There are some new patches to Bash 4.0. Here is the patch I plan to
commit to the port - but I wanted to let it have some "beta testing"
first.
If you have a moment and are a Bash user, please give this a try.
I only need to know if the new patchlevel causes grief.
I'm not looking for 1,000 "it
Hi Folks,
Bash 4.1 seems stable enough at PL5 to replace version 4.0 in
'/usr/ports/shells/bash'.
Does anyone feel that we need a "shells/bash40" port?
(please just let me know if you feel we do, not if you feel we don't)
The patch below is the upgrade to 4.1. It works on the workstation
underm
$ ftp://FreeBSD.ISC.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-current/
ftp> ls
229 Entering Extended Passive Mode (|||48484|).
150 Here comes the directory listing.
226 Directory send OK.
ftp>
This has broken 'pkg_add -r'. Does anyone know when there will be
9-CURRENT packages again?
--
-- David
This patch allows me to build Vim in parallel.
Give it a try if you're interested. Please let me know if you are
UNABLE to build with this patch applied.
[I only need to know of failures, thanks.]
--
-- David (obr...@freebsd.org)
Index: Makefile
===
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 09:21:46PM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> I'm writing the rewrite of the port to update vim to 7.3 and with a
> real OPTIONS framework and remove the stupid WITH_VIM_OPTIONS KNOB
> that doesn't work. The problem is that David doesn't like clean things
> and I think he won't
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:24:59AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> What is "sufficiently clean" ? I wonder what is not clean in the
> options framework, so please tell me then we still can clean it?
When the Ports Collection was invented, ports maintainers were to
choose a reasonable set of configu
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
> However, I still think it would benefit everyone if the maintainer
> could provide an explanation for some of the current behavior and
> would at least be open to discussion about changing it. The biggest
> problem here, IMHO, is not th
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 11:02:01PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
> > However, I still think it would benefit everyone if the maintainer
> > could provide an explanation for some of the current behavior and
> >
On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 04:38:34AM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 23:02, David O'Brien wrote:
> > For gtk1, I have 13 packages that require it. ?For gtk2, I have 49
> > packages that require it. ?So I agree their are significantly more ports
> > that
On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:22:46AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> 2010/10/2 David O'Brien :
> > 2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't a way for me
> > to query if I built with the defaults or not.
> > Thus leading to every port I manually install loo
On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 11:45:01AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> 2010/10/3 Matthew Seaman :
> > On 03/10/2010 09:22:46, David DEMELIER wrote:
> >> I agree. As I said in 4, OPTIONS should follow the defined knob in
> >> make.conf. But for not boolean knobs there is something we can also
> >> do, sp
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 10:43:19PM +0400, Anonymous wrote:
> David DEMELIER writes:
> > I agree with this inconsistency, I think with a little of work OPTIONS
> > framework should be to follow KNOB to enable an option if it's already
> > defined by the user. This would be great for people that use
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:34:52AM -0700, David O'Brien (@FreeBSD) wrote:
> > 2010/10/3 Matthew Seaman :
> > > In fact, you might just as well write a small HTML form, display it
> > > using lynx or w3c or some other text mode browser[*], and then have the
> > &g
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 02:12:18PM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> 2010/10/5 David O'Brien :
> > On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:22:46AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> >> 2010/10/2 David O'Brien :
> >> > 2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:01:48PM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:40, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:34:52AM -0700, David O'Brien (@FreeBSD) wrote:
> >> > 2010/10/3 Matthew Seaman :
> >> > > In fact,
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 08:11:58PM -0500, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
> Are there any plans to update this port to 4.2 yet ?
Not until FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE is done.
Bash is *way* too widely used to chance a problem with a new version.
--
-- David (obr...@freebsd.org)
___
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:04:47PM -0500, Jerry wrote:
> I understand that there seems to be some reluctance to updating the
> "shells/bash" port until after the release of FreeBSD-9.0 at some
> future date. I am not sure I understand the reasoning behind this
> logic. If there is a problem with th
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:13:45PM -0400, Niek Dekker wrote:
> Using the "syntax on" command in .vimrc. When opening a php file in Vim,
> a lot of errors are being displayed. The errors are caused by line
> continuation characters in /usr/local/share/vim/vim73/syntax/php.vim.
Hi I really don't kno
On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 12:12:46AM -0500, Scot Hetzel wrote:
> The port is only looking for tcl8.4.
[...]
> But you have tcl8.5 installed
I don't know why this port build is looking for tcl8.5.
Did some global switch from 8.4->8.5 miss something for the iCal port?
> to
> USE_TK=YES
> GNU_CONFIGU
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 07:08:57PM -0500, Derek Tattersall wrote:
> Patch 7.1.186 to vim-7.1 is dependent on changes made in patch 7.1.126.
