Re: library porting question - optional python bindings

2016-03-01 Thread Kubilay Kocak
On 1/03/2016 1:38 PM, Chris Inacio wrote: > All, > > I'm trying to build a port definition for a library/application that can > optionally include Python bindings. The library/application generally > depends on other C libraries to exist (ZMQ v3, Protobufs-C) and if you > enable Python support,

Re: Completely unscientific poll: cfengine, puppet, other?

2016-03-01 Thread Roger Marquis
Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote: Some systems (e.g. cfengine) are using a pull model, where the "managed" machines connect to a central hub periodically, fetch the configuration and "do what needs to be done", while e.g. ansible follows a "push" model, where the "agent" is executed

Re: mail/postfix and mail/postfix-current need upgrading

2016-03-01 Thread Roger Marquis
\mail\postfix-XXX Older versions of Postfix \mail\postfix-stableLatest stable version of Postfix \mail\postfix-current Experimental version of Postfix Based on the goal of user-friendliness and principle of least surprise I'd vote for changing -current to -experimental. It is a

Re: mail/postfix and mail/postfix-current need upgrading

2016-03-01 Thread Mark Martinec
Yay, great, thanks!!! mail/postfix-current at 3.2-20160224 mail/postfix at 3.1.0 mail/postfix211 at 2.11.7 Mark ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to

Re: Completely unscientific poll: cfengine, puppet, other?

2016-03-01 Thread Christoph Moench-Tegeder
## Chris Inacio (nacho...@gmail.com): > Happy if you would just reply with which one, if any, you use. I'm using cfengine for a mixed (several Linux, some FreeBSD) environment. But: without the "cfengine-masterfiles" (available as a port), using cfengine can be somewhat painful (as already

Re: [CFT] net-im/ejabberd to 16.01

2016-03-01 Thread Marko Cupać
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 19:41:00 +0530 ash...@freebsd.org (Ashish SHUKLA) wrote: > https://people.freebsd.org/~ashish/diffs/ejabberd-16.01-02.diff > sha256 sum: > ec71fdd19c752b22271ce6e3f899b966b0017f05fa13532d1decf18478e41b6e Hi, Ashish, I'd be glad to test this, but the patch does not apply

Re: library porting question - optional python bindings

2016-03-01 Thread Shane Ambler
On 01/03/2016 13:08, Chris Inacio wrote: All, I'm trying to build a port definition for a library/application that can optionally include Python bindings. The library/application generally depends on other C libraries to exist (ZMQ v3, Protobufs-C) and if you enable Python support, then you

Re: library porting question - optional python bindings

2016-03-01 Thread Fernando Herrero Carrón
El 1 mar. 2016 3:38 a. m., "Chris Inacio" escribió: > > All, > > I'm trying to build a port definition for a library/application that can > optionally include Python bindings. The library/application generally > depends on other C libraries to exist (ZMQ v3, Protobufs-C) and