Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
On Oct 11, 2019, at 06:44, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: > > LuKreme wrote on 2019/10/11 00:23: >> On Oct 10, 2019, at 10:01, Lars Liedtke wrote: >>> Why not just make building in IPv6 support the default, and introduce a >>> flag if someone really needs or wants to build without that support? >> Because it adds to the load of testing. If you really need it, build from >> source. > Building official packages with IPv6 is OK. Removing existing options from > ports and saying "build from source" is ... stupid. How many ports do you maintain? Are you willing to test and patch ports for removing ipv6 on each new version? ___ 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: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
LuKreme wrote on 2019/10/11 00:23: On Oct 10, 2019, at 10:01, Lars Liedtke wrote: Why not just make building in IPv6 support the default, and introduce a flag if someone really needs or wants to build without that support? Because it adds to the load of testing. If you really need it, build from source. Building official packages with IPv6 is OK. Removing existing options from ports and saying "build from source" is ... stupid. Miroslav Lachman ___ 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: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
Am 09.10.2019 um 08:15 schrieb Baptiste Daroussin : > > I agree I don't see the reason why we should keep that ipv6 option. When off > this option does not bring much value to the users as the code for apps to > support ipv6 mostly reside in the libc. Actually that was my intent in 2012 to > first turn it on by default everywhere and then drop the option entirely. Is there an easy way to tell which ports pay attention to the option? Stefan -- Stefan BethkeFon +49 151 14070811 ___ 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: [HEADSUP] Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:02:23PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick via freebsd-ports wrote: > > Now we can get back on the ipv6 option. > > > > so if we want to proceed further in removing the option to build with or > > without > > ipv6 for the ports side. Please speak up in reply to this email, if you are > > building without ipv6, why are you doing so, what are the real benefit for > > it. > > How bad it will impact you if we do remove that option? > > Whenever I use ports over FreeBSD-provided packages (or to use ports to > build my own packages), I often disable IPV6 support. The lengthy > response below should explain why. > > In short: the IPV6 option is useful and important. Please keep it. > > In length: I think anyone operating in the Real World knows quite well > that IPv6 is still treated as a third-class citizen when it comes to > both general connectivity/reliability* and general use cases > code-wise**. It's still very much in utero; or a toddler, if you will. > > When you encounter IPv6 vs. IPv4 prioritisation issues, they are painful > and annoying. No user or administrator is going to sit for hours > fiddling with it all to restore things to a working state when simply > removing IPv6 relieves the problem permanently. Time and time again I > see companies advertising records and webservers listening on IPv6 > yet IPv6 transit fails but their A/IPv4 endpoint works fine. It's the > dual-stack nature that makes a lot of this worse than it should be. (I > do think this subject should be re-visited once the world as a whole > starts to seriously decommission IPv4, though. Yes I'm serious.) > > I've worked for several companies that are IPv4-only, where the belief > (and one I share) is that IPv6-only clients have some 6-to-4-ish > gateway/NAT somewhere upstream, otherwise they wouldn't be able to reach > most of the Internet. IPv4 NAT still works for the majority of use > cases still as of 2019. > > Furthermore, faux-political statements like "IPv6 is more widely used > than 2012" should be ignored and facts reiterated: IPv6 adoption is > around 25% as of mid-2019. And it's taken over 10 years to reach that. > > IPv4 is also well-understood, and not, as Dave Horsfall accurately > described, "a horse designed by a committee"; people are still trying to > wrap their head around IPv6 NDP/RA, SLAAC, and a myriad of other things > (dare I mention syntax?). It's this which explains the sluggish > adoption rate. > > And yes, I am well-aware of how important IPv6 is in other regions, > particularly Asia. I am not belittling that need at all. But not > everyone globally has the same needs. > > What should really be asked for is the opposite: for the FreeBSD ports > folks to justify its removal. > > How is this hurting you on a daily basis? Is there a large percentage > of Mk/ framework bits causing you pain? Are the bulk of per-port > patches inducing maintainer grief? At what scale is this impacting you? > In 7 years (since the OP picked 