Bug report commit request

2019-02-11 Thread Yasuhiro KIMURA
Dear committers, Would someone please commit following bug report with maintainer timeout? Bug 234137 - security/bruteforceblocker: Update patterns to make them match with log messages from recent version of OpenSSH https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234137 Best Regards. --- Yasu

Re: Building qt5-gui port?

2019-02-11 Thread Tijl Coosemans
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 15:18:20 -0800 Steve Kargl wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 03:14:15PM -0800, Mark Millard wrote: >> >> /usr/ports/Mk/Uses/qt-dist.mk has: >> >> .if ${ARCH} == i386 && empty(MACHINE_CPU:Msse2) >> CONFIGURE_ARGS+=-no-sse2 >> .endif > > Hmmm. Oh well. I set C

Re: Bug report commit request

2019-02-11 Thread Kurt Jaeger
Hi! > Would someone please commit following bug report with maintainer > timeout? > > Bug 234137 - security/bruteforceblocker: Update patterns to make them > match with log messages from recent version of OpenSSH > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234137 What about the LICENSE=N

FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date

2019-02-11 Thread portscout
Dear port maintainer, The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your ports appears to be out of date.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: Bug report commit request

2019-02-11 Thread Yasuhiro KIMURA
From: Kurt Jaeger Subject: Re: Bug report commit request Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:10:32 +0100 > What about the LICENSE=NONE setting ? It stops the port from being build in > poudriere ? > > Can the LICENSE line be just removed ? You can build this port with poudriere by adding 'LICENSES_ACCEP

Re: Bug report commit request

2019-02-11 Thread Kurt Jaeger
Hi! > > What about the LICENSE=NONE setting ? It stops the port from being build in > > poudriere ? > > > > Can the LICENSE line be just removed ? > > You can build this port with poudriere by adding > 'LICENSES_ACCEPTED=NONE' in /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/make.conf. So, does it sound sensible

Re: Bug report commit request

2019-02-11 Thread Yasuhiro KIMURA
From: Kurt Jaeger Subject: Re: Bug report commit request Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:44:49 +0100 >> > What about the LICENSE=NONE setting ? It stops the port from being build >> > in poudriere ? >> > Can the LICENSE line be just removed ? >> You can build this port with poudriere by adding >> 'LIC

Re: Building qt5-gui port?

2019-02-11 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:08:08AM +0100, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 15:18:20 -0800 Steve Kargl > wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 03:14:15PM -0800, Mark Millard wrote: > >> > >> /usr/ports/Mk/Uses/qt-dist.mk has: > >> > >> .if ${ARCH} == i386 && empty(MACHINE_CPU:Msse2) >

drm2 removed?

2019-02-11 Thread Steve Kargl
Anyone have any idea which recent change broke the drm-legacy-kmod port. This is why I raised an issue with removal of drm2 from src/sys. How is suppose to be fixed? --- ttm_bo_manager.o --- cc -O2 -pipe -march=core2 -fno-strict-aliasing -march=core2 -Werror -D_KERNEL -DKLD_MODULE -nostdinc

Re: drm2 removed?

2019-02-11 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:12:05AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > Anyone have any idea which recent change broke the > drm-legacy-kmod port. This is why I raised an issue > with removal of drm2 from src/sys. How is suppose > to be fixed? > It was r343567. The merging of PAE and NO PAE pmap.h by k

Re: drm2 removed?

2019-02-11 Thread Niclas Zeising
On 2/11/19 5:20 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:12:05AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: Anyone have any idea which recent change broke the drm-legacy-kmod port. This is why I raised an issue with removal of drm2 from src/sys. How is suppose to be fixed? It was r343567. The merg

Re: drm2 removed?

2019-02-11 Thread Hans Petter Selasky
On 2/11/19 5:12 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: Anyone have any idea which recent change broke the drm-legacy-kmod port. This is why I raised an issue with removal of drm2 from src/sys. How is suppose to be fixed? --- ttm_bo_manager.o --- cc -O2 -pipe -march=core2 -fno-strict-aliasing -march=core2 -

Re: drm2 removed?

2019-02-11 Thread Niclas Zeising
On 2/11/19 5:20 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:12:05AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: Anyone have any idea which recent change broke the drm-legacy-kmod port. This is why I raised an issue with removal of drm2 from src/sys. How is suppose to be fixed? It was r343567. The merg

Re: drm2 removed?

2019-02-11 Thread Niclas Zeising
On 2/11/19 6:36 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 06:05:03PM +0100, Niclas Zeising wrote: On 2/11/19 5:20 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:12:05AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: Anyone have any idea which recent change broke the drm-legacy-kmod port. This is why I rai

Re: drm2 removed?

2019-02-11 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 06:05:03PM +0100, Niclas Zeising wrote: > On 2/11/19 5:20 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:12:05AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > >> Anyone have any idea which recent change broke the > >> drm-legacy-kmod port. This is why I raised an issue > >> with remov

Re: drm2 removed?

2019-02-11 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 06:42:29PM +0100, Niclas Zeising wrote: > On 2/11/19 6:36 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > The patch allows the port to be built. > > > > kldloading the i915kms module causes a 'black screen > > of death' > > > > I'll note that there seems to be a race condition in > > boot

Re: drm2 removed?

2019-02-11 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 06:42:29PM +0100, Niclas Zeising wrote: > > > > The patch allows the port to be built. > > > > kldloading the i915kms module causes a 'black screen > > of death' > > > Hi! > I assume you load the kernel module either manually with kldload or > using kld_list in rc.conf,

Re: Bug report commit request

2019-02-11 Thread Kurt Jaeger
Hi! > >> > What about the LICENSE=NONE setting ? It stops the port from being build > >> > in poudriere ? > > So, does it sound sensible to define a LICENSE that one has to special-case > > immediatly just to do a test-build ? I mean, don't we all have better things > > to do than shooting ourse