 12/12/2017 1:28 am, Sergey Akhmatov wrote: > > I've looked for the answer in Porters Handbook and at > https://wiki.freebsd.org/Python/PortsPolicy but haven't found it. Python Policy wiki page has been updated: https://wiki.freebsd.org/Python/PortsPolicy#MASTER_SITES Thank you for the questi

Re: License and adopting software

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > [format recovered] > > On Sunday, 10 December 2017 at 23:31:33 -0800, Chris H wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:24:53 +0800 "blubee blubeeme" < > gurenc...@gmail.com> said > >> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Jonathan Chen > wrote: