Re: www/epiphany wants graphics/gdk-pixbuf that's not available in ports

2017-05-18 Thread bob prohaska 
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 08:09:06PM +0200, Koop Mast wrote:
> 
> Epiphany depends on graphics/gdk-pixbuf2 not the really older gdk-
> pixbuf.
> 
That's the key point I had missed, thanks for clarifying!
> 
> I think your trying to build ports from the HEAD ports tree, but have
> quartery packages installed. Gdk-pixbuf2 was updated to 2.36 in April,
> so that version is not available as a package in the 2017Q2 quartery
> branch.
>
The ports tree has been maintained with svn. This is an ARM system
(RPI2) so packages are of no (or very little) direct use. 

The dependencies are still causing trouble, so I've decided to give
portmaster a try. Last time I tried portmaster it wasn't much help,
but that was a long time ago. At this stage there's little to lose.

Many thanks for your reply!

bob prohaska
 
> -Koop
> 
> > Is something entirely mixed up? This is on RPI2 running -current, but
> > that isn't obviously relevant: Far as I can see, port names aren't
> > platform
> > specific. I.e., "ports is ports". (apologies to Walt Kelley)??
> > 
> > Thanks for reading,
> > 
> > bob prohaska
> > 
> > ___
> > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.o
> > rg"
> ___
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
> 
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: situation with www/node6 and www/node

2017-05-18 Thread Joseph Mingrone 
Adam Weinberger  writes:

>> On 18 May, 2017, at 12:45, Joseph Mingrone  wrote:

>> Adam Weinberger  writes:

 On 18 May, 2017, at 12:25, Adam Weinberger  wrote:

> On 18 May, 2017, at 12:22, Luca Pizzamiglio  
> wrote:

> Hi,

> node6 is the LTS, node is the current. From a stability point of view,
> node6 is the choice, but node (7) is already widely used.
> Probably, the best solution would be to provide the desired node
> version via Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk and then all ports depends to
> the common version (like perl, python, ...).

> In the meanwhile, node can be the new default for yarn and the
> conflict will be solved (and it will be coherent with npm)

 Luca,

 You're completely right, we really need a USES=node (and there are 
 multiple attempts at it currently floating around). In the meantime, I 
 think you're making the right choice setting www/node as the yarn
 default.

 # Adam

>>> Committed in r441191. Thanks, Luca.

>>> # Adam

>> Thanks all.  I will abandon https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10696.

> Sorry, Joseph, I wasn't aware of that phab. The update in it is still 
> relevant though; no need to abandon that.

> # Adam

No worries, I was mistaken.  I did an svn diff -rPREV in my copy, which
had my local changes and thought that's what you had committed.

Cheers,

Joseph


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: situation with www/node6 and www/node

2017-05-18 Thread Adam Weinberger 
> On 18 May, 2017, at 12:45, Joseph Mingrone  wrote:
> 
> Adam Weinberger  writes:
> 
>>> On 18 May, 2017, at 12:25, Adam Weinberger  wrote:
> 
 On 18 May, 2017, at 12:22, Luca Pizzamiglio  
 wrote:
> 
 Hi,
> 
 node6 is the LTS, node is the current. From a stability point of view,
 node6 is the choice, but node (7) is already widely used.
 Probably, the best solution would be to provide the desired node
 version via Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk and then all ports depends to
 the common version (like perl, python, ...).
> 
 In the meanwhile, node can be the new default for yarn and the
 conflict will be solved (and it will be coherent with npm)
> 
>>> Luca,
> 
>>> You're completely right, we really need a USES=node (and there are multiple 
>>> attempts at it currently floating around). In the meantime, I think you're 
>>> making the right choice setting www/node as the yarn
>>> default.
> 
>>> # Adam
> 
>> Committed in r441191. Thanks, Luca.
> 
>> # Adam
> 
> Thanks all.  I will abandon https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10696.

