Re: FreeBSD Ports: sylpheed, gnash, seamonkey
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Oliver Lehmann lehm...@ans-netz.de wrote: Hi, I'm working on it. Thank you. -- Regards, Torfinn Ingolfsen ___ 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: Xfce 4.8 updates synchronized with latest snapshot of marcuscom.com repository
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:00:33 +0200 Olivier Duchateau duchateau.oliv...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, In tarball, you can find also x11-fm/thunar-devel (v1.3.0 instead of v1.2.x), and patches for audio/thunar-media-tags-plugin [2]. Is there any solution on the horizon in regard to Thunar auto-mounting? I tried KDE 2 days ago...automount works, but I'm back to Xfce and would like to continues using it on (Free)PCBSD desktop...just curious if something might change for 4.10? Sincerely, Gour -- “In the material world, conceptions of good and bad are all mental speculations…” (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu) http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [ANNOUNCE]: clang compiling ports, take 2
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:06 PM, George Liaskos geo.lias...@gmail.com wrote: Hello! I added some jquery for sorting / searching at the latest clang exp run. http://cybertron.gr/errorlogs/amd64-errorlogs/e.9-exp.20110723205754/index.html I hope you 'll find it useful. The table should be sortable already, just click on the column name. -- Florent Thoumie f...@freebsd.org FreeBSD Committer ___ 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: Time to mark portupgrade deprecated?
Jerry wrote: While we are on the subject of port management tools, I still use portmanager when a version bump on a port requires that a massive number of dependencies be rebuild. I have had all too many instances when both portupgrade and portmaster simply bombed out and left me with only a partially updated system, and in many cases, a virtually useless one. Portmanager would simple get the job done right the first time. It might be overkill for one or two port upgrades; however, it works fine on massive projects that seem to bewilder the other two competing contenders. The p5-libwww-5* example in the case of portmaster being a perfect example. This subject of port management tools is a subject i have been much interested in some years ago, and i must say that the problems which seem to surface now in the general consensus, i had discussed them without any echo at the time. Having a system partially updated hence requiring a lot of work to fix with portupgrade happened to me several times. Horrific slowness of portupgrade was perfectly obvious years ago. I think most of the problems come from errors in the ports themselves so are unfixable through ameliorations in the upgrade tools. I think only a more rigorous management of the ports, i mean something like the separation between unstable, testing, stable in Debian, with rigorous procedures for going from one state to the better one could cure this problem, but at the expense of slowing the development. More importantly, only a procedure centered around *binary* packages could possibly lead to a guaranteed decent state of the ports. Centering things around source code can only lead to confusion, incessant messing by both developers and users with various options etc. which can only destabilize the system. Anyways, to come back to port management tools i don't know how portmanager works, but i think that both portupgrade and portmaster have a fundamental flaw in that they both work locally, upgrading one port after another until the job is finished, which means that the state of the machine is constantly modified, possibly into a broken state, without any possibility for the user to know beforehand that he is headed to failure. A proper tool should do a first pass describing exactly the initial state and the final state so that the end user can choose to upgrade or not. This is what Debian apt-get (or aptitude) does, it describes before any destructive action begins what will be removed, what will be installed. This can only work reliably if you have binary packages, otherwise you can never be sure that a source port will compile. The only *BSD i am aware of that has moved in that direction is OpenBSD. From what i hear, people are happy with the management of ports in OpenBSD, while most of people i hear are very unhappy with FreeBSD ports. -- Michel TALON ___ 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: Time to mark portupgrade deprecated?
On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 11:27 +0200, Michel Talon wrote: [ Stuff about how we should move to binary packages because Debian. ] Sure, why not kill one of the biggest strengths FreeBSD is known for while we're at it... Two questions: Who will provide the infrastructure to build me all of my packages the day/hour/moment moment I need them and constantly build me the i386, amd64, athlon-tbird optimized, k8-sse3 optimized, -O2 and -O3 optimized, intel-core optimized, and intel-p3 optimized batches for all of my machines? Who will constantly build and maintain my custom set of binary packages and all their dependencies built with the exact specific OPTIONS that I need and without the components that I don't want? Because I'm in no mood for experiencing the hell of Linux users that can't even remove ALSA from their systems and fully switch to 4Front OSS, as all of their distro's packages are built against ALSA anyway, in some cases even exclusively, with OSS support completely removed, because why not. So no, thanks, I'm one of those that are perfectly happy with my fundamentally flawed source-based ports. Take that away and you might as well as kill FreeBSD for me, and probably anyone else I know. m. -- Michal Varga, Stonehenge (Gmail account) ___ 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: Time to mark portupgrade deprecated?
Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 12:38:35, vous avez écrit : Sure, why not kill one of the biggest strengths FreeBSD is known for while we're at it... Or most obvious weakness ... The biggest strength was a good kernel, better than Linux, but this was years ago. Two questions: Who will provide the infrastructure to build me all of my packages the day/hour/moment moment I need them and constantly build me the i386, amd64, athlon-tbird optimized, k8-sse3 optimized, -O2 and -O3 optimized, intel-core optimized, and intel-p3 optimized batches for all of my machines? Who will constantly build and maintain my custom set of binary packages and all their dependencies built with the exact specific OPTIONS that I need and without the components that I don't want? This stuff you are mentioning is the precise reason why people have problems with the ports system. By the way, all your optimisations have next to zero impact on performance, and introduce a sizable probability of bugs. And the components you don't want use an infinitesimal part of your hard disk and nothing in your memory. At the end of the day this sort of feature buys no benefit at all and introduces an infinite combinatoric complexity for people wanting to test the ports system. ___ 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: Time to mark portupgrade deprecated?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/25/11 08:25, Tilman Keskinöz wrote: I shortly went through the list. There are currently 22 PRs filed against portupgrade Of these: 4 are general problems of the ports collection/pkg_tools. (architecture-specific INDEX, Detecting of OPTIONs set, Overriding/removing files changed by the user etc.) 2 are documentation bugs 1 wishlist item 4 contain patches 1 i believed is already fixed, i set to feedback. So this leaves the following, which need someone (a maintainer?) to investigate/write a patch: snip IMHO the situation is not that bad, that we need to DEPRECATE it. Many thanks for going through them, that helps a great deal. I submitted some changes which should help with Ruby 1.9 compatibility, which Stanislav has pushed out to portupgrade-devel. I did some minimal testing with them, but they need more testing. If folks could test the updated portupgrade-devel, with both Ruby 1.8 and Ruby 1.9, I'd appreciate it. That would help us get past the Ruby 1.9 compatibility issue. Thanks, Steve -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOLqQ1AAoJEPXPYrMgexuhI0oH/RtLURpZgsANqGVs9QrQPn5W Haf9wt6sHnWa/1pXL9EoIUmEy8LPvRS9P4kFMwr8zNLtXjjK7ChhSALWApxoLgcE YsJND4ATcQun4mYCMxVECvvRM6egl1u/UmJGO3jOXJz6Dv0Ik5GB8y+3Ssepx5ls QIkEbXU+oXyq2pIsDajWLGBGEAPAOEaVphdLY9Hhvv+tQJDqlZHOkISVa6pqG4zM Kh7upMftP4ce53kC4CPupqXxK9m5OIo4/v+jbNzqmEkySk/CDZvN6qTSWGNVSH5r 20k6ggykmvqS6A7vmaYHxTdwtq1bn+J+YzryIOAyK9+VWVPLxbCMG8URRB8C2GY= =08aD -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
multimedia/handbrake 0.9.5
Hi, I was unhappy that the HandBrake port was outdated and didn't work on amd64, so I updated it to the best of my ability. Hopefully it's acceptable, or will at least give someone a head start. http://desync.com/~bw/handbrake.tar.gz Only tested on -CURRENT amd64 and RELENG_8 i386. ___ 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: Time to mark portupgrade deprecated?
,--- You/Michel (Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:27:56 +0200) * | while most of people i hear are very unhappy with FreeBSD ports. Nuts. -- Alex -- alex-goncha...@comcast.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
Re: FreeBSD Ports: sylpheed, gnash, seamonkey
Torfinn Ingolfsen tin...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Marco Alberoni m.alber...@cineca.it wrote: Hello everybody, I usually use the applications Sylpheed, Gnash and Seamonkey, and for all of them there the FreeBSD port is not synchronized with the latest available version: are there any problems for their upgrade? Sylpheed 3.1.1 was released on May 6th, 2011. And on July 1st, 2011 Sylpheed 3.2beta1 was released. What are the current plans for upgrading the Sylpheed port (if any)? I've just updated the port after a 15 day maintainer timeout. See: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/158798 Emanuel ___ 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: Time to mark portupgrade deprecated?
