Re: recent perl "mach/auto" not found error

On 10/28/2013 16:46, John Marino wrote: > On 10/26/2013 14:15, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> On 25/10/2013 09:09, Sunpoet Po-Chuan Hsieh wrote: >>> I've committed r331562. I forgot to add trailing "|| ${TRUE}". >>> It should *really* be fixed now. >>>

Re: poudriere + soundkonverter build fails

On 11/5/2013 14:54, Wolfgang Riegler wrote: > building soundkonverter fails on 9.1 AMD64 with: > /usr/local/include/taglib/mp4coverart.h:49: error: comma at end of enumerator > list > *** [CMakeFiles/soundkonverter.dir/metadata/tagengine.o] Error code 1 > [snip] > Complete build log is attached.

Re: poudriere + soundkonverter build fails

r/metadata/tagengine.o] >>> Error code 1 [snip] >>> Complete build log is attached. > > John Marino wrote: >> There is a Problem Report system which is appropriate for these kinds of >> reports. It automatically notifies the maintainer, and it has a place

Re: OCaml 4?

On 11/6/2013 20:38, Michael Grünewald wrote: > Hi Rui! > > Sorry that I did not take time to answer your previous EMail. It seems > you did not check outstanding PRs or overlooked this one: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/173364 > > In short, there is a candidate upgrade in

Re: OCaml 4?

On 11/6/2013 21:02, Michael Grünewald wrote: > > It seems dports has ocaml 4.00.1 while I prepared a 4.01.0, if you test > it, your feddback would be welcome! Surely dports could be updated to ocaml 4.01.0 as easily as changing the PORTVERSION and regenerating the distinfo file? > Thank you for

Re: OCaml 4?

On 11/7/2013 07:06, Michael Grünewald wrote: > John Marino wrote: >> On 11/6/2013 21:02, Michael Grünewald wrote: >>> It seems dports has ocaml 4.00.1 while I prepared a 4.01.0, if you test >>> it, your feddback would be welcome! >> >> Surely dports could

Re: OCaml 4?

On 11/8/2013 12:58, Brendan Fabeny wrote: > On 11/7/13, Michael Grünewald wrote: >> John Marino wrote: >> >>> I was thinking the holdup was on your end,[…] >>> Has the whole thing stalled? 11 months to get a PR through when the >>> submitter is respon

Re: anjuta cq. gdb66 fails to build on FreeBSD 10 BETA3

If you add "CONFIGURE_ARGS= --disable-werror" to the gdb66 makefile, it should build (dports needs this too). In fact, bapt gave me permission to remove -Werror settings anywhere that it's used (which is a horrible setting for production versions) so I will commit this change myself soon. John

Re: single PR vs multiple PR

On 11/18/2013 06:46, Koichiro IWAO wrote: > When maintainer-updating ports, generally, I think one port per one PR > is a good manner. Do committers mind if I made a single PR such a case > applying quite similar changes to multiple port? Which do comitters prefer? > > For example: > https://redp

Re: poudirere behave-alike for

On 11/25/2013 02:15, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote: > I think my question is slightly off-topic, but I think freebsd-ports@ > may be the best of many not so good fits: > > I need to build packages for Solaris and SmartOS. My first choice > would be ports, which unfortunately are not very well suited t

Re: poudriere behave-alike for

On 11/25/2013 10:47, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote: > While it would be well be possible to use Joyent's binaries, I am a > huge fan of the ability of ports-like systems to be tuned. If by tuned you mean "I want to have a non-default set of options", I think pbulk and distbb support that. > I am also

Re: www/rt42: Fail Install

On 12/10/2013 05:05, Larry Rosenman wrote: > # make install > ===> Installing for rt42-4.2.1_1 > [snip] > make: stopped in /usr/ports/www/rt42 > # It is inappropriate to send a large build log (and without any introductory text at that) to the freebsd-ports@ mail list. Sending it to the maintain

Re: Reason for pdfcrack and rarcrack deletion?