2012), how much time has been spent by > maintainers ensuring IPV6=true works for their port(s)? Are you truly > OK throwing away the integration work done by many, many people (not > just Project members!) over the past N years (see: per-port patches), > and forcing people who still need the option to make their own ports > tree to retain it? > > Here's some harsh advice for the FreeBSD Project: quit changing shit for > sake of change, often masked by lies like "XXX is stagnant/old" or > similarly fallacious and loaded statements. The project (both src and > ports, but especially ports) have lost many very good people in the past > 10+ years (and I'm not talking about me) *because* of that change for > sake of change mindset -- the same mindset driving this request! It's > changes like this that drive people away from FreeBSD. Really. It's > the same mindset that provoked people to stop using Linux distros due > to systemd integration. > > I will not be replying to this thread past this point. I have said all > that I care to say / spent enough time on it. Just please stop hurting > administrators and end users with proposals/actions like this. > > * - Real-world IPv6 failures impacting end users tend to be higher > than IPv4; this is anecdotal on my part, but I have a myriad of peers > who have had to disable IPv6 for similar reasons. The IPv4 fallback in > software (both userland apps and network stacks) does not always work > "correctly". Just go see how often IPv6 failures/issues are reported on > both NANOG and the outages@ mailing list. And yes I am quite aware that > a good portion of the Internet backbone at this point is IPv6 (that's > nice, and not what we're talking about here). > > ** - I still continue to see open-source software committing major fixes > to AF_INET6 related code bits. Major pieces of software include curl, > wget, Busybox, DNS servers (pick one!), and ntp... just for starters. > Let's get on
Re: Installing packaged firefox wants to install tesseract
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 02:10:57PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > I just was wondering what this game has to do with the browser: > > pkg install firefox says: > > New packages to be INSTALLED: > firefox: 69.0.2_1,1 > kf5-kholidays: 5.62.0 > opencv: 3.4.1_24 > tesseract: 4.1.0_3 > tesseract-data: 4.0.0 > aom: 1.0.0.2474 > > Is this game really required to run a browser? > Run pkg upgrade first. You probably end up with this because an installed package requires something from new kde (kf5*) which ends up requiring tesseract (which is an OCR, not a game ;)) pkg tries to be clever (and is not here) and try to fix a missing dependency somewhere. so first pkg upgrade, then pkg install, maybe also a pkg check -d if you still have the issue. Best regards, Bapt signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Installing packaged firefox wants to install tesseract
Hi, On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:08:27 +0200 Andrea Venturoli wrote: > On 2019-10-11 08:10, Erich Dollansky wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I just was wondering what this game has to do with the browser: > > > > pkg install firefox says: > > > > New packages to be INSTALLED: > > firefox: 69.0.2_1,1 > > kf5-kholidays: 5.62.0 > > opencv: 3.4.1_24 > > tesseract: 4.1.0_3 > > tesseract-data: 4.0.0 > > aom: 1.0.0.2474 > > > > Is this game really required to run a browser? > > I don't have this, but I build my packages... > > In any case, I think you are misunderstanding > games/tesseract for graphics/tesseract. > thanks! Whereis told me only about the games. Erich ___ 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: Installing packaged firefox wants to install tesseract
On 2019-10-11 08:10, Erich Dollansky wrote: Hi, I just was wondering what this game has to do with the browser: pkg install firefox says: New packages to be INSTALLED: firefox: 69.0.2_1,1 kf5-kholidays: 5.62.0 opencv: 3.4.1_24 tesseract: 4.1.0_3 tesseract-data: 4.0.0 aom: 1.0.0.2474 Is this game really required to run a browser? I don't have this, but I build my packages... In any case, I think you are misunderstanding games/tesseract for graphics/tesseract. bye av. ___ 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"
Installing packaged firefox wants to install tesseract
Hi, I just was wondering what this game has to do with the browser: pkg install firefox says: New packages to be INSTALLED: firefox: 69.0.2_1,1 kf5-kholidays: 5.62.0 opencv: 3.4.1_24 tesseract: 4.1.0_3 tesseract-data: 4.0.0 aom: 1.0.0.2474 Is this game really required to run a browser? Erich ___ 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 you maintain which are out of date
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 +-+ games/golly | 3.2 | 3.3 +-+ 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 Reported by:portscout! ___ 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"
