Re: sigwait - differences between Linux FreeBSD
On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 11:53:21AM +1100, Stephen Hocking wrote: Hi all, In my efforts to make the xrdp port more robust under FreeBSD, I have discovered that sigwait (kind of an analogue to select(2), but for signals rather than I/O) re-enables ignored signals in its list under Linux, but not FreeBSD. The sesman daemon uses SIGCHLD to clean up after a session has exited. Under Linux this works OK, under FreeSBD it doesn't. I have worked around it in a very hackish manner (define a dummy signal handler and enable it using signal, which means that the sigwait call can then be unblocked by it), but am wondering if anyone else has run across the same problem, and if so, if they fixed it in an elegant manner. Also, does anyone know the correct semantics of sigwait under this situation? ports@ is the wrong list to discuss the issue in the base system. Solaris 10 sigwait(2) manpage says the following: If sigwait() is called on an ignored signal, then the occurrence of the signal will be ignored, unless sigaction() changes the disposition. We have the same behaviour as Solaris, ingored signals are not queued or recorded regardeless of the presence of sigwaiting thread. pgpFh2AtM44hW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Any news about ddd ?
Hi Anyone known what's the status of ports/ddd on the website they say the 3.3.12 is release at 02/2009 Is ddd ports is still in developpment ? Regards -- Albert SHIH SIO batiment 15 Observatoire de Paris Meudon 5 Place Jules Janssen 92195 Meudon Cedex Téléphone : 01 45 07 76 26/06 86 69 95 71 Heure local/Local time: Jeu 8 oct 2009 12:17:34 CEST ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [kde-freebsd] [CFT] KDE 4.3.2 / Qt 4.5.3 Ready for Testing
On Tuesday, 6 October 2009 20:12:55 Martin Wilke wrote: We're happy to announce that KDE-4.3.2 is ready for testing. KDE-4.3.2 is only a Bugfix release. If you want to play with KDE 4.3.2 please checkout all ports from area51. A note about area51, we have changed the repo layout, Qt and KDE is now split between area51/QT and area51/KDE. If you have an old check out please delete all and run a new checkout: svn co http://area51.pcbsd.org/trunk/area51 You'll then find 3 dirs: QT, KDE, Tools, in Tools/scripts you'll find 2 scripts to merge QT and KDE to /usr/ports. If you see any issues please let use know. Happy Testing! I've found a problem with devel/qt4-help-tools: PORTNAME=help (instead of help-tools). Other then that everything compiled fine and no apparent regressions. It looks like 'deskutils/dolphin-plugins-mplayerthumbs' has been obsoleted? Thank you for the great work. Looking forward to 8.0 (and beyond :-) ). Many thanks, David signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
FreeBSD Port: drivel-2.0.2_10
drivel 3.0.0 is now on release. http://linux.codehelp.co.uk/#drivel http://drivel.sourceforge.net/ http://freshmeat.net/projects/drivel http://sourceforge.net/projects/drivel/ Drivel 3.0.0 (Ready for the future) = * Improvements: - Drop remnants of old libraries including: libglade2, libgnome2 and libgnomeui. - Drop deprecated functions from existing libraries, ready for the upcoming Gtk+3.0 transitions. - Migrate from libgtksourceview1.0 to libgtksourceview2.0 - Add patches from bugzilla that have accumulated since 2.0.4 - Include and enhance code from the previous trunk (the unreleased 2.1.1) codebase. - Include translated versions of the Drivel Manual. * Issues: - Serendipity upstream has disabled XMLRPC due to a bug in PHP 5.2 which appears to be fixed in the current 5.2 release. The xmlrpc support in serendipity is disabled but does work again if the xmlrpc plugin is downloaded and installed: http://spartacus.s9y.org/cvs/additional_plugins/serendipity_event_xmlrpc.zip - drivel is not able to retrieve recent entries from all blog engines as a result of the removal of libegg / issues with the GtkRecentEntries support. - Past-date support in LJ is disabled in 3.0.0. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgp7BcIMD56X5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sigwait - differences between Linux FreeBSD
Stephen Hocking schrieb: Hi all, In my efforts to make the xrdp port more robust under FreeBSD, I have discovered that sigwait (kind of an analogue to select(2), but for signals rather than I/O) re-enables ignored signals in its list under Linux, but not FreeBSD. If the application relies on sigwait() to wait for and extract an ignored signal (SIG_IGN), it is non-portable, as it expects non-POSIX semantics, and should be fixed by the upstream maintainer (I haven't checked that). Note: Linux has the same semantics, quoting its manual page (on Ubuntu 9.10 beta): sigwait suspends the calling thread until one of the signals in set is delivered to the calling thread. It then stores the number of the sig‐ nal received in the location pointed to by sig and returns. The signals in set must be blocked and not ignored on entrance to sigwait. If the delivered signal has a signal handler function attached, that function is not called. The sesman daemon uses SIGCHLD to clean up after a session has exited. Under Linux this works OK, under FreeSBD it doesn't. Not sure I understand. How can it clean up if it's not made aware of child's termination? Or do some Linux kernels behave in another way? Setting SIGCHLD to SIG_IGN (default) means that the kernel will let go of the child processes as they exit, rather than turn them into zombies. You cannot wait() for them though. I have worked around it in a very hackish manner (define a dummy signal handler and enable it using signal, which means that the sigwait call can then be unblocked by it), but am wondering if anyone else has run across the same problem, and if so, if they fixed it in an elegant manner. Also, does anyone know the correct semantics of sigwait under this situation? That is not a hackish workaround, but one of the few safe ways to sigwait() for SIGCHLD. A version fixed thus should still work on Linux, so that fix should be made by xrdp upstream. The canonical reference would be the POSIX standard (IEEE Std 1003.1). 