Re: Debian GNU/kFreeBSD
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:12:05AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote: What is it that this Debian GNU/kFreeBSD ships in those 7 DVDs? Please ask that on one of their mailing lists; it's out of scope for the two mailing lists you posted to. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: freebsd-update(8) under sparc64? Why is it not available?
You're the first one to ask in a while. Since our userbase is small, and developer time is limited, we've never set it up. Right now I'd just be happy if I can get all the major ports to work :-) mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: trouble installing to sun blade 1500
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 05:07:18PM +, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: in case it matters, I see nexus0: syscons type unknown (no driver attached) nexus0: memory-controller mem 0x400-0x47 type memory-controller (no driver attached) messages on boot. I haven't walked through the list, but we have a lot of sparc64 dmesgs posted up at http://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD/sparc64/dmesgs. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ion windows manager on FreeBSD
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 05:32:31PM +0400, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: Do you honestly think the probability of Tuomo suing us is higher of, say, me suing, well, us? Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. And I believe reading the entire thread when this first came up supports my claim. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ion windows manager on FreeBSD
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 03:45:46PM +0400, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: Now it's LGPLv2.1 with the only restriction that this software may not be significantly changed while being distributed as ion3. I hate to replay this whole issue from the beginning, but apparently there is no other way. The author orginally contacted us with a legal threat because we were not in compliance with the 28-day clause. A long, acrimonious disucssion ensued. In that discussion, the author was asked if we agree to meet that condition going forward, would you guarantee that this would remove any further legal threat? and he said yes ... for now. But that he reserved the right to change his mind later. *depending* on what we did or did not do in the future -- not just in adhering to the *existing clauses* like the significant clause or renamed clause -- both of which he mentioned would be part of any lawsuit. Legally indefensible? Of course. Would that prevent a lawsuit being filed? No. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Summary: What you see as keeping a useful piece of software out of the port collection, I see as protect the interests of a project that I have put a great deal of interest in time to. Again, I *emphasize* that this author has changed his mind in the past, mid-debate, on the interpretation of his ... unusual ... license. I also believe that it's quite likely going forward. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ion windows manager on FreeBSD
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 02:58:23PM +0400, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: No need to, if it works fine and there are no objections for it, I'll commit it to the tree. I insist that you not to commit it to the tree. See my other post. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ion windows manager on FreeBSD
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 03:05:08PM +0400, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: I've seen the license change too. I'm working on the port currently. As a reminder, the last time this software was in the ports tree, the developer threatened us with a lawsuit. This repeats what he has previously done to several other BSDs and several Linux distributions. This is why ports for his software are no longer available for these platforms. Whether the license has changed or not, the fact that the author feels the desire to use lawsuits to achieve his goals makes his software too much of a liability for FreeBSD to redistribute. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ports lang/gcc4x fail to build on ia64
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 02:57:52PM +0100, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: Ports lang/gcc43, 44 and 45 fail to build on 8.0-beta2 ia64: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40959 I know they build fine on 6.4-stable alpha, but what about sparc64? amd64? mips? You can check things like this using the Ports Monitoring tool: http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portoverview.py?category=langportname=gcc4wildcard=yes According to that, for 8.0: - gcc4* are set to not for ia64. From a commit log for gcc43/Makefile: Add ia64 to NOT_FOR_ARCHS. This has been broken for ages, it is not clear whether it is our kernel/userland, the hardware, or something else at fault and nobody on our side nor upstream seems to have any interest. - previous versions of gcc43 built everywhere; the latest version has not yet been tried on amd64 or sparc64, but builds on i386. - previous versions of gcc44 built everywhere; the latest version has not yet been tried on amd64 or sparc64, but builds on i386. - previous versions of gcc45 built everywhere; the latest version has not yet been tried on amd64 or sparc64, but builds on i386. The package building cluster is currently only set up to try builds on amd64, i386, and sparc64. Although we have some ia64 machines, the last time I tried to upgrade them I had trouble. We do not yet have any arm, mips, or powerpc machines. Our alphas have been deinstalled (sorry), after the alpha src code had fallen too far behind the main 3 archs, and no one was keeping it up. Unless a developer with specific interest in ia64 steps up to help, you may be out of luck. Sorry. mcl * yes, I know that portsmon is throwing 'database not connected' errors, but don't have a fix for it yet. It only seems to affect the query for 'show me uploaded packages', and even then not all the time. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ports lang/gcc4x fail to build on ia64
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 03:51:24PM +0100, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: I wonder if they work under ia64 linux? I don't know. A quick check of NetBSD seems to indicate that their ia64 port only runs in emulation mode; OpenBSD doesn't list an ia64 port. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ports missing their packages.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:09:23PM +0800, FBSD1 wrote: An alternate solution to this problem is to allow users to upload missing packages one word for you: security. What you suggest is never, ever, going to be implemented, due to the total lack of security. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports missing their packages.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:42:18AM -0500, Scot Hetzel wrote: So you are advocating that port maintainers have to create packages for all the supported FreeBSD architecture's (amd64, arm, i386, ia64, mips, pc98, powerpc, sparc64, sun4v). That would be 9 packages needing to be created at the time the port maintainer submits the upgrade PR. Nope, not 9 :-) You are forgetting FreeBSD 6, 7, and -current have builds enabled. OTOH, portmgr is only supporting amd64, i386, and sparc64 right now, and is not doing sparc64-8 due to lack of machines, so really the matrix is only 8. The ia64 package builds were stopped due to problems (and the fact that we only have 2 machines). There are no package building machines for the others yet -- and some of them ae really only going to be used for embedded systems, so only a very minimal subset of ports is going to be useful. So far, we've talked about addding machines for these, but there are no fixed plans so far. It could be as simple as forgetting to add the ports subdirectory to the category Makefile (i.e www/Makefile). Actually this is an uncommon problem; every time portmgr builds a package set, error messages are spit out if things are missing, and we are quick to email the maintainers :-) mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports missing their packages.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:02:14PM +0800, joeb wrote: How does kdenetwork-kopete-0.12.8 or php5-gd or pdflib fit into those reasons you gave? A little research shows: ftp://ftp4.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-7-stable/All/php5-gd-5.2.6_2.tbz So, there is a current package for php5-gd. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/print/pdflib/Makefile?rev=1.54 So, there will never be a package for pdflib, because we are not allowed to distibute it. Now, apparently audio/jack is not being built at the moment, but without access to my home system I can't probe any further. See http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/audio/jack/Makefile?rev=1.44 and http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portoverview.py?category=audioportname=jack. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports missing their packages.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:55:20AM -0700, mdh wrote: email the FreeBSD Foundation and find out how much cash it'd take for additional hardware to make that a reality, then send them that much cash. We are actually set up ok on amd64 machines right now (incremental package builds take just over a day). We are in the process of adding some more i386 machines (it is a matter of configuration; however, most of these are not really powerful machines). This should help get the incremental builds down from 3-4 days to 2-3 days. We also have some sparc64 machines that are on loan to us, which I am also in the process of configuration, but these are only UltraSPARC-II machines. There seems to be some work going on right now to get us running on US-III machines; if so, then it would be handy to get some of them. In the meantime, sparc64 package builds take more than 2 weeks :-( mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I can't make world without the games group?
On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 06:48:27PM +0200, Redd Vinylene wrote: Why does FreeBSD pack so much, pardon my language, bullshit anyway? Because no one has done the necessary QA work to factor things out and make them work. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
* I am trying to understand what is different about the ISC configuration but have not yet found the cause. It's called Anti-FreeBSD bias. You won't find anything. If this is true, please try to explain to me the following: - ISC hosts 5 Netra 1s that comprise most of our sparc64 package build cluster. They are allowing us to add 4 more next week. - ISC hosts 3 amd64 machines for our amd64 package build cluster. - ISC used to host 3 alpha machines, until we retired them. - ISC hosts ftp4.freebsd.org, which is one of the 2 machines that the address ftp.freebsd.org rotors to. This is an extremely high- bandwidth machine. - ISC hosts several other development machines (I am not aware of all the exact ones). All of this has been in place for years, with the space, power, and cooling all donated for free. Kris and others have been doing a tremendous amount of work over the past 2 years to identify and fix performance problems in FreeBSD. There have been literally hundreds of regression tests run, resulting in a large number of cycles of commit/test. Sometimes the commits do what we expect, sometimes no. Lather, rinse, repeat. The difference in performance between 6.3R and 7.0R is primarily due to all this effort. ISC's re-tests seems to confirm the improvements. The current speculation is that the difference in the measurements we're seeing could well be due to our drivers. If so, let's identify and fix the problems. Otherwise, let's try to understand whether there are any meaningful differences in the way the tests are being run. Casting aspersions on someone's methodology or motives just because you (or I) don't like the results is merely nonsense. AFAICT ISC's business model primarily consists of them selling the ability of bind to perform under load. That's the variable they have to optimize for. Let's hope that we are part of helping them to do just that. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Xorg Modular
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 02:26:20AM -0300, Jason Hills wrote: Yeah, Kris mentioned something like that in a private mail, but google didnt help me, nor http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-announce/ :( http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?461FE03C.8000406 http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200704132331.50079.dejan.lesjak http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070502193159.GB42482 mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-5-stable/All
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:00:08AM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 05:57:56PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote: Hi Kris, I know things must be pretty busy with 6.2, but is there any chance that the 5.5-STABLE packages can be updated soon? I just checked again, and at least apache and phpyadmin are still stale, going on two months now. Mark, what is the status of the upload of these packages? The past 9 days I was sitting at various pay-fer internet cafes and thus have not dealt with i386-5 (I had hoped it was going to be finished while I was still in Munich and had the wireless). I had thought of 'sending the reminder mails' and 'uploading the packages' as one unit, but I suppose I should have split them up. The former was not feasible from the cafes. I am now back but suffering from jet-lag so it will be another more 12 hours or so before I can look at the reminder-mails. (I had a 25-hour travel marathon between Koln and Houston.) mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bugzilla instead of current problem system for bugs and features?