On 12/12/2013 17:35, Beeblebrox wrote: > Hi. > Why have ports security/pdfcrack and security/rarcrack disappeared from the > ports tree? They got built fine previously on my 11-current_amd64. Freshports logs can answer these kinds of questions: http://www.freshports.org/security/rarcrack/ http://w

If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing

Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to discourage that behavior but other members of this mail list encourage this method of bypassing writing PRs. One user even proudly boasted that sending email

Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing

On 12/18/2013 13:12, Marcus von Appen wrote: > John Marino : > >> Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and >> mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to First I want to address "hello". Peo

Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing

On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote: > you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not marked > broken has to work. I build the entire port tree several times a month. I can tell you from experience that this assumption is not valid. > So, the fault is on our side. Why shou

Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing

On 12/19/2013 14:41, Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100 > John Marino wrote: > >> On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote: >>> you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not marked >>> broken has to wo

Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing

On 12/19/2013 20:07, Bryan Drewery wrote: > > I sincerely disagree and think it's quite rude to users to not accept > their reports however they send them to us. current@ constantly has > build failures on it, even automated. There's no reason ports@ shouldn't > either. It tells everyone that "yes

Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing

On 12/19/2013 20:28, Bryan Drewery wrote: > I didn't say I spoke for portmgr. I just don't see the big deal and it's > odd that it's OK on 1 list but not another. It's anti-user to get mad at > them for trying to get help or report it for others. Of course we prefer > they use GNATS, but go look in

Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing

On 12/20/2013 14:17, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > I don't know about the rest of you, but I am that user too. A > @FreeBSD.org email, commit bit and still a "new" user that doubts myself > sometimes and looks to the team for the right thing to do. > > If not for the encouragement of those in the project

Re: x11/fbpanel: pkg fallout at 10.x

On 12/20/2013 14:54, Boris Samorodov wrote: > 20.12.2013 10:58, Baptiste Daroussin пишет: >> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:42:38AM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: >> gtk2 pkgconfig file is not adding -lX11 to LDFLAGS anymore. > >> In general: on FreeBSD 10+, the ld(1) behaviour has been changed so that

Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing

On 12/20/2013 15:09, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > I appreciate the distinction, and I agree with your premises. Setting a > high standard is not in question. Thanks. > If your aim however, is to change or influence others, and you'll grant > that not everyone can know all there is to know about the val

Re: x11/fbpanel: pkg fallout at 10.x

On 12/20/2013 22:20, Koop Mast wrote: > On 20-12-2013 15:00, John Marino wrote: >> On 12/20/2013 14:54, Boris Samorodov wrote: >>> 20.12.2013 10:58, Baptiste Daroussin пишет: >>>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:42:38AM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: >>>>

Re: Updating CUPS

On 12/26/2013 12:54, Jerry wrote: > On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 09:14:55 +0100, Matthias Andree stated: > >> Jerry schrieb: >>> The ports latest version of CUPS is 1.5.4; however version 1.7.0 has >>> been out since 10/24/13. Is there any possibility that the latest >>> version will make it into the port

bsd.port.mk FETCH_ARGS defaults, why "-A" ?

For months I've been getting a lot of fetch failures in ports that I couldn't reproduce outside of them. It appears it is caused by the default "-A" passed to fetch. For example, /usr/ports/emulators/javatari will fail with "make fetch" but it will succeed with with "make fetch FETCH_ARGS=-Fpr"

Re: bsd.port.mk FETCH_ARGS defaults, why "-A" ?

On 12/28/2013 01:49, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:12, John Marino wrote: >> For months I've been getting a lot of fetch failures in ports that I >> couldn't reproduce outside of them. It appears it is caused by the >> default "-A" passe

Re: bsd.port.mk FETCH_ARGS defaults, why "-A" ?

On 12/28/2013 01:56, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 01:52:45AM +0100, John Marino wrote: >> On 12/28/2013 01:49, Dimitry Andric wrote: >>> On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:12, John Marino wrote: >>>> For months I've been getting a lot of fetch fai

Re: bsd.port.mk FETCH_ARGS defaults, why "-A" ?

