> On Mar 1, 2024, at 7:25 PM, Gleb Popov wrote:
>
> A small update: we're down to 705 ports failing and 342 skipped
> according to the latest build run by bofh@
>
> The updated list of failed ports can be obtained from the same URL as
> before [1].
>
> It is also worth mentioning that portmgr
A small update: we're down to 705 ports failing and 342 skipped
according to the latest build run by bofh@
The updated list of failed ports can be obtained from the same URL as
before [1].
It is also worth mentioning that portmgr@ will make the hard switch
after 2024Q3 gets branched. This will br
> On Feb 23, 2024, at 11:29 AM, Gleb Popov wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 1:19 PM Gleb Popov wrote:
>>
>> Ahoy there fellow porters!
>>
>> portmgr@ is currently working on switching the directory into which
>> man pages are installed from "${PREFIX}/man" to "${PREFIX}/share/man".
>> It i
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 13:29:48 +0300
Gleb Popov wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 1:19 PM Gleb Popov wrote:
> >
> > Ahoy there fellow porters!
> >
> > portmgr@ is currently working on switching the directory into which
> > man pages are installed from "${PREFIX}/man" to "${PREFIX}/share/man".
> > I
On 2024-02-23 02:29, Gleb Popov wrote:
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 1:19 PM Gleb Popov wrote:
Ahoy there fellow porters!
portmgr@ is currently working on switching the directory into which
man pages are installed from "${PREFIX}/man" to "${PREFIX}/share/man".
It is quite a tedious process, as you
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 1:19 PM Gleb Popov wrote:
>
> Ahoy there fellow porters!
>
> portmgr@ is currently working on switching the directory into which
> man pages are installed from "${PREFIX}/man" to "${PREFIX}/share/man".
> It is quite a tedious process, as you might imagine.
> ...
It's been
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 1:19 PM Gleb Popov wrote:
> More than that,
> changing the default for a given build system instantly breaks all
> ports that use it, which means that this task can't be done
> incrementally in the main branch.
>
> I've created a branch [1] in my own fork that switches mand
Hello everyone, especially those who prefer to rebuild rust over and over by
poudriere :)
Good news.
The following commits would have rebuilt gcc12.
https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/?id=ea307f60573edaffb8152c7ab9ab668a4a8785c7
However, it is mandatory to rebuild gcc12 by the following commit
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 16:39:57 +0300, Gleb Popov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 4:35 PM Christian Weisgerber
wrote:
Well, now it blocks contributors that don't have a GitHub account
from being able to request a pull. :-)
How would you request a pull when using FreeBSD git repo?
Linus himsel
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 03:34:38PM +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Gleb Popov:
>
> > > Well, now it blocks contributors that don't have a GitHub account
> > > from being able to request a pull. :-)
> >
> > How would you request a pull when using FreeBSD git repo?
>
> You wouldn't, but commi
Gleb Popov:
> > Well, now it blocks contributors that don't have a GitHub account
> > from being able to request a pull. :-)
>
> How would you request a pull when using FreeBSD git repo?
You wouldn't, but committers could directly commit to the branch.
Basically it's a question of whether colla
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 4:35 PM Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>
> Well, now it blocks contributors that don't have a GitHub account
> from being able to request a pull. :-)
>
How would you request a pull when using FreeBSD git repo?
Gleb Popov:
> > No, I mean directly in git.freebsd.org, not in the GitHub mirror.
>
> That'd block contributors that are not committers for being able to
> request a pull.
Well, now it blocks contributors that don't have a GitHub account
from being able to request a pull. :-)
--
Christian "nad
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 1:55 PM Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>
> No, I mean directly in git.freebsd.org, not in the GitHub mirror.
>
That'd block contributors that are not committers for being able to
request a pull.
Gleb Popov:
> > It would have been nicer if we could have had this as a collaborative
> > branch in the freebsd.org repository...
> > (Do we have a policy on this?)
>
> I wanted to do that too, actually, but it turned out that
> freebsd/freebsd-ports is a read-only repository that is automaticall
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:06 AM Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>
> It would have been nicer if we could have had this as a collaborative
> branch in the freebsd.org repository...
> (Do we have a policy on this?)
I wanted to do that too, actually, but it turned out that
freebsd/freebsd-ports is a rea
Gleb Popov:
> Check out [2] regularly to not step on others' feet.
>
> [2] https://github.com/arrowd/freebsd-ports/tree/autotools-mandir
Hint: You can add https://github.com/arrowd/freebsd-ports/ as an
additional remote to your local git repository, fetch and check out
that branch. That's a lot
Follow-up update from my side.
I received a decent amount of patches and PRs, thanks everyone who contributed.