Sorry, Joseph, I wasn't aware of that phab. The update in it is still relevant 
though; no need to abandon that.

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.org

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: situation with www/node6 and www/node

2017-05-18 Thread Joseph Mingrone 
Adam Weinberger  writes:

>> On 18 May, 2017, at 12:25, Adam Weinberger  wrote:

>>> On 18 May, 2017, at 12:22, Luca Pizzamiglio  
>>> wrote:

>>> Hi,

>>> node6 is the LTS, node is the current. From a stability point of view,
>>> node6 is the choice, but node (7) is already widely used.
>>> Probably, the best solution would be to provide the desired node
>>> version via Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk and then all ports depends to
>>> the common version (like perl, python, ...).

>>> In the meanwhile, node can be the new default for yarn and the
>>> conflict will be solved (and it will be coherent with npm)

>> Luca,

>> You're completely right, we really need a USES=node (and there are multiple 
>> attempts at it currently floating around). In the meantime, I think you're 
>> making the right choice setting www/node as the yarn
>> default.

>> # Adam

> Committed in r441191. Thanks, Luca.

> # Adam

Thanks all.  I will abandon https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10696.

Joseph


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: situation with www/node6 and www/node

2017-05-18 Thread Adam Weinberger 
> On 18 May, 2017, at 12:25, Adam Weinberger  wrote:
> 
>> On 18 May, 2017, at 12:22, Luca Pizzamiglio  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> node6 is the LTS, node is the current. From a stability point of view,
>> node6 is the choice, but node (7) is already widely used.
>> Probably, the best solution would be to provide the desired node
>> version via Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk and then all ports depends to
>> the common version (like perl, python, ...).
>> 
>> In the meanwhile, node can be the new default for yarn and the
>> conflict will be solved (and it will be coherent with npm)
> 
> Luca,
> 
> You're completely right, we really need a USES=node (and there are multiple 
> attempts at it currently floating around). In the meantime, I think you're 
> making the right choice setting www/node as the yarn default.
> 
> # Adam

Committed in r441191. Thanks, Luca.

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.org

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: situation with www/node6 and www/node

2017-05-18 Thread Adam Weinberger 
> On 18 May, 2017, at 12:22, Luca Pizzamiglio  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> node6 is the LTS, node is the current. From a stability point of view,
> node6 is the choice, but node (7) is already widely used.
> Probably, the best solution would be to provide the desired node
> version via Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk and then all ports depends to
> the common version (like perl, python, ...).
> 
> In the meanwhile, node can be the new default for yarn and the
> conflict will be solved (and it will be coherent with npm)

Luca,

You're completely right, we really need a USES=node (and there are multiple 
attempts at it currently floating around). In the meantime, I think you're 
making the right choice setting www/node as the yarn default.

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.org


___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: situation with www/node6 and www/node

2017-05-18 Thread Luca Pizzamiglio 
Hi,

node6 is the LTS, node is the current. From a stability point of view,
node6 is the choice, but node (7) is already widely used.
Probably, the best solution would be to provide the desired node
version via Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk and then all ports depends to
the common version (like perl, python, ...).

In the meanwhile, node can be the new default for yarn and the
conflict will be solved (and it will be coherent with npm)
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: www/epiphany wants graphics/gdk-pixbuf that's not available in ports

2017-05-18 Thread Koop Mast 
On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 20:16 -0700, bob prohaska wrote:

Hi,

> For some reason the port of www/epiphany is asking for a  version
> of graphics/gdk-pixbuf (2.36.5) later than the most recent version 
> available via svn ( 2.32.3).

Epiphany depends on graphics/gdk-pixbuf2 not the really older gdk-
pixbuf.

> Perhaps more curiously, when looking in graphics/gdk-pixbuf the
> directory
> listing reports the presence of gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0 which seems most
> confusing. That's the source directory which gave rise to 2.32.3
> found
> by www/epiphany.