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:24:35PM +0200, Michel Talon wrote: Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 12:38:35, vous avez ??crit : Sure, why not kill one of the biggest strengths FreeBSD is known for while we're at it... Or most obvious weakness ... The biggest strength was a good kernel, better than Linux, but this was years ago. Two questions: Who will provide the infrastructure to build me all of my packages the day/hour/moment moment I need them and constantly build me the i386, amd64, athlon-tbird optimized, k8-sse3 optimized, -O2 and -O3 optimized, intel-core optimized, and intel-p3 optimized batches for all of my machines? Who will constantly build and maintain my custom set of binary packages and all their dependencies built with the exact specific OPTIONS that I need and without the components that I don't want? This stuff you are mentioning is the precise reason why people have problems with the ports system. By the way, all your optimisations have next to zero impact on performance, and introduce a sizable probability of bugs. And the components you don't want use an infinitesimal part of your hard disk and nothing in your memory. At the end of the day this sort of feature buys no benefit at all and introduces an infinite combinatoric complexity for people wanting to test the ports system. Ports, manuals and the people. This is why I use FreeBSD. Don't mess with ports. Have no opinion on portupgrade, never used it, portmaster does most of what I need, except for massive updates, e.g. recent icu update. portmaster -r fails for me most of the time (sometimes this is nothing to do with the update tool, but simply because I'm on ia64 and sparc64). I guess one has to accept that manual intervention is required for complex updates. -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423 ___ 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: Time to mark portupgrade deprecated?
Hi, On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Michel Talon ta...@lpthe.jussieu.fr wrote: Jerry wrote: While we are on the subject of port management tools, I still use portmanager when a version bump on a port requires that a massive number of dependencies be rebuild. I have had all too many instances when both portupgrade and portmaster simply bombed out and left me with only a partially updated system, and in many cases, a virtually useless one. Portmanager would simple get the job done right the first time. It might be overkill for one or two port upgrades; however, it works fine on massive projects that seem to bewilder the other two competing contenders. The p5-libwww-5* example in the case of portmaster being a perfect example. This subject of port management tools is a subject i have been much The subject we were discussing was portupgrade; if you want to discuss something else, please start a new thread. Thank you. interested in some years ago, and i must say that the problems which seem to surface now in the general consensus, i had discussed them without any echo at the time. Having a system partially updated hence requiring a lot of work to fix with portupgrade happened to me several times. Horrific slowness of portupgrade was perfectly obvious years ago. I think most of the problems come from errors in the ports themselves so are unfixable through ameliorations in the upgrade tools. I think only a more rigorous management of the ports, i mean something like the separation between unstable, testing, stable in Debian, with rigorous procedures for going from one state to the better one could cure this problem, but at the expense of slowing the development. More importantly, only a procedure centered around *binary* packages could possibly lead to a guaranteed decent state of the ports. Centering things around source code can only lead to confusion, incessant messing by both developers and users with various options etc. which can only destabilize the system. Anyways, to come back to port management tools i don't know how portmanager works, but i think that both portupgrade and portmaster have a fundamental flaw in that they both work locally, upgrading one port after another until the job is finished, which means that the state of the machine is constantly modified, possibly into a broken state, without any possibility for the user to know beforehand that he is headed to failure. A proper tool should do a first pass describing exactly the initial state and the final state so that the end user can choose to upgrade or not. This is what Debian apt-get (or aptitude) does, it describes before any destructive action begins what will be removed, what will be installed. This can only work reliably if you have binary packages, otherwise you can never be sure that a source port will compile. The only *BSD i am aware of that has moved in that direction is OpenBSD. From what i hear, people are happy with the management of ports in OpenBSD, while most of people i hear are very unhappy with FreeBSD ports. I would say that most people your hear isn't a representative subset of all the people who use ports. In my experience anyway. -- Regards, Torfinn Ingolfsen ___ 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: [ANNOUNCE]: clang compiling ports, take 2
Am 25.07.2011 17:59, schrieb Roman Divacky: Hi! Flz@ just run another exp-build with CC=clang and CXX=clang++. The results can be seen here: http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/amd64-errorlogs/e.9-exp.20110723205754/ Since the last run we've managed to fix the biggest offenders but that uncovered others that need fixing. The Reason column was extended and now shows assumes_gcc which is the lowest hanging fruit :) A lot of these failures are trivial to fix (ie. assumes_gcc reason) and prevent a lot of other ports from building. It would be great if you could skim over the list to see if some of the ports you maintain are broken and possibly try to fix them. A small introduction into the Clang+Ports can be read at: http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsAndClang. Please focus on the biggest offenders (ie. ports that prevent the most other ports from building). Greetings, there is one serious issue that spoilt (as discussed with kwm and rene on IRC) a major part of this -exp run. Namely: if a port sets USE_GCC=4.2+ (for instance, sysutils/busybox does that), the Pointyhat build does not install GCC. I think the bug is in ports/Mk/bsd.gcc.mk which is unaware that there are newer clang-based 9-CURRENT systems without gcc. I hope we can have another -exp run soon that addresses this. Thanks. Best regards, Matthias ___ 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: Time to mark portupgrade deprecated?