On 12/28/2013 02:27, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 02:05:31AM +0100, Michael Gmelin wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 01:56:22 +0100 >> Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 01:52:45AM +0100, John Marino wrote: >>>>

Re: Still no traceback for ports conflicts during "pkg upgrade"

On 12/29/2013 22:08, Beeblebrox wrote: > I am getting several ports conflicts when doing a "pkg upgrade". The most > obvious example is lang/gcc vs lang/gcc46: > pkg: WARNING: locally installed gcc-4.6.4 conflicts on > /usr/local/lib/gcc46/include/c++/x86_64-portbld-freebsd11.0/bits/error_constants

Re: Pourdriere: Adding package to jail environment?

On 12/31/2013 01:37, Patrick wrote: > ases/mongodb compiled by Pourdriere > for a 9.2/amd64 environment. I had a similar experience in another > jailed environment (non-Poudriere) which I resolved by first > installing lang/v8 into the environment. I'm wondering if there's a > way in Poudriere for

Re: Pourdriere: Adding package to jail environment?

On 12/31/2013 02:10, Patrick wrote: > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:41 PM, John Marino > wrote: >> In my experience, mongodb builds fine in a stock poudriere environment >> assuming there is enough space. Are you sure you aren't running out of >> swap space? Are you

Re: how to install ruby18

On 1/4/2014 15:21, Marco Beishuizen wrote: > Since portupgrade doesn't work with the default ruby19 ("invalid byte > sequence" errors) I want to reinstall ruby18 instead. But ruby18 has > been removed from the ports, so how can I install ruby18 again? Are you sure about your statement, "portupgrad

Re: how to install ruby18

On 1/4/2014 15:38, Marco Beishuizen wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jan 2014, the wise John Marino wrote: > > Portupgrade builds fine, but I have my locale set to UTF-8 and in that > case the pkgdb breaks and portupgrade no longer works: > > ... > root@yokozuna:/home/marco# pkgdb -FfO

Re: how to install ruby18

On 1/4/2014 16:33, Marco Beishuizen wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jan 2014, the wise John Marino wrote: > >> Ruby18 is gone forever, and unsupported, so that's not the best option. >> DragonFly had these same type errors with ruby19, until we redefined >> GEM_ENV

Re: Advice about /usr/ports/math/gmp

On 1/7/2014 01:02, Matthew Rezny wrote: >> We are about to release GMP 5.2. >> >> We have been forced to add three FreeBSD-related items to the releases >> notes: >> >> * This release will not work on FreeBSD/amd64 7.x, 8.x or 9 series >> before 9.3 with a Haswell CPU or any other CPU which s

Re: Advice about /usr/ports/math/gmp

On 1/7/2014 04:25, Matthew Rezny wrote: > On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 03:11:28 +0100 > John Marino wrote: >> whoa - this is pretty harsh if you assume Torbjorn was sincere to >> begin with, and I haven't seen anything that indicates he wasn't. >> It's pretty mu

Re: squid 3.5 plans

Hi Pavel, When we had 3 unmaintained squid ports, the idea was the get down to one, www/squid. The only reason www/squid33 is still in ports is because you requested an extension on it's removal due to the FreeBSD 10.1 RC issues. I personally don't want to see that contraction reversed. Upstream

Removing documentation

>> 1. Remove all mention of portmaster. That's what this PR recommends. >> 2. Do nothing. >> 3. Update the documentation to indicate the current status, >> recommending alternatives if possible. > > Number 4 is missing: find a maintainer for it. > > I would volunteer for this. But before

Removing documentation (was: [Bug 206922] Handbook: Chapter 4.5+ changes)

> I am not portmgr, but do use portmaster for updating ports on systems > running STABLE or HEAD. I still see no tool which provides the features of > portmaster. I also realize that this is far from a universal opinion. Please do an honest "fly-off" between ports-mgmt/portmaster and ports-mgmt/sy

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/8/2016 1:29 AM, Warren Block wrote: > portmaster's one big feature has always been that it has no > dependencies. That was and is important. One of the motivators for > portmaster was portupgrade's Ruby and ruby-bdb dependencies, which often > broke upgrades. 1) poudriere is exactly the sam

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/8/2016 1:47 AM, Warren Block wrote: > On Sun, 7 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote: > > It is a little early to assign ulterior motives to a non-existent > maintainer for something that has not actually happened. I've seen it happen several times. I'm not accusing Torsten of