I think your trying to build ports from the HEAD ports tree, but have
quartery packages installed. Gdk-pixbuf2 was updated to 2.36 in April,
so that version is not available as a package in the 2017Q2 quartery
branch.

-Koop

> Is something entirely mixed up? This is on RPI2 running -current, but
> that isn't obviously relevant: Far as I can see, port names aren't
> platform
> specific. I.e., "ports is ports". (apologies to Walt Kelley) 
> 
> Thanks for reading,
> 
> bob prohaska
> 
> ___
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.o
> rg"
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: situation with www/node6 and www/node

2017-05-18 Thread Joseph Mingrone 
Steve Wills  writes:
> Can execjs work with node6? What else would have to change to get it all
> onto node6?

It can, but other changes would be needed.  For example www/gitlab pulls
in www/npm, which pulls in www/node.  It also pulls in other ports that
pull in www/rubygjec-execjs.

I think the question is, what should be the default version of node?
Then, everything should (by default) depend on that default version.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: situation with www/node6 and www/node

2017-05-18 Thread Adam Weinberger 
> On 18 May, 2017, at 11:22, Joseph Mingrone  wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I am hitting an issue where the conflicting www/node6 and www/node
> packages are attempting to be installed together.  For example, the
> upcoming net-im/mastodon pulls in www/yarn (which depends on www/node6
> by default), and indirectly depends on devel/rubygem-execjs (which
> depends on www/node by default).
> 
> It would be ideal if all ports depended on the same node version by
> default.  Looking at the current state of the ports tree, it would make
> sense for everything to depend on www/node since the only two ports
> depending on www/node6 by default are www/npm3 and www/yarn.  But, Luca
> makes the point that version 7 of node is not what upstream recommends.
> 
> Could we come to a consensus here?

Why is yarn depending on node6? npm depends on node. Everything else that uses 
node depends on node. Yarn depending on node6 by default is ridiculous and 
should be changed.

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.org

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: situation with www/node6 and www/node

2017-05-18 Thread Steve Wills 
Can execjs work with node6? What else would have to change to get it all
onto node6?

Steve

On 05/18/2017 13:22, Joseph Mingrone wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am hitting an issue where the conflicting www/node6 and www/node
> packages are attempting to be installed together.  For example, the
> upcoming net-im/mastodon pulls in www/yarn (which depends on www/node6
> by default), and indirectly depends on devel/rubygem-execjs (which
> depends on www/node by default).
> 
> It would be ideal if all ports depended on the same node version by
> default.  Looking at the current state of the ports tree, it would make
> sense for everything to depend on www/node since the only two ports
> depending on www/node6 by default are www/npm3 and www/yarn.  But, Luca
> makes the point that version 7 of node is not what upstream recommends.
> 
> Could we come to a consensus here?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joseph
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

situation with www/node6 and www/node

2017-05-18 Thread Joseph Mingrone 
Hello,

I am hitting an issue where the conflicting www/node6 and www/node
packages are attempting to be installed together.  For example, the
upcoming net-im/mastodon pulls in www/yarn (which depends on www/node6
by default), and indirectly depends on devel/rubygem-execjs (which
depends on www/node by default).

It would be ideal if all ports depended on the same node version by
default.  Looking at the current state of the ports tree, it would make
sense for everything to depend on www/node since the only two ports
depending on www/node6 by default are www/npm3 and www/yarn.  But, Luca
makes the point that version 7 of node is not what upstream recommends.

Could we come to a consensus here?

Thanks,

Joseph


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date

2017-05-18 Thread portscout 
Dear port maintainer,

The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your
ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check
each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate,
submit/commit an update. If any ports have already been updated, you can
safely ignore the entry.

You will not be e-mailed again for any of the port/version combinations
below.