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:56:14 +0200 Torfinn Ingolfsen articulated: I would say that most people your hear isn't a representative subset of all the people who use ports. In my experience anyway. And that would be based on what, people you interact with which may or may not be a fully represented cross section of the entire FreeBSD community. Michel Talon simple made a statement based on a qualitative analysis of the individuals he had come into contact with or had reason to otherwise receive or access input from. Your statement is of no more value as a definitive assertion than his, so why belittle his remarks? -- Jerry ✌ jerry+po...@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ Famous last words of Davy Crockett, So what are all those gardeners doing here? ___ 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: Time to mark portupgrade deprecated?
Quoth Torfinn Ingolfsen on Tuesday, 26 July 2011: snip From what i hear, people are happy with the management of ports in OpenBSD, while most of people i hear are very unhappy with FreeBSD ports. I would say that most people your hear isn't a representative subset of all the people who use ports. In my experience anyway. Right. Don't say most people unless you can back it up with a statistically significant sampling. I expect the experiences of FreeBSD users vary much more than most people imagine. Those who have serious difficulties with the ports system may wrongly imagine that all FreeBSD users have the same less than delightful experience. Personally, even though I've run into a few issues with ports, I prefer the current system of building from source. Of course I welcome improvements, but not at the expense of the flexibility we enjoy. -- .O. | Sterling (Chip) Camden | http://camdensoftware.com ..O | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | http://chipsquips.com OOO | 2048R/D6DBAF91 | http://chipstips.com pgpUCVioirxyT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: french/aster ignores PYTHON_VERSION= 2.6 ?
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 06:22:31PM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
Anton Shterenlikht wrote on 20.07.2011 17:44:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 04:55:59PM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
As far i understand PYTHON_VERSION hold value like 'python2.7', so you
should correct this in your Makefile. Or just use USE_PYTHON = 2.6
No, PYTHON_VERSION seems to be overwritten by something else.
I removed all but the PYTHON parts from the Makefile,
and get this:
Yes, i see this in bsd.python.mk:
# Define PYTHON_VERSION to override the
# defaults that USE_PYTHON would give you.
But it seems not true. Here is my test Makefile:
mrk@smeshariki2$ cat Makefile
PORTNAME= blah
DISTVERSION= 1.0
CATEGORIES= misc
COMMENT= Some dumb port for testing
USE_PYTHON= yes
.include bsd.port.pre.mk
.if ${ARCH} == i386
PYTHON_VERSION= python2.6
.endif
.include bsd.port.post.mk
mrk@smeshariki2$ make depends
=== blah-1.0 depends on file: /usr/local/bin/python2.7 - found
=== blah-1.0 depends on file: /usr/local/bin/python2.7 - found
mrk@smeshariki2$ uname -p
i386
I added python@ to cc, since it seems like bsd.python.mk bug to me (or
documentation bug).
--
Regards,
Ruslan
I've heard nothing back within a week.
Shall I submit a pr?
--
Anton Shterenlikht
Room 2.6, Queen's Building
Mech Eng Dept
Bristol University
University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK
Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944
Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423
___
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
distfile status - do I have to do something about it?
I maintain these 2 ports: http://people.freebsd.org/~ehaupt/distilator/me...@bristol.ac.uk-bad.html Do I have to do something about it? -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423 ___ 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: distfile status - do I have to do something about it?
