Re: emulators/virtualbox-ose-kmod fails on HEAD
On 13.11.2011 02:26, Doug Barton wrote: On 11/12/2011 00:03, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote: look for the patch in ports/162186 Thanks. I found the patch, but if I download it and turn it into patch-foo and try to build the port, all hunks fail to apply. Normally I'd just apply by hand and regenerate, but it's a big patch. Has anyone produced a working version? That's because of the windows line endings. Don't know where they came from but this patch applies fine now for 4.0.12 and 4.1.4. http://home.bluelife.at/patches/patch-cdev-fixes.diff -- Bernhard Froehlich http://www.bluelife.at/ ___ 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: libgee-0.6.2.1: error in pkg-plist
El día Saturday, November 12, 2011 a las 03:35:25PM +, Chris Rees escribió: This isn't a plist problem; it's an autotools-doesn't-understand-FreeBSD-10 problem. On previous versions it works fine; [crees@pegasus]~/libgee% grep '^pkgconfigdir' work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile pkgconfigdir = $(prefix)/libdata/pkgconfig [crees@pegasus]~/libgee% Seems so. If you do it step-by-step and check the Makefile for it it looks like this: caracas# make clean === Cleaning for libgee-0.6.2.1 caracas# make extract === Vulnerability check disabled, database not found === License check disabled, port has not defined LICENSE === Extracting for libgee-0.6.2.1 = SHA256 Checksum OK for libgee-0.6.2.1.tar.xz. caracas# grep '^pkgconfigdir' work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile* work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile.am:pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile.in:pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig caracas# make configure ... caracas# grep '^pkgconfigdir' work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile* work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile:pkgconfigdir = $(prefix)/libdata/pkgconfig work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile.am:pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile.in:pkgconfigdir = $(prefix)/libdata/pkgconfig work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile.in.bak:pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig caracas# make ... caracas# grep '^pkgconfigdir' work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile* work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile:pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile.am:pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile.in:pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile.in.bak:pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig as you see the 'make' changes the Makefile again produced by 'make configure', why? All the above is with UNAME_r set to 9.0-CURRENT; if you set in addition OSVERSION to 9.0, all is fine; matthias -- Matthias Apitz t +49-89-61308 351 - f +49-89-61308 399 - m +49-170-4527211 e g...@unixarea.de - w http://www.unixarea.de/ UNIX since V7 on PDP-11, UNIX on mainframe since ESER 1055 (IBM /370) UNIX on x86 since SVR4.2 UnixWare 2.1.2, FreeBSD since 2.2.5 ___ 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: libgee-0.6.2.1: error in pkg-plist
On 13-11-2011 15:49, Matthias Apitz wrote: El día Saturday, November 12, 2011 a las 03:35:25PM +, Chris Rees escribió: This isn't a plist problem; it's an autotools-doesn't-understand-FreeBSD-10 problem. On previous versions it works fine; [crees@pegasus]~/libgee% grep '^pkgconfigdir' work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile pkgconfigdir = $(prefix)/libdata/pkgconfig [crees@pegasus]~/libgee% Seems so. If you do it step-by-step and check the Makefile for it it looks like this: caracas# make clean === Cleaning for libgee-0.6.2.1 caracas# make extract === Vulnerability check disabled, database not found === License check disabled, port has not defined LICENSE === Extracting for libgee-0.6.2.1 = SHA256 Checksum OK for libgee-0.6.2.1.tar.xz. caracas# grep '^pkgconfigdir' work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile* work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile.am:pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile.in:pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig caracas# make configure ... caracas# grep '^pkgconfigdir' work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile* work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile:pkgconfigdir = $(prefix)/libdata/pkgconfig work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile.am:pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile.in:pkgconfigdir = $(prefix)/libdata/pkgconfig work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile.in.bak:pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig caracas# make ... caracas# grep '^pkgconfigdir' work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile* work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile:pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile.am:pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile.in:pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig work/libgee-0.6.2.1/Makefile.in.bak:pkgconfigdir = $(libdir)/pkgconfig as you see the 'make' changes the Makefile again produced by 'make configure', why? All the above is with UNAME_r set to 9.0-CURRENT; if you set in addition OSVERSION to 9.0, all is fine; matthias This should be fixed by a commit done on wednesday. Can you update your ports tree and try again? -Koop ___ 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: Recent ports removal
On 2011-Nov-11 12:40:12 -0800, Stanislav Sedov s...@deglitch.com wrote: Because portmgr@ is using it? There're numerous cases when unmaintained, buggy, vulnerable and plainly dangerous stuff stays in tree because someone in portmgr gang likes it when other applications not used by them being removed without prior discussion notice. Because your opinion doesn't matter. Neither is mine. I am getting heartily tired of your continuous tirade against the portmgr@ community. Please provide evidence to backup your accusations or retract them. As for the removal of obsolete ports - it has been made perfectly clear on many occasions that a MAINTAINER of ports@ means that port is _not_ maintained. If it's a port you use, feel free to take over maintainership. Otherwise that port is subject to removal if any problems with it crop up. -- Peter Jeremy pgpsPMP9x6Stn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Recent ports removal
On 11/13/2011 12:25, Mikhail T. wrote: You've gone from small minority of other interested parties to no one has made a peep in a single e-mail! If this is the quality of the rest of your reasoning, than you should not be surprised, that it has not really resonated despite the endless repetition... You turned a comparison of the discussion of the concept of ports removal generally to the removal of individual ports and turned it into an ad hominem attack on the quality of *my* reasoning. This is an excellent example of why I, for one, don't bother replying substantively to your messages anymore. Doug -- We could put the whole Internet into a book. Too practical. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ 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: Recent ports removal
On 13 Nov 2011 21:20, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote: On 11/13/2011 12:25, Mikhail T. wrote: You've gone from small minority of other interested parties to no one has made a peep in a single e-mail! If this is the quality of the rest of your reasoning, than you should not be surprised, that it has not really resonated despite the endless repetition... You turned a comparison of the discussion of the concept of ports removal generally to the removal of individual ports and turned it into an ad hominem attack on the quality of *my* reasoning. This is an excellent example of why I, for one, don't bother replying substantively to your messages anymore. Doug Oh my it's two months ago. Is it? Can we move on? Ports are deprecated and removed. Insecure/unmaintained ports are harmful. If you care, step up to maintain them. Seriously. Or stop complaining. Chris PS only replying to Doug because it's the latest email, not because I think he disagrees with me. ___ 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: Recent ports removal
On 13.11.2011 16:20, Doug Barton wrote: You turned a comparison of the discussion of the concept of ports removal generally to the removal of individual ports and turned it into an ad hominem attack on the quality of*my* reasoning. Huh? This is an excellent example of why I, for one, don't bother replying substantively to your messages anymore. And yet, you are going to have to... Because you are not doing your removals as an individual committer (if you were, your desire to remove a port could've been stopped by *my* desire to keep it). And as long as you imply having some sort of governing authority behind you (such as a portmgr hat -- permanent or temporary), you need to justify your actions to keep the consent of the governed. But I'm not asking you to reply to the uncivil, sarcastic, and otherwise flawed *me*. My proposal was for you and the rest of the removers to articulate your reasoning on a web-page. That would carry your message (calmly thought-through and edited) to all users and colleagues alike, including those too polite to question your actions publicly. Please, oblige. On 13.11.2011 16:31, Chris Rees wrote: Oh my it's two months ago. Yes. And my recollection from back then is that portmgr was reviewing the issue (in the quiet of Olympus away from the noise of all the silly mortals) and was going to render their decision (eloquently and convincingly to all)... That has not happened, but the removals continue to this day... Can we move on? Ports are deprecated and removed. Insecure/unmaintained ports are harmful. No, we can not move on. It should, by now, be obvious to all, that there is no consensus on when a port should be removed. And yet, a fraction of the committers take it upon themselves to remove ports based on their own credentials -- much to the dissatisfaction of the opposing fraction. I fail to see, why or how the opinion of crees@ and dougb@ outweighs that of stas@ and mi@. To be sure, both factions have other members, but nobody conducted a vote -- and we don't even know, what such a vote would mean anyway. Yours, -mi ___ 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: misc/xfce4-weather-plugin (marked as IGNORE)
Sam Cassiba s...@cassiba.com wrote: On 11/10/11 11:35, Heino Tiedemann wrote: Hi Folks, - misc/xfce4-weather-plugin (marked as IGNORE) Why? Heino The commit history reveals all: http://www.freshports.org/misc/xfce4-weather-plugin the weather applet will need a new data provider, because that new feed won't be free. Well, what about the dataprovider who feeds the KDE wheather applet? Heino ___ 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