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/8/2016 7:43 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2016-Feb-07 15:28:56 +0100, John Marino wrote: >> Please do an honest "fly-off" between ports-mgmt/portmaster and >> ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing portmaster >> can do that Synth can

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/8/2016 8:34 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2016-Feb-08 01:53:06 +0100, John Marino wrote: > There's nothing in that statement that makes Synth "clearly superior" > to portmaster. It suggests that Synth might be an alternative to > poudriere. Synth is comparable to

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/8/2016 10:30 AM, Mathias Picker wrote: > Am Montag, den 08.02.2016, 08:35 +0100 schrieb John Marino: > While I like the ideas of synth, and hoped I could use it to just build > my 3-8 ports with modified options, on first look I found many things > suggesting that it

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/8/2016 7:43 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2016-Feb-07 15:28:56 +0100, John Marino wrote: >> Please do an honest "fly-off" between ports-mgmt/portmaster and >> ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing portmaster >> can do that Synth can

Removing documentation

> Then allow me to be the second. But then, I find poudriere > unusable on my build system (I don't use ZFS and my memory is > apparently too limited). Portmaster just does the right thing. > > We get that you don't like portmaster. So please don't use it. > But don't deprive the rest of us.

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/8/2016 2:40 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:21:49PM +0100, John Marino wrote: >> Anybody proposing to be maintainer, in my opinion, should first be >> required to take over every open PR in bugzilla > > thus ensuring that no one would ever take it.

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/8/2016 11:07 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > I think you're missing the point. If this were the criterion for > becoming maintainer, there's a good chance that nobody would > volunteer. Your suggestion would work in a corporate environment, but > that's not us. I have said repeatedly that

Discussions in closed PRs

Geez, talk about being misrepresented. "that marino@ wants to remove portmaster and replace it with synth. This PR was just preparing the way." What part of this is accurate? Nothing. I wanted to remove THE DOCUMENTATION *if* portmaster remains in the current state. I tried to DEPRECATE it wit

Re: Moving to synth

On 2/8/2016 11:53 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > So how would things improve in this respect if we change to synth? > There we need a maintainer who understands Ada. OK, at the moment > that's you. But what happens when you relinquish maintainership for > whatever reason? Another thing I've sa

Moving to synth (was: Removing documentation)

Sorry, I'm not subscribed to the list so I have to recreate emails when I I'm not included in the reply. Michel Talon wrote: > Needless to say, no port named ada under lang, finally found it was > gcc5-aux. Downloaded the packages for gcc5-aux and ncurses the port for synth > from SVN repository,

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/9/2016 11:52 AM, Hrant Dadivanyan wrote: > It's fine that there is such an excellent tool as synth, but in server > environment, when only a few ports are installed, having a management port > with 17 dependencies is not reasonable. Rather that parroting this phrase, I would like to see some

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/9/2016 12:45 PM, Hrant Dadivanyan wrote: >> 1) As was just stated earler this morning, having synth installed is 2 >> packages: Synth itself and ncurses. These "17 dependences" are build >> requirements and not installed. So what is "unreasonable" about that? > > So will require any upgrade

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/9/2016 2:46 PM, Jim Ohlstein wrote: > After all of this "discussion" I decided to give synth a try. I have no > pony in this race as I use neither portmaster nor portupgrade. Both may > still be in my repo, but they are not installed. Thanks for trying it! > > The build time of "like 20-30

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/9/2016 5:00 PM, Warren Block wrote: > 2:20, that's two hours and twenty minutes, to build and install here on > an Atom N270 system. 2:06 for gcc6-aux, most of the rest for ncurses. > That does not include distfile download time. Disk space used was 252M, > again not counting the distfiles.