Op 26-07-2011 20:09, Anton Shterenlikht schreef: I maintain these 2 ports: http://people.freebsd.org/~ehaupt/distilator/me...@bristol.ac.uk-bad.html Do I have to do something about it? The 500s should be transient errors, if they persist you might try to contact the server admins. The NXDOMAIN might be more persistent, but I also see them sometimes and sometimes not for my own server (which is always-on). René -- http://www.rene-ladan.nl:8080/ GPG fingerprint = E738 5471 D185 7013 0EE0 4FC8 3C1D 6F83 12E1 84F6 (subkeys.pgp.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
INDEX build failed for 7.x
INDEX build failed with errors: Generating INDEX-7 - please wait.. Done. make_index: msp430-libc-gcc4-1.0.20110612: no entry for /usr/ports/devel/msp430mcu make_index: msp430-libc-gcc4-1.0.20110612: no entry for /usr/ports/devel/msp430mcu Committers on the hook: lev Most recent CVS update was: U UPDATING U devel/msp430-binutils/Makefile U devel/msp430-binutils/distinfo U devel/msp430-binutils/pkg-descr U devel/msp430-binutils/pkg-plist U devel/msp430-binutils/files/patch-Makefile.in U devel/msp430-gcc/Makefile U devel/msp430-gcc/distinfo U devel/msp430-gcc/pkg-descr U devel/msp430-gcc/pkg-plist U devel/msp430-gcc/files/patch-Makefile.in U devel/msp430-gcc/files/patch-gcc-Makefile.in U devel/msp430-gcc3/Makefile U devel/msp430-gcc3/pkg-plist U devel/msp430-gdb/Makefile U devel/msp430-gdb/distinfo U devel/msp430-gdb/pkg-plist U devel/msp430-libc/Makefile U devel/msp430-libc/distinfo U devel/msp430-libc/pkg-descr U devel/msp430-libc/pkg-plist U devel/msp430mcu/Makefile U devel/msp430mcu/distinfo U devel/msp430mcu/pkg-descr ___ 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
Which to bump for distfile location change?
Following a recent post to this list, I need to update a port, just to change a distfile location. It seems excessive to bump PORTREVISION, so what is the best thing to change (if any). ___ 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: Time to mark portupgrade deprecated?
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:13:20 -0700 Chip Camden wrote: Quoth Torfinn Ingolfsen on Tuesday, 26 July 2011: snip From what i hear, people are happy with the management of ports in OpenBSD, while most of people i hear are very unhappy with FreeBSD ports. I would say that most people your hear isn't a representative subset of all the people who use ports. In my experience anyway. Right. Don't say most people unless you can back it up with a statistically significant sampling. I expect the experiences of FreeBSD users vary much more than most people imagine. It seems more reasonable than the idea that most people using FreeBSD are doing so despite being very unhappy with FreeBSD ports. If that's really true then we should give Beastie nipple-clamps and a ball-gag to better appeal to our key demographic. ___ 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: Which to bump for distfile location change?
On Jul 26, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Bob Eager wrote: Following a recent post to this list, I need to update a port, just to change a distfile location. It seems excessive to bump PORTREVISION, so what is the best thing to change (if any). Probably nothing-- if someone already has a copy of the distfile, and there are no other changes, then there is no need to force them to rebuild the port by bumping PORTREVISION. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ 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: Which to bump for distfile location change?
On 26 Jul 2011 20:47, Bob Eager r...@tavi.co.uk wrote: Following a recent post to this list, I need to update a port, just to change a distfile location. It seems excessive to bump PORTREVISION, so what is the best thing to change (if any). No default package change, no portrevision bump. Leave it as is. Chris ___ 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: INDEX build failed for 7.x
Fixed -- attached msp430mcu to build. Chris On 26 July 2011 20:24, Erwin Lansing er...@freebsd.org wrote: INDEX build failed with errors: Generating INDEX-7 - please wait.. Done. make_index: msp430-libc-gcc4-1.0.20110612: no entry for /usr/ports/devel/msp430mcu make_index: msp430-libc-gcc4-1.0.20110612: no entry for /usr/ports/devel/msp430mcu Committers on the hook: lev Most recent CVS update was: U UPDATING U devel/msp430-binutils/Makefile U devel/msp430-binutils/distinfo U devel/msp430-binutils/pkg-descr U devel/msp430-binutils/pkg-plist U devel/msp430-binutils/files/patch-Makefile.in U devel/msp430-gcc/Makefile U devel/msp430-gcc/distinfo U devel/msp430-gcc/pkg-descr U devel/msp430-gcc/pkg-plist U devel/msp430-gcc/files/patch-Makefile.in U devel/msp430-gcc/files/patch-gcc-Makefile.in U devel/msp430-gcc3/Makefile U devel/msp430-gcc3/pkg-plist U devel/msp430-gdb/Makefile U devel/msp430-gdb/distinfo U devel/msp430-gdb/pkg-plist U devel/msp430-libc/Makefile U devel/msp430-libc/distinfo U devel/msp430-libc/pkg-descr U devel/msp430-libc/pkg-plist U devel/msp430mcu/Makefile U devel/msp430mcu/distinfo U devel/msp430mcu/pkg-descr ___ 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 ___ 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: Time to mark portupgrade deprecated?
On 7/26/2011 3:28 PM, RW wrote: It seems more reasonable than the idea that most people using FreeBSD are doing so despite being very unhappy with FreeBSD ports. If that's really true then we should give Beastie nipple-clamps and a ball-gag to better appeal to our key demographic. ___ 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 +1 just because the thought of that is funny as hell! -- Chris Brennan -- A: Yes. Q: Are you sure? A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? http://xkcd.com/84/ | http://xkcd.com/149/ | http://xkcd.com/549/ GPG: D5B20C0C (6741 8EE4 6C7D 11FB 8DA8 9E4A EECD 9A84 D5B2 0C0C) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Which to bump for distfile location change?
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 09:08:13PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: On 26 Jul 2011 20:47, Bob Eager r...@tavi.co.uk wrote: Following a recent post to this list, I need to update a port, just to change a distfile location. It seems excessive to bump PORTREVISION, so what is the best thing to change (if any). No default package change, no portrevision bump. Leave it as is. Chris is right but I don't want to give people the impression that is the only time to bump PORTREVISION. While the default package change rule of thumb is always a good one there is more to it than just that when deciding to bump PORTREVISION or not. Here's the rough questions I go through in my head when I'm facing this kind of decision: If the default package changes, bump it. Only caveat here is if it's a minor change (say a typo in a man page or something). If it's chasing a shlib bump of another port and this port defaults to off, bump it anyways as some people may be bit by this. If it's a change to an option that defaults to off, and one can expect a reasonable number of people to benefit from it, bump it. I'm sure there are others and I'm sure some people will disagree with some of these. But those are the rough guidelines I follow. -- WXS ___ 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
INDEX now builds successfully on 7.x
___ 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: FreeBSD Ports: sylpheed, gnash, seamonkey
Hi, I'm working on it. Zhihao Yuan lich...@gmail.com wrote: It's updating to 3.1.1 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/158798 I guess this will be committed soon. Or you can just patch and try it earlier. On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Torfinn Ingolfsen tin...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Marco Alberoni m.alber...@cineca.it wrote: Hello everybody, I usually use the applications Sylpheed, Gnash and Seamonkey, and for all of them there the FreeBSD port is not synchronized with the latest available version: are there any problems for their upgrade? Sylpheed 3.1.1 was released on May 6th, 2011. And on July 1st, 2011 Sylpheed 3.2beta1 was released. What are the current plans for upgrading the Sylpheed port (if any)? Have a nice day. -- Regards, Torfinn Ingolfsen ___ 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 -- Zhihao Yuan, nickname lichray The best way to predict the future is to invent it. ___ 4BSD -- http://4bsd.biz/ This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ 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: french/aster ignores PYTHON_VERSION= 2.6 ?
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:46:17PM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: Add Mk/bsd.python.mk to description field a good idea, but ... so it will be assigned to portmgr@. portmgr@ doesn't own all the bsd.*.mk files; bsd.python.mk is owned by python@. We're happy to put an -exp run in the queue for large changes, but it's not necessary for something small. (Note: I only scanned this email quickly so don't know which one it is :-) ) mcl ___ 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: french/aster ignores PYTHON_VERSION= 2.6 ?
Mark Linimon wrote on 27.07.2011 06:44: On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:46:17PM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: Add Mk/bsd.python.mk to description field a good idea, but ... so it will be assigned to portmgr@. portmgr@ doesn't own all the bsd.*.mk files; bsd.python.mk is owned by python@. We're happy to put an -exp run in the queue for large changes, but it's not necessary for something small. (Note: I only scanned this email quickly so don't know which one it is :-) ) mcl Ok, i was confused. -- Regards, Ruslan ___ 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