2008: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ 2001, 2004 edition: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/95399/ The latter is also known as the Single Unix Specification v3 (SUSv3). HTH ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Delete a port I maintain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 07 October 2009 05:15:00 Eitan Adler wrote: The upstream author no longer maintains this port and I don't have the time to fix it. This port could be removed from the ports tree. portname: hebrew/geresh broken because: needs update for the new fribidi paragraph API build errors: http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/i386-errorlogs/e.6.2009081417/iw -geresh-0.6.3_1.log (_Aug_23_08:41:05_UTC_2009) overview: http://portsmon.FreeBSD.org/portoverview.py?category=hebrewamp;portname=ge resh Done PRs are preferred :) Thomas - -- Thomas Abthorpe | FreeBSD Committer tabtho...@freebsd.org | http://people.freebsd.org/~tabthorpe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkrN4GkACgkQ5Gm/jNBp8qB3nACfThipxycOY4HPdD4abR6Msgpy zXYAn0wQHlUmB9pF5qk95DcwtLzfMrLv =eCSV -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Problems with vpopmail-devel
Hi, I'm trying to install vpopmail-devel as dependency for courier-authlib which I need. When going with portinstall: $portinstall courier-authlib it tries to fetch vpopmail-5.4.27 which is not available on any of the Mirror Servers. Trying to look it up manually there's only a vpopmail-2.4.28 available. Now trying to install vpopmail-5.5 from ports all I get is a size mismatch error on all the mirrors: size mismatch: expected 425441, actual 521800 Help in finding a solution here would be appreciated. Regards Julian Wissmann ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ion windows manager on FreeBSD
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 01:25:35PM -0300, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote: You can fork the code, rename it, whatever, but you can NOT change the license without explicit permission from the original copyright owner. That would be legally considered theft! Incorrect. It would be legally considered copyright infringement. Copyright law is not property law, and both different laws *and* different terms apply. Theft is not a term legally applied to copyright infringement -- at least, in any jurisdiction of which I'm even vaguely aware of the state of copyright law. That would be legally considered copyright infringement! I was referring to stealing intellectual property, which can be a synonym of copyright violation, depending on the country law. In my country, for instance, computer programs are considered intellectual property but they are also subjected to author rights, just like books and paintings [1,2] . There. I fixed it for you. Thanks for the clarification, anyway. References (in Portuguese) [1] http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L9609.htm [2] http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L9610.htm -- My preferred quotation of Robert Louis Stevenson is You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. Not because I like the omelettes, but because I like the sound of eggs being broken. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ion windows manager on FreeBSD
On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 11:19:00AM -0300, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 01:25:35PM -0300, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote: You can fork the code, rename it, whatever, but you can NOT change the license without explicit permission from the original copyright owner. That would be legally considered theft! Incorrect. It would be legally considered copyright infringement. Copyright law is not property law, and both different laws *and* different terms apply. Theft is not a term legally applied to copyright infringement -- at least, in any jurisdiction of which I'm even vaguely aware of the state of copyright law. That would be legally considered copyright infringement! I was referring to stealing intellectual property, which can be a synonym of copyright violation, depending on the country law. In my country, for instance, computer programs are considered intellectual property but they are also subjected to author rights, just like books and paintings [1,2] . The term Intellectual Property is essentially an invention of people who wished copyright, patent, and trademark bodies of law were treated more like actual property law. Saying something is intellectual property sure makes it *sound* like violating the relevant law should be called stealing, but it's still not theft under the law (unless you happen to live in some jurisdiction that treats this stuff in a very nonstandard manner -- I can't speak for all jurisdictions, since I know nothing about copyright law in Eritrea, for instance). Not only is copyright not *legally* considered theft, but it is not *practically* equivalent to theft, either. In theft, a person has a thing in his or her possession, and the thief takes it away. There is no thing in a copyright holder's possession that is taken away when copyright is infringed. The common excuse for calling it theft is reference to the copyright holder's profits being stolen, but because those profits do not even exist yet at the time of the copyright infringement, they are not literally being taken away. References (in Portuguese) [1] http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L9609.htm [2] http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L9610.htm Alas, I do not read Portuguese. Maybe in Portugal the word for theft is defined differently than here, so that it applies not to property per se, but to any illegal act of acquisition; that is not a jurisdiction whose copyright laws are familiar to me. I rather doubt it, though, because a legal definition of theft that is applicable to copyright would fail to account for actual theft of actual property of naturally limited abundance. Given an example with which I am more familiar (the United States), though, I cite Dowling v. US: The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. Dowling v. US specfically set forth for those who wished to define bootleg recordings as stolen property the details for why this was not an appropriate definition, and rejected outright and in all its particulars the concept that copyright infringement is theft in any legal sense of the term. The reasoning is summed up in the above two-sentence quote from the Dowling v. US decision. The economic principle that differentiates copyright infringement from property theft is that of rivalry. A rival good is one whose use by one consumer prevents the use by another, whereas a nonrival good is one whose use by one consumer does not interfere with the use by another. Copyright infringement is illegal acquisition, by a consumer, of a nonrival good; property theft is illegal acquisition, by a consumer, of a rival good. Copyright violation does not deprive anyone else of the opportunity to acquire or use the good in question, whereas property theft *does*, accounting for the differences of legal status for acquisition between rival and nonrival goods. Thomas Jefferson, in discussions of the idea of copyright and patent law before such were even included in the US Constitution, made this distinction as well: He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpgSmhVpaj6g.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sigwait - differences between Linux FreeBSD
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Matthias Andree matthias.and...@gmx.de wrote: Stephen Hocking schrieb: Hi all, In my efforts to make the xrdp port more robust under FreeBSD, I have discovered that sigwait (kind of an analogue to select(2), but for signals rather than I/O) re-enables ignored signals in its list under Linux, but not FreeBSD. If the application relies on sigwait() to wait for and extract an ignored signal (SIG_IGN), it is non-portable, as it expects non-POSIX semantics, and should be fixed by the upstream maintainer (I haven't checked that). Note: Linux has the same semantics, quoting its manual page (on Ubuntu 9.10 beta): sigwait suspends the calling thread until one of the signals in set is delivered to the calling thread. It then stores the number of the sig‐ nal received in the location pointed to by sig and returns. The signals in set must be blocked and not ignored on entrance to sigwait. If the delivered signal has a signal handler function attached, that function is not called. The sesman daemon uses SIGCHLD to clean up after a session has exited. Under Linux this works OK, under FreeSBD it doesn't. Not sure I understand. How can it clean up if it's not made aware of child's termination? Or do some Linux kernels behave in another way? It appears as if the documentation does not match up with the reality in Linux's case. That's what the empirical evidence suggests anyway. The code does does a waitpid after receiving the SIGCHLD to determine what child process has exited and then searches its list of sessions looking for that particular pid, so as to tidy up. I can to some degree understand that implementation of sigwait, as if you state your intention to wait for a particular signal, that means that you don't wish to ignore it. Setting SIGCHLD to SIG_IGN (default) means that the kernel will let go of the child processes as they exit, rather than turn them into zombies. You cannot wait() for them though. I have worked around it in a very hackish manner (define a dummy signal handler and enable it using signal, which means that the sigwait call can then be unblocked by it), but am wondering if anyone else has run across the same problem, and if so, if they fixed it in an elegant manner. Also, does anyone know the correct semantics of sigwait under this situation? That is not a hackish workaround, but one of the few safe ways to sigwait() for SIGCHLD. A version fixed thus should still work on Linux, so that fix should be made by xrdp upstream. The canonical reference would be the POSIX standard (IEEE Std 1003.1). 2008: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ 2001, 2004 edition: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/95399/ The latter is also known as the Single Unix Specification v3 (SUSv3). Thanks for the references. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Problems with vpopmail-devel
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009, Julian Wissmann wrote: I'm trying to install vpopmail-devel as dependency for courier-authlib which I need. When going with portinstall: $portinstall courier-authlib it tries to fetch vpopmail-5.4.27 which is not available on any of the Mirror Servers. Trying to look it up manually there's only a vpopmail-2.4.28 available. mail/vpopmail should soon be updated to 5.4.28, which is the latest available *stable* release. In the meantime, you should be able to grab the older tarball from ftp.FreeBSD.org. = Attempting to fetch from ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/distfiles/. vpopmail-5.4.27.tar.gz100% of 513 kB 2914 kBps = MD5 Checksum OK for vpopmail-5.4.27.tar.gz. = SHA256 Checksum OK for vpopmail-5.4.27.tar.gz. -- Sahil Tandon sa...@tandon.net ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