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/9/2016 4:15 PM, Lars Engels wrote: > > root@fbsd01:~ # synth status > Querying system about current package installations. > Stand by, comparing installed packages against the ports tree. > Stand by, building pkg(8) first ... Failed!! (Synth must exit) > Unfortunately, the system upgrade fai

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/9/2016 7:20 PM, Warren Block wrote: >> If you have the build log, I'd like to see it. Dewayne G. got an error >> after overriding CPUTYPE (do you do that too?) and I'm thinking it's >> sensitive to CPU and I'd like to know more. > > Yes, I use > > CPUTYPE?=core-avx2 What happens when you t

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/9/2016 9:20 PM, Warren Block wrote: > On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote: > >> On 2/9/2016 7:20 PM, Warren Block wrote: >>>> If you have the build log, I'd like to see it. Dewayne G. got an error >>>> after overriding CPUTYPE (do you do that too?

Re: synth documentation

On 2/10/2016 2:57 AM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > I installed the synth package a couple of days ago, mainly to take a > look. And yes, I agree, if you're happy with the package (I would > be), the Ada dependencies and long build times aren't an issue. I'm racking my brains and I can't find a s

Re: synth documentation

On 2/10/2016 10:01 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > >> I'm racking my brains and I can't find a single rational reason why >> somebody would refuse the package (especially if building it on an Atom >> is the alternative). > > The famous paper from Ken Thompson: Reflections on trusting trust > > ht

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/10/2016 10:37 AM, Lars Engels wrote: > On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 06:28:11PM +0100, John Marino wrote: >> On 2/9/2016 4:15 PM, Lars Engels wrote: >>> >>> root@fbsd01:~ # synth status >>> Querying system about current package installations. >>> Stand

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/10/2016 11:09 AM, Lars Engels wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:40:44AM +0100, John Marino wrote: >> On 2/10/2016 10:37 AM, Lars Engels wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 06:28:11PM +0100, John Marino wrote: >>>> On 2/9/2016 4:15 PM, Lars Engels wrote: >

Re: Moving to synth

On 2/10/2016 12:10 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > There are still issues moving to synth on non-Tier1 architectures: This limitation has been known and published from the beginning (bapt@ recently iterated it for those that weren't aware). It would actually be possible to support ARM fairly easily, bu

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/9/2016 9:27 PM, John Marino wrote: > On 2/9/2016 9:20 PM, Warren Block wrote: >> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote: >> >>> On 2/9/2016 7:20 PM, Warren Block wrote: >>>>> If you have the build log, I'd like to see it. Dewayne G. got an error &g

don't fork portmaster source

> I'm asking myself how to manage the code. Should i create a new GitHub > repository? Fork the existing from freebsd/portmaster? How to handle the > LOCAL Master-Site? Talk to Bryan Drewery. "If someone else would like to maintain this please discuss with me and I will get you access to the g

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/10/2016 10:15 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > The stale configuration file issue has me a bit confused. The man page > does not make it clear just what makes a config "stale". All of my ports > are up to date as of 11:00 UTC this morning. As far as I know, all of > the configs are "current", alt

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/10/2016 11:31 PM, Alphons van Werven wrote: > ???Between all the question marks (sorry, I just can't help myself) I > can reveal that Portmaster detects at least some of the above kinds of > changes. Perhaps not all four, but at least some (if not most). > > I suspect it's probably not so

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/11/2016 8:25 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 07.02.2016 17:28, John Marino wrote: > >> ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing >> portmaster can do that Synth can't. (honestly) &g

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/11/2016 9:08 PM, Royce Williams wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, John Marino wrote: >> >> On 2/11/2016 8:25 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>> Hash: SHA512 >>> >>> On 07.02.2016 17:28, John Marino

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/11/2016 10:32 PM, Matt Smith wrote: > Remember that before portmaster we had cvsup which was written in > Modula-3 and portupgrade which is written in Ruby. Whilst it is nice > that portmaster is just a simple shell script with no dependancies > that's a relatively new thing. I'm familiar wit

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/12/2016 1:22 AM, Royce Williams wrote: > Is the abstraction is happening at the equivalent level here? The > platforms that I'm thinking of -- that appear to have already solved > this entire class of problem long ago -- feature wrappers around > apt-get, not wrappers around dpkg. I'm not a l

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/12/2016 1:26 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 12.02.2016 03:22, Royce Williams wrote: > >> As long as the ports system exists (and I think it should!), the >> management of compilation requirements -- especially for something >> that mig