> However, 7.1.126 will not apply cleanly to the tree in vim-7.1.tar.bz2,
> as the file gui_w48.c is not in that archive. Conversation on the
> vim-use list a
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 12:57:27PM -0800, Stephen Hurd wrote:
> In debugging it though, it seems that gdb doesn't support thread debugging
> on sparc64 which is causing some problems... is this due to the lack of
> TLS?
Nope.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.
Do we have a standard for where .ko modules should be installed?
I've found the sysutils/pmap port to be pretty cool - I almost think we
should bring it into the base system.
Anyway, it installs into /boot/kernel (unless MODULES_WITH_WORLD is
defined), which to me is just wrong. What if I've name
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:17:57PM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 7/25/2012 10:03 AM, Michael wrote:
> > Any plans to update bash-4.2.28 up to patch level 037?
> > I see we still are on patch level 028.
The Bash patches did not apply cleanly.
> I've submitted a patch to update to 37.
> It's at
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 01:17:44PM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 8/3/2012 12:52 PM, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:17:57PM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> >> On 7/25/2012 10:03 AM, Michael wrote:
> >>> Any plans to update bash-4.2.28 up
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 03:12:32PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> David, what do you think of the attached?
Hi Doug,
Thank you for asking. I'm OK with it. You've seem to have made this
apply as narrowly as possible. Committed as r302687.
Sorry I haven't committed it sooner. Vim patches have been
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 08:32:49AM -0500, Jerry wrote:
> Bash is currently at Bash-Release: 4.2, patch level 42. The port's
> version is only at patch level 37, which was released on 16-Jul-2012.
> This is an important port and since the freeze is over with, I was
> wondering if this port will be u
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 09:50:50AM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
> For years, people have been begging him to get over his fear of
> OPTIONS, and he sits in the way of progress against almost everyone's
> wishes.
It's funny -- it's not just my fear of options -- every FreeBSD using
co-worker I talk to
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 05:23:18PM -0400, Kenta Suzumoto wrote:
> - It fetches almost 700 patches from what seems like a dial-up
> connection in AUSTRALIA.
> You might as well be downloading a 1080p movie from a rock in the north
> pole, because that's about how fast it is.
> This can be very easil
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:10:08AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> I have fixed vim-lite so that its default options are sane again.
I saw you mesg me on IRC, but not sure you saw my "Thank you."
I'd appreicate it if folks reporting issues would first make sure
they have r315730.
--
-- David
I need to get shells/bash repocopied before I can commit this.
But I wanted to let folks play with the upgrade if they wanted to.
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/ports/shells/bash/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.105
diff -u
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:48:09PM +0100, Stefan Bethke wrote:
>> The update still remains broken:
>> [r...@portjail ~]$ echo $(uname)
>> -bash: command substitution: line 25: syntax error near unexpected token
>> `)'
>> -bash: command substitution: line 25: `uname)'
>
> I also find this rather a
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 02:59:50AM -0700, GESBBB wrote:
> Until a fix has been put in place, I would suggest that a notice be
> placed in UPDATING that Bash-4 is not completely functional and its use
> is not recommended. Better yet, maybe the port should just be marked
> "BROKEN", since it clearly
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 05:08:28PM -0400, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> shells/bash is only failing about 2.5/8
> textproc/ispell is only about 2/8
Hi Philip,
I'm sorry - I really don't know what this means.
--
-- David (obr...@freebsd.org)
___
free
On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 08:06:45PM -0400, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> David O'Brien wrote:
>> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 05:08:28PM -0400, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>>> shells/bash is only failing about 2.5/8
>>> textproc/ispell is only about 2/8
>> Hi Phil
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 06:00:02PM +0200, Martin Tournoij wrote:
> On Thu 13 Sep 2007 14:09, Gergely S???nta wrote:
> > Hi! I'm a developer using gvim with it's tagging through exctags
> > (somehow ctags never worked for me). As vim port have no
> > configuration options, it can't be configured ea
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 06:00:02PM +0200, Martin Tournoij wrote:
> > As vim port have no configuration options, it can't be configured
> > easyly through 'make config'. I'm too lazy for digging Makefile for
> > options every time I compile new version of vim, I added
> > configuration options to Ma
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 09:33:44AM +0200, Markus Hitter wrote:
> >Brownie ports for someone that can explain why this always happens
> >for me
> >with ports that have OPTIONS:
> >
> >bash$ make
> >cd /usr/ports/editors/vim && make config;
> >===> Switching to root credentials to crea
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 09:00:58PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 10:29:05AM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
> > Any particular reason for no vim scripts in ports?
> > I'm gonna make some, if there's no secret taboo.
>
> Better late than never :-) For the past two days I
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 01:33:26PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 09:33:44AM +0200, Markus Hitter wrote:
> > Time to fix your system? It doesn't happen on my 6.2-RELEASE. I'm
> > running ports stuff as root.
>
> It won't happen when you run things as root, only when you run
39 matches
Mail list logo