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 11:53:31AM +0300, Abdullah Al-Marrie wrote: I just don't feel the current bug system is good for the FreeBSD growing community This question has been extensively discussed on various mailing lists over the past 2 years. The migration problem is not as easy as you seem to assume it will be. Please read up on the past history of this before being quite so certain about your conclusions. It is going to take a great deal of work to move away from the current bug system. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: portsdb -Uu broken on AMD64 system
This has already been fixed. Please re-cvsup and try again. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Has the port collection become to large to handle.
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 02:04:55PM +0300, Panagiotis Astithas wrote: I believe that one solution to the scalability problem of creating and maintaining updated packages, would be to decentralize it more. Each time I submit an update for one of the ports I maintain, I've already build the relevant packages, as a QA measure. There should be no need to wait for the ports cluster to build the official version, instead of using my own, modulo perhaps the higher quality assurance you'd get from Kris's build infrastructure. You have built the package for one build environment (buildenv). There are 12. See http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portsoverall.py. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pppd
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 10:56:35AM +0400, Alexander Pyhalov wrote: I use the last port collection, but there is only 2.3.11 version of pppd there. Are there any plans for updating it? The first place you should always ask about plans to update a port is the maintainer. If the maintainer is [EMAIL PROTECTED] (it is not in this case) then the answer is it's not maintained and so no one is planning to update it until someone submits a PR. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 09:14:26AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Why are you building xfree86? FreeBSD 5.4 uses Xorg. It's just about the same code just different licensing. I don't think the FreeBSD core is bothering to keep the xfree86 port working on FreeBSD 5.X just FreeBSD 4.11 I'm sorry, but this is wrong on almost all counts. The default X server that is installed by the base for 5.4 is indeed xorg, but both XFree and xorg are being actively maintained. A great deal of work goes into keeping both X servers working on the active source branches. As for the licensing meta-fiasco, see the FAQ or use Google to find out more; this has been hashed and re-hashed and re-re-hashed here, and in other venues, many times. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 02:45:45PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: I'm sorry to step on the toes of the port maintainer but instead of complaining about it you need to respond to the realitites. In general I would rather do that than argue, yes. make: don't know how to make /drm.h. Stop *** Error code 2 If you really believe that XFree86 is being actively maintained, then answer the original poster, quit bitching about what I'm saying. Actively maintained means having updates tested on the build cluster and committed when the majority of ports upgrade successfully. It does not mean every port necessarily is going to work in every single configuration, since there are a large number of interdependent parts. Have you filed a PR about this? query-pr shows no match for 'drm'. fwiw, the most recent update to x11/XFree86-4/Makefile was on 2005/06/15 02:39:58 to update to 4.5.0 and shows that 8 different PRs were closed by the commit. The 4.X source branch isn't really active anymore. This is news to me. AFAIK we are still requesting all our port maintainers to keep things working on 4.X whenever possible. Personally I deplore the move to xorg based on the simple requirement of xfree86 for recognition in their new license Sigh. I'm really not going to go over this for the Nth time on the mailing lists. The licensing issue was the final straw in a long-running situation that had more to do with who was able to commit what to the XFree repository. Please go do the research on the web, this has a years-long history behind it. the users of open source, which is you and I, are not served by splitting development between 2 forks of X Windows. You are entitled to your opinion. Others disagree, and quite strongly so. There are multiple versions of many other things in the ports tree, as well. We just had a big thread on making FreeBSD easier to use for the average person - and now your claiming that it's a -good- thing to have two completely different X Windows distributions?!?! As long as we have people who are demanding that both servers work: yes. If people want something that's the easiest to use, then they should go with the current default. We already have a group of users who have no wish to change to xorg (for their own reasons), and as long as that is the case and there are maintainer cycles to do it, then we'll do both. Finally, the initial question would have probably gotten a better answer if posted to the freebsd-x11 mailing list, where the maintainers of the X servers tend to hang out, and any further discussion of these issues ought to migrate there as well. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