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/12/2016 1:29 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 12.02.2016 03:41, John Marino wrote: > >> THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT SOMETHING THAT BUILDS PORTS NEEDS THAT >> ITSELF IS BUILT FROM PORTS. You responded

ports/pkg/OS integration 2.0

Royce wrote: > It would be nice to be asked at the point of installing the system > what kind of software management you want: > > [X] Install software from binary packages only > [ ] Install software from ports only (compiling everything locally) > [ ] Prefer packages, prompting me when default o

FreeBSD Port: deskutils/calibre

Guido wrote: > On 02/13/16 03:53, Alex V. Petrov wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Last port freezed install with: >> >> > > Hi, > > What do you mean by "freeze" that it just stays there? > > > Unluckily there are no error message or any useful diagnostics in this > snippet. > > Could yo reproduce the pr

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/14/2016 8:07 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > ery update to the port going back to the version when the options file > was created, 1.9a_1. Comparing that to the current version, there have > been no options changes at all. Not to the options offered nor to the > defaults. I am baffled as to what is

Removing documentation

Michelle wrote: > The way it was forced down everyone's necks pushed it to 8.4 and 9.x > systems as well as 10.x, this was a bad decision. It was a decision > made by someone who doesn't live in the real world of production servers > and production services... Michelle, I sympathize, but you're

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/15/2016 5:59 PM, Roger Marquis wrote: > It was actually worse than that. Those of us who questioned the wisdom > of such disruptive and backwards-incompatible changes being implemented > mid-release instead of at a release boundry were A) ignored, B) told that > there were not enough (develop

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/15/2016 6:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote: >> This makes no sense. Ports are not tied to base releases. >> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason? > > There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know. The issue was > with ports and by extension pkgng (and related

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/15/2016 6:31 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > Actually it made perfect sense... (for a change) ... make pkgng the > default on 10.x and allow people to use either on 8.4 and 9.x ... this > made perfect sense... Make base packaging using similar/same tools as > part of 11+ makes perfect sense..

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/15/2016 9:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > Yeah, I'd agree with this... except... > > pkg_* tools don't exist on 10.x only pkgng... that makes it base os > thing.. even if it's downloaded in/via ports.. > > So sorry don't claim it's only part of the ports system, because whilst > it maybe

Re: PHP7 + Synth issue

On 2/17/2016 2:10 PM, Matt Smith wrote: > Hi guys, I'm using the ports-mgmt/synth package builder to build my > packages. I just tried to build all of the packages for PHP7 from the > new ports and came across an issue. If I set php=7.0 in DEFAULT_VERSIONS > in the LiveSystem-make.conf (make.conf)

Re: PHP7 + Synth issue

On 2/17/2016 2:24 PM, Matt Smith wrote: > The problem is that it isn't just that port. I've also seen it on > databases/mysqldumper for example. It's going to affect all ports which > have USE_PHP=mysql within them of which I suspect there are quite a > lot. It might be impractical to do what you

Re: PHP7 + Synth issue

On 2/17/2016 2:44 PM, Martin Wilke wrote: > Hi, > > The long term solution will be switching to mysqli or pdo_mysql which is > provided by php70 (and php55/56), I am working right now on cleaning up > the pecl ports, after that I'll go and check which port can switch already. > The problem with

Re: PHP7 + Synth issue

Matt wrote: > I'll search bugzilla to see if there are any bug reports for this and if > not I'll raise one then. > > I know php70 is very new so I was expecting problems. Synth is pretty > new as well though so I thought I would let people know in case they > were not aware of this type of bre

Re: synth package for 11-CURRENT amd64

On 2016-02-27 10:50, Matthias Apitz wrote: From where could I fetch a pre-build package of synth for my 11.0-CURRENT r292778 (amd64)? Thanks in advance. I'm used to poudriere for my ~1800 packages and want to give it a try without building ada before. According to portsmon, synth package is av

Re: synth package for 11-CURRENT amd64

Matthias Apitz wrote: I see. The above 1794 ports are result of a file of some ~300 ports which I passed to poudriere to build them. I should just use the same file as input. Does 'synth prepare-system' expect a file? I did not saw this in the git pages and have no manual until now. As you note

Re: Return ports www/sams

On 8/25/2014 17:55, Chris Rees wrote: > On 08/25/14 14:56, zlopi wrote: >> Hi >> >> Bring to your attention the correct port www / sams that has all the >> necessary corrections for its work. >> >> Check and send to the ports. Thank you. >> > > Hello-- did you mean to send a patch? > I suspect

Re: Return ports www/sams

On 8/25/2014 18:40, zlopi wrote: > many of my friends use sams 1.0.5 (www / sams) - but not so long > ago it was deleted. Previously stated that it requires php 4 - because > of what was deleted. I tested to optimize it for php 5.4 and mysql > 5.5. Therefore I would like to get it back - if it is p

Re: Return ports www/sams

On 8/25/2014 19:06, zlopi wrote: > Are you sure that it works properly? > As far as I know sams2 and did not releases. > Is for developers. > > ===> Installing for sams2-2.0.0 > ===> Checking if sams2 already installed > ===> Registering installation for sams2-2.0.0 > pkg-static: lstat(/usr/po

Re: Return ports www/sams

On 8/25/2014 19:10, John Marino wrote: > On 8/25/2014 19:06, zlopi wrote: >> Are you sure that it works properly? >> As far as I know sams2 and did not releases. >> Is for developers. >> >> ===> Installing for sams2-2.0.0 >> ===> Checking if

Re: Return ports www/sams

On 8/25/2014 19:18, Jim Ohlstein wrote: > Not for nothing, but since PHP 5.3 is still in the ports tree, then why > delete ports that depend on it? I know PHP 5.3 has now reached EOL, but > there is probably still a fair amount of legacy code which breaks with > PHP 5.4. I'm not advocating using it

Re: Return ports www/sams

e: > > It makes me sad to look at how changes in recent years FreeBSD - not > for the better. > New packages - it's good. But! Stable packages replaced by new > unstable version - this is wrong. > > Thanks for taking your time on me. > > 201

Re: [Bug 144203] textproc/refdb: network clients loop indefinitely when hitting Ctrl-D while client asks for passowrd

On 9/9/2014 13:49, O. Hartmann wrote: > In the strain of a bug I reported I also tried to fix this port, since the > prior > maintainer seems to have abandonded this great port. > > I'm a bit pissed off about the rude tune I feel treated! I don't know why you brought the contents of a PR to the

Searchable database (grok) for ports package lists

A DragonFly developer (Antonio Huete, aka tuxillo) has added dports package lists to our grok application several weeks ago: http://grok.dragonflybsd.org/ As most of you know, a large percentage of ports have their package lists automatically generated, so you can't reliably grep for installed fi

security/tor-devel and Maintainer Timeout

Hi! > I have posted patches for updated versions of security/tor-devel, but > the maintainer,bf at freebsd.org does not seem to be looking at the > Bugzilla requests, nor are the ports being updated. > > A URL:https://bugs.freebsd.org/

Re: Remove options from poudriere option files for ports which were removed in the port

Kimmo Paasiala gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Matthias Fechner fechner.net> wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > it seems that poudriere can only add new options to its own options > > tracking, but cannot remove options that where removed from the Makefile > > of the port. >

Re: Remove options from poudriere option files for ports which were removed in the port

On 7/3/2016 19:26, John Marino wrote: Kimmo Paasiala gmail.com> writes: On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Matthias Fechner fechner.net> wrote: > Dear all, > > it seems that poudriere can only add new options to its own options > tracking, but cannot remove options that wher

Re: Remove options from poudriere option files for ports which were removed in the port

On 7/4/2016 12:06, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 5:31 PM, John Marino mailto:freebs...@marino.st>> wrote: On 7/3/2016 19:26, John Marino wrote: Kimmo Paasiala gmail.com <http://gmail.com>> writes: On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:17 PM, M

Re: Remove options from poudriere option files for ports which were removed in the port

On 7/5/2016 10:36, Matthias Fechner wrote: Am 04.07.2016 um 22:03 schrieb John Marino: sorry, the correct invocation is "synth status-everything". There is a man page (man 1 synth) as well. thanks for this tip. As I have to check my poudriere build environment (I do not build m

<    1   2   3   4   >