I ran a mini-exp-run locally to get an idea of how much is left and
also to generate a more relevant list of failed ports. This one
contains origins of 1148 failing ports that have GNU_CO
> On Jan 21, 2024, at 11:19 AM, Gleb Popov wrote:
>
> Ahoy there fellow porters!
>
> portmgr@ is currently working on switching the directory into which
> man pages are installed from "${PREFIX}/man" to "${PREFIX}/share/man".
> It is quite a tedious process, as you might imagine. More than tha
On 2024-01-21 08:44, Rainer Hurling wrote:
Am 21.01.24 um 11:19 schrieb Gleb Popov:
Ahoy there fellow porters!
portmgr@ is currently working on switching the directory into which
man pages are installed from "${PREFIX}/man" to "${PREFIX}/share/man".
It is quite a tedious process, as you might i
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 1:21 AM Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>
> One commit per port or squashed?
If we're talking about a pull request - I don't mind. But in the case
of a patch without git format-patch headers I will apply it as a
single commit, because I don't have time to go through every port
Gleb Popov:
> I've created a branch [1] in my own fork that switches mandir for the
> autotools build system and am inviting everyone to collaborate on
> that, until all the fallout is fixed. I'm asking port maintainers to
> check if they have ports with the "GNU_CONFIGURE=yes" knob, as these
> ar
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:47 AM Nuno Teixeira wrote:
>
>
>> The ports I'm interested in should have GNU_CONFIGURE=yes kno
>
>
> Just a doubt:
>
> For ports like:
> GNU_CONFIGURE= yes
> PLIST_FILES= man/man1/portname.1.gz
>
> Should we wait for Mk changes or use GNU_CONFIGURE_MANPREFIX= ${PREFIX}
> The ports I'm interested in should have GNU_CONFIGURE=yes kno
Just a doubt:
For ports like:
GNU_CONFIGURE= yes
PLIST_FILES= man/man1/portname.1.gz
Should we wait for Mk changes or use GNU_CONFIGURE_MANPREFIX=
${PREFIX}/share now?
Thanks,
--
Nuno Teixeira
FreeBSD Committer (ports)
Hello.
git format-patch is attached.
Gleb Popov wrote on 2024/01/21 19:19:
> Ahoy there fellow porters!
> Moin kindly prepared a list of
> affected ports along with their maintainers (thanks Moin!) [2]
> [2] http://arrowd.name/manprefix-fail.maintainer.txt
I even sent this to the mailing list
> On Jan 21, 2024, at 11:46 PM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>
> Gleb Popov:
>
>> portmgr@ is currently working on switching the directory into which
>> man pages are installed from "${PREFIX}/man" to "${PREFIX}/share/man".
>>
>> I've created a branch [1] in my own fork that switches mandir fo
Gleb Popov:
> portmgr@ is currently working on switching the directory into which
> man pages are installed from "${PREFIX}/man" to "${PREFIX}/share/man".
>
> I've created a branch [1] in my own fork that switches mandir for the
> autotools build system and am inviting everyone to collaborate on
On 21/01/24 18:13, Rodrigo Osorio wrote:
On 21/01/24 17:44, Rainer Hurling wrote:
Am 21.01.24 um 11:19 schrieb Gleb Popov:
Ahoy there fellow porters!
portmgr@ is currently working on switching the directory into which
man pages are installed from "${PREFIX}/man" to "${PREFIX}/share/man".
It is
On 21/01/24 17:44, Rainer Hurling wrote:
Am 21.01.24 um 11:19 schrieb Gleb Popov:
Ahoy there fellow porters!
portmgr@ is currently working on switching the directory into which
man pages are installed from "${PREFIX}/man" to "${PREFIX}/share/man".
It is quite a tedious process, as you might ima
Am 21.01.24 um 17:53 schrieb Gleb Popov:
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 7:45 PM Rainer Hurling wrote:
All three ports do not generate any man pages. So I don't understand why
they are included in the list. Or is it different if autotools is used?
Thanks in advance for any clarification.
Moin gener
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 7:45 PM Rainer Hurling wrote:
>
> All three ports do not generate any man pages. So I don't understand why
> they are included in the list. Or is it different if autotools is used?
>
> Thanks in advance for any clarification.
Moin generated this list while working on the s
Am 21.01.24 um 11:19 schrieb Gleb Popov:
Ahoy there fellow porters!
portmgr@ is currently working on switching the directory into which
man pages are installed from "${PREFIX}/man" to "${PREFIX}/share/man".
It is quite a tedious process, as you might imagine. More than that,
changing the default
Ahoy there fellow porters!
portmgr@ is currently working on switching the directory into which
man pages are installed from "${PREFIX}/man" to "${PREFIX}/share/man".
It is quite a tedious process, as you might imagine. More than that,
changing the default for a given build system instantly breaks
33 matches
Mail list logo