Full details can be found at the following URL:
http://portscout.freebsd.org/po...@freebsd.org.html


Port| Current version | New version
+-+
misc/gcstar | 1.7.0   | 1.7.1
+-+


If any of the above results are invalid, please check the following page
for details on how to improve portscout's detection and selection of
distfiles on a per-port basis:

http://portscout.freebsd.org/info/portscout-portconfig.txt

Thanks.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

py-backports.* conflict

2017-05-18 Thread Andriy Gapon 

After the update of devel/py-backports.functools_lru_cache to 1.4 it started to
conflict with devel/py-backports.shutil_get_terminal_size:

py27-backports.functools_lru_cache-1.4 [FreeBSD] conflicts with
py27-backports.shutil_get_terminal_size-1.0.0 [installed] on
/usr/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/backports/__init__.py

It would be very inconvenient if only a single of py-backports.* ports could be
installed at a time.

Is it possible to fix the problem?

-- 
Andriy Gapon
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: security/openvpn23 tarball size mismatch

2017-05-18 Thread Matthias Andree 
Am 16.05.2017 um 14:00 schrieb Renato Botelho:
> On 16/05/17 08:54, Renato Botelho wrote:
>> Hello Mathias,
>>
>> I was trying to get openvpn23 installed from quarterly branch and got
>> the following error:
>>
>> root@buildbot1:/usr/local/poudriere/ports/pfSense_v2_3/security/openvpn23
>> # make checksum
>> ===>  License GPLv2 accepted by the user
>> ===>   openvpn23-2.3.15 depends on file: /usr/local/sbin/pkg - found
>> => openvpn-2.3.15.tar.xz doesn't seem to exist in
>> /usr/local/poudriere/ports/pfSense_v2_3/distfiles/.
>> => Attempting to fetch
>> http://swupdate.openvpn.net/community/releases/openvpn-2.3.15.tar.xz
>> fetch:
>> http://swupdate.openvpn.net/community/releases/openvpn-2.3.15.tar.xz:
>> size mismatch: expected 863384, actual 829240
>> => Attempting to fetch
>> http://build.openvpn.net/downloads/releases/openvpn-2.3.15.tar.xz
>> fetch:
>> http://build.openvpn.net/downloads/releases/openvpn-2.3.15.tar.xz: size
>> mismatch: expected 863384, actual 829240
>> => Attempting to fetch
>> http://distcache.FreeBSD.org/ports-distfiles/openvpn-2.3.15.tar.xz
>> fetch:
>> http://distcache.FreeBSD.org/ports-distfiles/openvpn-2.3.15.tar.xz: Not
>> Found
>> => Couldn't fetch it - please try to retrieve this
>> => port manually into /usr/local/poudriere/ports/pfSense_v2_3/distfiles/
>> and try again.
>> *** Error code 1
>>
>> Stop.
>> make: stopped in /usr/local/poudriere/ports/pfSense_v2_3/security/openvpn23
>>
> 
> Just FYI, I've downloaded current tarball from OpenVPN website and
> checked it using GPG and it's OK. I'm not sure why they rerolled tarball
> tough.
> 

Hi Renato,

there is a size difference on the tarballs between swupdate and build.

Working together with Gert Döring via IRC, and diffing the tarballs from
the two download sites, we figured out that the smaller tarball on
build.openvpn.net carries a pre-release tarball that did NOT fix
CVE-2017-7478, only -7479, but should never have been made public.

The bigger tarball on swupdate.openvpn.net carries garbage files that do
not end up in our build, but also carries the fix for BOTH CVE-2017-7478
and -7479.  For details, see the commit log of r441129 at


So I've chosen to remove build.openvpn.net from the DISTSITES for now,
under ports-secteam@'s blanket approval.

Upstream maintainers will need to talk about this and may need to
release 2.3.16 to resolve any uncertainties.

I have uploaded the intact 2.3.15 tarball to my local public_distfiles,
so we can add LOCAL/mandree/ to the DISTSITES later on should that prove
necessary.

Renato, thanks for bringing this up!

Best regards,
Matthias



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature