Re: Custom base jails for ZFS replication
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:59:23AM -0500, Randy Westlund wrote: > Is there a jail management tool that lets you install packages in a base > jail, and share that with multiple thin jails? I know ezjail does this, as far as it goes. > > I want to deploy many thin jails across multiple servers, and be able to > update both the base system and ports in a base jail and then ZFS > replicate that to the base jails on the production servers. I'd like > the thin jails to only contain my customer-specific application data, so > I don't have to manually update all of them. I'm not sure what it would take to use a base jail across separate servers. It is not something I have tried to do, or even thought of a reason I'd need it. > > I don't see any way to do this with ezjail or iocage. Does anyone else > have a deployment like this? It sounds distinctly out of the ordinary, so I would not be surprised if there is little or no tool support for it. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: xfm 1.5 ?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:34:25AM -0400, Mirza Kolakovic wrote: Finally I had a chance to compare two xfm versions (1.4.3 vs 1.5.4) . Looking at the diff summary, this looks like a new port to me, but I have no experience with ports so I might be wrong. I'll try to get up to speed with the help of 'Porter's Handbook' and hopefully get new xfm working on BSD. It might take awhile, though. Don't forget to update the WWW URI for it, which currently points at some kind of alternative medicine site or some such stuff. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: Maximizing the use of binary packages and minimizing building packages
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 10:39:44PM +, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 09/02/2014 22:18, Chad Perrin wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:16:52PM +, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 14/01/2014 19:35, Matt Reimer wrote: That's good news. What should I watch for in order to know when Really Soon Now becomes Now? The release of pkg-1.3.x After most of a month (yes, I know that's not all that long), as I upgrade Mumble from pkgng to portmaster install to avoid having Qt binary package libs destroy X11 functionality with KMS again and watch the process destroy my browser instead, I wonder . . . Do you have any estimate on how many months Real Soon Now might mean? I swear I won't hold you to a deadline; I would rather it be done right than done quickly. I'm just interested in having something like an order-of-magnitude guesstimate for how far in the future Real Soon Now will happen. I can't really say. The essential code -- the new solver -- has been committed to the Github master branch. But there's a lot of work to do yet to bed that in properly and debug any problems. We did at one point mutter about making a new branch about every three months or so, which would put 1.3 release sometime in March. But that's way too early IMHO. When it's ready. Okay, thanks. Sounds like six months from now probably isn't *too* unrealistic, then. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: Maximizing the use of binary packages and minimizing building packages
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:16:52PM +, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 14/01/2014 19:35, Matt Reimer wrote: That's good news. What should I watch for in order to know when Really Soon Now becomes Now? The release of pkg-1.3.x After most of a month (yes, I know that's not all that long), as I upgrade Mumble from pkgng to portmaster install to avoid having Qt binary package libs destroy X11 functionality with KMS again and watch the process destroy my browser instead, I wonder . . . Do you have any estimate on how many months Real Soon Now might mean? I swear I won't hold you to a deadline; I would rather it be done right than done quickly. I'm just interested in having something like an order-of-magnitude guesstimate for how far in the future Real Soon Now will happen. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 12:17:21AM +1100, Kubilay Kocak wrote: On 20/12/2013 10:32 PM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: In other words, as a new user I thought of sending a PR as a last resort, because I doubted myself a lot more than the stability of FreeBSD and the expertise of the team. The actual tools to submit a PR were never an obstacle. This. If you don't *get* what Anton just said, read it again until you do. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am that user too. A @FreeBSD.org email, commit bit and still a new user that doubts myself sometimes and looks to the team for the right thing to do. I got what Anton said, and it's irrelevant to what I said before that. I take the same approach, except that it usually never gets to the last resort phase of submitting a PR because it's much easier to seek help in IRC channels I frequent with knowledgeable people in them, and when *that* is exhausted I *still* don't want to use the PR system, because it sucks so badly. The PR system sucks. That's the problem I was pointing out. Yes, the approach of triple-checking to make sure it's not you who's at fault, and of using questions@ instead of ports@ to seek help, is good. No, that doesn't mean the PR system is easy to use. I also think that people who post nothing but a dump log to ports@ are Doing It Wrong and should be gently encouraged to do things differently, and I doubt that making problem reports easier than send-pr will affect the kinds of people who think that ports@ is a good place for dump logs with no explanation very much, but that doesn't mean the PR system doesn't need help. I'm glad something is being done about the PR system. I'm grateful to those making the changes. Making comments to the effect that there's nothing wrong with the PR system when many people obviously find it daunting and discouraging to attempt to use it -- that comes off like a dismissal of the very people who can contribute real value by alerting port maintainers and committers to the fact there are potentially unnoticed issues. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:30:09PM +, Thomas Mueller wrote: I think train wreck applies more to sendmail than send-pr. Sendmail dates back to long-ago pre-Internet days where computer users didn't send email to other computer users. Now a computer user needs to be able to send through ISP's SMTP server. I think the fact one needs, by default, to have sendmail set up before one can use send-pr is a problem with send-pr as well. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 01:44:57AM -0800, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: From: Thomas Mueller There are many messages on this thread, and I don't know which or what to quote, but I agree on send-pr being user-unfriendly. I disagree. I use only send-pr to send PRs. I use sendmail. I disagree with you. For new users, send-pr is a fucking usability train wreck, and insufficiently well documented. Sendmail is legendary for its obtuse configuration. I suppose you should be proud of the fact you find these tools easy to use, but that does not mean you should dismiss others' concerns over how difficult some people find them. The fact many people find these tools very difficult to use is in fact kind of a big problem, and I'm glad something is being done about it with regard to the bugzilla system. I wouldn't have chosen bugzilla if it was up to me, but it's not up to me and it's sure to be a huge improvement over the system currently in place, so I'm grateful for the work being done. Hopefully the command line send-pr tool will also be replaced with something that actually provides a low-friction way for people with problem reports to contribute to the FreeBSD project. In conclusion, I agree with Thomas (though I much prefer fdm over mpop, personally), and believe that send-pr (or its replacement, whenever that happens) desperately needs some better documentation. I rather suspect that a lot of people with problems to report simply give up and leave us with no clue there's anything wrong. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: The Original VI ?
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 12:38:08AM +0200, olli hauer wrote: On 2013-09-04 23:56, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: Apparently, it is correct that FreeBSD distributes nvi as vi (and as far as I can tell, that _does not_ currently support utf-8), but I sort-of thought that maybe this original vi, now with unicode support, had at least made it into the ports tree, but I can't seem to find it there. Am I wrong? Is it in there? If so, where please? try editors/nvi-devel Is there some specific reason the nvi in base is stalled so far behind nvi-devel in terms of usability (by the way)? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: Searching the port tree with portmaster?
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:44:43AM -0600, LuKreme wrote: Am I missing a search feature in postmaster? If not, how are people finding where a port is to install it (I had a heck of a time finding sudo, for example) I've been using ports-mgmt/pkgsearch for years. You can do regexy searches and get pkg-descr output easily with it, e.g.: $ pkgsearch -d ^sudo$ /usr/ports/security/sudo DESC: This is the CU version of sudo. Sudo is a program designed to allow a sysadmin to give limited root privileges to users and log root activity. The basic philosophy is to give as few privileges as possible but still allow people to get their work done. WWW: http://www.courtesan.com/sudo/ This is also relevant: $ pkgsearch -h usage: pkgsearch [-u][-h][-v][-dis] packname... u update the database d get the description of the package s get the size of the package *not work with -i* i search in packages installeds h show this v show the version The formatting of output from both examples is slightly modified for inclusion in this email. I should probably start picking through ports-mgmt again to see if I can find something that I like as much as pkgsearch in general, but also offers the ability to get port names and paths based on terms found in pkg-descr information. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: [HEADSUP] default version of Ruby switched to 1.9
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 07:26:47PM +0200, Eitan Adler wrote: On 27 May 2013 15:26, Steve Wills swi...@freebsd.org wrote: Hi All, Just a heads up, I've finally switched the default version of Ruby to 1.9. There is a note in UPDATING that should help. Let us know if you have any trouble. Thank you, I'm sure this took an enormous amount of time and effort on your part. Ditto. I've been waiting for this for quite a while, and I'm glad we've gotten here. Thanks for the hard work, guys. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: PDF viewer that can rotate pages
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:22:48AM -0800, Chip Camden wrote: Quoth Andrea Venturoli on Monday, 18 February 2013: On 02/18/13 12:29, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: I never had problems rotating files with xpdf. Are you saying there are some PDF files that xpdf fails to rotate? Or are you saying your xpdf can never rotate pages? Hmmm... my fault, sorry. Now that I tried again xpdf can rotate my files... don't remember why I wasn't able the last time I tried (it's been eons). Sorry again for the noise. Thanks to you and also to Ruslan for his suggestion. zathura is a nice pdf reader, and you use 'r' to rotate the page. High five. I came here to say this. (Sorry about the double-send. I think I accidentally replied directly first.) -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: Could someone please maintain www/xxxterm?
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 09:16:28PM +0800, HU Dong wrote: Hi, all! Several days ago, I sent a PR to update www/xxxterm and ask to takeover maintainership. Since I'm not familiar with diff and patch commands, the progress has been delayed for a while. Now that I'm not suitable for being a maintainer, could someone please takeover the maintainership? Thank you! PR link: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169860 Will it be updated to xombrero? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: Could someone please maintain www/xxxterm?
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 07:40:40PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 09:16:28PM +0800, HU Dong wrote: Hi, all! Several days ago, I sent a PR to update www/xxxterm and ask to takeover maintainership. Since I'm not familiar with diff and patch commands, the progress has been delayed for a while. Now that I'm not suitable for being a maintainer, could someone please takeover the maintainership? Thank you! PR link: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169860 Will it be updated to xombrero? Ignore this, please. I managed to skim the PR page without noticing that was part of the plan for the update. Mea culpa. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: custom license on new port?
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:21:37PM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote: Michael Scheidell wrote: got a new port. submitted by the copyright owner and author. for reference, pr ports/168832 there is no LICENSE= in the Makefile, no LICENSE.txt in the distribution, but it does have the attached in the main.c file. [...] * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL * DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS * OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT * LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY * OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF * SUCH DAMAGE. That is 2-clause BSD [1], aka the FreeBSD license [2], so LICENSE=BSD should be sufficient if you want to add that (my understanding is that the license framework is unused and should probably be removed). I don't know if it's considered unused by the ports system committers, but as a port maintainer and a user I actually get some use from the license framework. As such, I hope the plan is not to remove the license framework, but even if there is such a plan I think it would probably be a good idea to specify license in the port Makefile when at all reasonable to do so, considering how simple it is to do so and the fact it may be useful to some users. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: custom license on new port?
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 06:57:28AM -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote: got a new port. submitted by the copyright owner and author. for reference, pr ports/168832 there is no LICENSE= in the Makefile, no LICENSE.txt in the distribution, but it does have the attached in the main.c file. Q: should I ask him to select one of the standard FreeBSD/GPL licenses (and edit his source )? Why would you try to pressure him into changing the license? As already pointed out, the license used is not a custom or nonstandard license, but even if it was I do not think the ports system needs to be in the business of deciding that some license that is not already well-represented in the ports system is not good enough on the basis of its relative lack of popularity alone. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: Skype 4.0
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 08:26:10AM -0400, Robert Huff wrote: Jerry writes: From a purely business point of view, to jettison a user base, even if it does generate a $0 ROI, is not a wise decision if that base does not require extensive investments to keep pacified. ... and that depends on your definition of extensive investments. A better case might be that Linux users are more likely to be choosing technology others will use, and keeping them familiar and happy with your product line is a indirect and fairly cheap form of marketing. This pretty much applies to anything that relies on network effects to maintain userbase -- stuff that is only useful if other people are using it too, that is. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: Ruby 1.9 as default
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:32:53PM -0400, Steve Wills wrote: I think we should try to make Ruby 1.9 the default Ruby again and would like to see it done before 9.1 is released. I've submitted a patch which does this and requested and exp-run from portmgr. I would like to get feedback on this idea. If you have experience with Ruby 1.9 as default, good or bad, please speak up. You can test this by setting RUBY_DEFAULT_VER=1.9 in /etc/make.conf or editing Mk/bsd.ruby.mk and setting the same variable there. More specifically, I'd like a switch to 1.9.3+ as default. I hope the end result will not be = 1.9.2, for a number of reasons, including the fact that 1.9.3 is when Ruby started using a copyfree license (the Simplified BSD License, or 2-clause BSD License) instead of the previous copyleft license (the GPL). -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: Please rebuild all ports that depend on PNG
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 02:07:03PM -0400, Jerry wrote: On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:34:59 +0100 Chris Rees articulated: It just means he hasn't bought a certificate- no less trustworthy than vanilla (non-SSL) http. IMHO, if you are going to use https then you should have a proper SSL certificate. A self-signed one means virtually nothing. If the web site operator is not going to purchase an authentic certificate they why use SSL at all? Just my 2¢ on the matter. 1. SSL means encrypted, regardless of who signs the certificate. 2. Using a known CA for certificate signing means a third party with enough clout to get added to a list of known CAs vouches for the certificate (or that someone else has somehow compromised that third party's cert signing resources). 3. Many trusted widely-known CAs have questionable policies with regard to certificate signing, and often use very weak ciphers for cert signing. On several occasions, government agencies and malicious security crackers have been found using bogus certs that verify as signed by legitimate CAs. 4. Regardless of who signs a cert, you still have to trust the site operators to some extent, because the encryption certainly doesn't stop *them* from getting the information you're sending, so in principle a self-signed cert is not in any way an indication of any lesser trustworthiness. 5. As long as you can get trustworthy confirmation of the provenance of a given cert's signature, you can verify the cert as authentic for the site in question, subject to the limitations of the technology used. The not-quite-obvious (to many, at least) consequence of the above is that the entire PKI system used by CAs for SSL is what amounts to a vacant lot scam. This is where a vacant parking lot -- owned by someone who is not making (much) use of it on a given occasion -- is claimed by someone wearing something like a valet uniform, who takes money in exchange for parking someone's car in the lot but actually has no relationship with the lot owner at all. The result is that people parking in the lot are being charged money for the promise of something (official, property-owner permission to park there, plus responsible care for the vehicles in question) that to some extent the person charging the money is not in a position to offer. The analogous condition in this case is that the well-known CAs are promising security and privacy that can be gotten by other, cheaper means, but to some extent do not even provide as high quality a guarantee as they would like you to think. Alternate verification infrastructures such as Monkeysphere and (my favorite, in terms of design principles) Perspectives provide roughly equivalent security value, and if they reach a threshhold of user density would exceed the security value of CA-signed certificates as a basis for verification. In addition to this, simply posting cert signature data publicly for out-of-band comparison could greatly enhance the verifiability of SSL site certificates, as with an OpenPGP public key. In fact, many of the weaknesses of SSL systems as currently designed could be obviated by having used OpenPGP as the basis of the system rather than creating this whole PKI system for the sole purpose of making corporate CAs seem necessary as imaginary authorities who claim to be able to provide special security guarantees. So . . . your opinion may be that a self-signed sertificate means virtually nothing, but security in the real world does not operate on unfounded opinions. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: libaio freebsd port
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:39:17AM +0100, Radim Kolar wrote: Can anybody help me with porting libaio to freebsd? I found linux version in ports /usr/ports/emulators/linux-libaio but could not even find project homepage to look at source code. Is this it? http://oss.oracle.com/projects/libaio-oracle/ -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: CFT: new BSD-licensed sort available
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 11:33:06AM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote: Oleg Moskalenko oleg.moskale...@citrix.com writes: Yes, indeed, there was an old sort syntax, where they supported it in a form +POS1 -POS2. It is a non-POSIX obsolete syntax, so we did not implement it in the new BSD sort. I can add it, if necessary. If anyone asked for my opinion, I'd say that I'd prefer to see this syntax stamped out instead; it's unnecessary, confusing, and has been considered obsolete for decades. A quick look over my workstation's filesystems shows just a few uses: in texconfig, libtool, something in X11/config, maybe a handful more. I'm not sure what the best answer is in practice, but I'm willing to spend some of my time working on it if that helps. I suspect the right answer for the near future would be to eliminate dependence on it wherever you can get such changes accepted by upstream, and support it as a deprecated (perhaps even undocumented) feature in bsdsort just so it's easier to entirely eliminate any dependence on gnusort for purposes of backward compatibility. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: CFT: new BSD-licensed sort available
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:14:28PM +, Jonathan Anderson wrote: In fact, the runtime behaviour of the Debian alternatives system is simpler than that: http://segfault.in/2010/04/using-the-debian-alternatives-system/ The custom Perl script with a config file is used to set up symlinks, which at runtime are... well, just symlinks. For instance, /usr/bin/vim is a symlink to /etc/alternatives/vim, which is itself a symlink to a binary like vim.gtk (example shamelessly stolen from the linked page, since I no longer have any Debian boxes to check for myself on :). No magic binaries or argv[0] fu. In one way, it's an elegant solution. On the other, it's a classic example of Wheeler's Law in action. :) I'm peripherally aware of at least three different things known to at least someone as Wheeler's Law. The only Wheeler's Law that comes to mind as being relevant here is Wheeler's Law of Hype (which, ironically, applies to itself to reduce the measure its own importance and significance to one quarter according to how Andrew Wheeler stated the law, but to one half according to his examples): Each adjective reduces, by half, the importance and significance of a blurb or award description. Is that the Wheeler's Law you mean? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: CFT: new BSD-licensed sort available
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 04:59:21PM +0100, Gabor Kovesdan wrote: some time ago I started writing a BSDL sort variant from scratch since the OpenBSD version did not support multibyte locales and was hard to modify. The development was a bit stalled but recently, Oleg Moskalenko oleg.moskale...@citrix.com showed interest in continuing this version and he has made a very good job on this BSD sort variant. Now it is compatible with the base version of GNU sort but the performance in most cases (string sort and -n) is quite behind GNU sort (although with -g it is about *4 times* faster). Oleg is still working on optimizing the code and the long-term plan is to drop GNU sort once this variant is good enough to replace it. For now, it is only available in Ports Collection as textproc/bsdsort but if there is no objection or any serious bug report I plan to add it to base installed as bsdsort, being GNU sort still the default sort until it proves that we can safely drop GNU sort. If you are interested in this sort utility, could you please try the port and report us any issue that you experience? I meant to send this email yesterday. It's on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/CopyfreeNews/status/179985533911576576 I'll be testing the bsdsort for my own purposes, and report back if I have any problems. Thanks for the hard work! -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: Adding licensing info to my ports: some questions
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 04:13:11PM -0500, Graham Todd wrote: I doubt this simpler approach would be ITIL compliant ;) but since that is not a goal and the bulk of anything to do with licenses involves lawyers anyway, the ports/pkg system should probably try to do as little as possible regarding claims and interpretation. Surely keeping copies of licenses in an easy to find location doesn't equate to making any legal claim ? NB: I am not a lawyer :) I'm pretty dismayed by the ignore it and it'll go away attitude toward licensing in much of the open source world. How exactly do people think that a willful ignorance defense would in any way protect the FreeBSD project from copyright/license claims where an attempt at due diligence (that is, finding license information with the project files and making note of it in the port Makefile) to the reasonable best of our ability would somehow make the project liable? That doesn't make any sense, and unless there are some lawyers who can cite caselaw to the contrary I think the safest bet is probably an attempt to be transparent and informative, with a disclaimer attached. Of course, I'm not a lawyer either, and this is not intended as legal advice. It's just an expression of frustration at the way everybody seems to think intentionally ignoring licensing will somehow make copyright and license claims invalid. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: Adding licensing info to my ports: some questions
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:38:08AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: On 01/17/2012 03:56, Vitaly Magerya wrote: Eitan Adler wrote: 1) Will licensing section ever appear in the Porters Handbook? :-) Yes Is someone actually working on it? If so, and is there some sort of target timeline? Back in 2010 when the framework was introduced, my general impression was that maintainers where advised to wait with the adoption until that chapter is written... Personally I think we should scrap the whole thing. It is an interesting idea, but the implementation has never fleshed out. It's also completely unclear what any of it means from an actual legal standpoint, and personally I'm not convinced that we aren't making things worse for the project by doing this. How? I don't see the problem that makes things worse, I guess. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: Adding licensing info to my ports: some questions
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 05:40:35AM +0300, Nikola Lečić wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 08:14:57PM -0500 Eitan Adler [email address elided] wrote: 2012/1/16 Nikola Lečić nikola.le...@anthesphoria.net: 6) I need three new items added to the licenses database because they should be considered as 'known' licenses and thus belonging to the 'Case 1' in bsd.licenses.mk. There are: Common Public License, SIL Open Font License and Public Domain [non-license]. I'd gladly submit a PR, but I'd appreciate if someone could check this first, especially _LICENSE_GROUPS_* including COPYFREE status. Please submit this as a patch in a PR and email me. I'll make sure they get added. Will do. Common Public License is not copyfree. SIL Open Font License is not copyfree. Ok, thanks. There are lists of licenses certified as complying with the Copyfree Standard Definition and licenses explicitly rejected at the Copyfree Initiative website: http://copyfree.org/licenses http://copyfree.org/rejected I hope this helps in the future. There are contact links on the site you can use to send messages if you have other licenses than listed there you want to ask about. It might be worthwhile to check the page for the Copyfree Standard Definition when wondering about a given license, if it is not on one of those lists, though: http://copyfree.org/standard Putting something in the Public Domain doesn't work in any meaningful sense and is not a license. converters/base64 is public domain (see COPYING from its distfile). Do you mean that Public Domain shouldn't be added to the licenses database? NetBSD has it. It seems like it would be useful to have a public domain category of some kind, from where I'm sitting, with the understanding that it may not mean anything useful depending on jurisdiction. Beyond that, I probably shouldn't say anything about it on this list. The applicability of plain ol' public domain dedications can be a contentious topic. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: linux-f10-nss_ldap: my first port - be gentle :)
On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 08:31:04PM +, Chris Rees wrote: On 6 January 2012 21:16, Alexander Leidinger alexan...@leidinger.net wrote: The linux ports are a little bit special. They are binary ports and the GPL requires that we distribute the source too. Really? That's not how I read the GPL, nor its interpretation: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid The Linux ports are a little bit special. They are binary ports and the GPL requires offers of source along with distribution of binaries. This is most easily accomplished, in our case, by providing source code downloads alongside the binary downloads. Is that better? In effect, it's the same thing, but longer. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: new port license question:
On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 08:42:04PM -0500, Michael Scheidell wrote: I am working on committing a new port; http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/163698 ports/163698: new port graphics/py-stl (deprecates graphics/stl2pov) submitted by the author of py-stl. inside his man page, he has this: The latest version of this program is available at: .Lk http://rsmith.home.xs4all.nl/software/ .Sh LICENSE To the extent possible under law, Roland Smith has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this manual. This work is published from the Netherlands. See .Lk http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Do I need to add a 'LICENSE= BSD' in the makefile, or just leave it? No -- the license in this case is not one of the several BSD licenses. It is in fact the CC0 License, which offers as its first step an attempt to disclaim all copyright restrictions and claims. Because this is a very problematic thing to try to do internationally (a lot of jurisdictions have no legal concept of disclaiming copyright or dedication to the public domain before copyright term expires on its own), CC0 goes on to explicitly set forth license terms that come about as close to public domain as humanly possible. Saying LICENSE=BSD in the makefile would be inaccurate and confusing. Indicate the actual license. If I had to guess, that would mean LICENSE=CC0, but rather than guess you should look into whether there's already a precedent set for how to refer to the CC0 license in FreeBSD port makefiles. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: linux-f10-nss_ldap: my first port - be gentle :)
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:27:57PM +0100, Gary Jennejohn wrote: On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 22:31:51 +1000 Da Rock freebsd-po...@herveybayaustralia.com.au wrote: I was advised to copy the essential parts from a similar port, so I've used archivers/linux-f10-ucl. This is my Makefile: [snip] Doesn't pass portlint. Can't fetch the RPM file. Otherwise, a pretty good start. It also lacks license information. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: linux-f10-nss_ldap: my first port - be gentle :)
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 09:53:25AM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
On 01/05/12 01:41, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:27:57PM +0100, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 22:31:51 +1000 Da Rock
freebsd-po...@herveybayaustralia.com.au wrote:
I was advised to copy the essential parts from a similar port, so I've
used archivers/linux-f10-ucl. This is my Makefile:
[snip]
Doesn't pass portlint.
Can't fetch the RPM file.
Otherwise, a pretty good start.
It also lacks license information.
How do I set that? Its linux so its GPL.
This is an example from /usr/ports/x11/xsel-conrad/Makefile:
LICENSE=xsel-conrad
LICENSE_GROUPS= COPYFREE
LICENSE_NAME= xsel-conrad license
LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/COPYING
LICENSE_PERMS= auto-accept dist-mirror dist-sell pkg-mirror pkg-sell
I'm not sure it's perfect port maintainer Makefile practice, but it
works, and it's a lot better than no license information at all in my
opinion. I'd suggest checking that Makefile to see where in the Makefile
to put it.
. . . and if anyone who is more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am
sees something wrong with that Makefile, please let me know.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: linux-f10-nss_ldap: my first port - be gentle :)
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 10:42:17AM +1000, Da Rock wrote: On 01/05/12 07:10, Alexander Leidinger wrote: This should be you (if you're willing to maintain the port). You keep dropping hints like this all the time Alex :) Honestly, though, I'm not sure whats involved or whether I'm capable of handling the responsibility. This one is not likely to change too much over time, but my skills are probably wanting. The best way to learn, I think, is to get yourself a mentor and jump in. That's how I'm doing it (and yeah, that means I'm not the right person to mentor you). -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: linux-f10-nss_ldap: my first port - be gentle :)
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 12:20:45PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: On 01/05/12 12:11, Chad Perrin wrote: The best way to learn, I think, is to get yourself a mentor and jump in. That's how I'm doing it (and yeah, that means I'm not the right person to mentor you). Thats what I'm looking for, alright. I've been looking for a few years now. Any suggestions? Ask on this list, I guess. Hey -- does anyone (qualified) want to mentor Da Rock as a port maintainer? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.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: FreeBSD unmaintained ports which are currently scheduled for deletion
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 03:07:44AM -0800, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: Chris Rees cr...@freebsd.org wrote: Also, its last update appears to be in 2003, and it's long dead s/long dead/in good enough shape to be useful/ Indeed: Project Activity != Project Health http://blogstrapping.com/?page=2011.065.16.43.41 ___ 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 unmaintained ports which are currently scheduled for deletion
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 06:45:48PM +, Chris Rees wrote: On 11 December 2011 18:01, Chad Perrin c...@apotheon.net wrote: On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 03:07:44AM -0800, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: Chris Rees cr...@freebsd.org wrote: Also, its last update appears to be in 2003, and it's long dead s/long dead/in good enough shape to be useful/ Indeed: Project Activity != Project Health http://blogstrapping.com/?page=2011.065.16.43.41 Perry, has kindly (and not for the first time either) stepped up to put his name on the port, which now means that it can stay, and any problems can be addressed by him. If he's right he need never answer any emails about it :) That sounds a bit like the situation with the port I'm maintaining. ___ 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: Updating Bash
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 01:23:49PM -0500, Jerry wrote: Ports are being updated everyday. I am assuming that they will be included on the 9.0-RELEASE DVD. Personally, I never use the CD/DVD for installation for other than the very basic system anyway. I prefer using the FTP method to download the very latest updates in the ports systems. It saves valuable time in not having to update a freshly installed system immediately after installing it (usually anyway). Unfortunately, you are not the only user they must consider. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpRb8XkpSwr9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 07:00:47PM +0200, Łukasz Wąsikowski wrote: W dniu 2011-09-14 18:15, Christopher J. Ruwe pisze: Came as Gentoo user, abandoned Gentoo because of to many quirks with updating packages (ebuilds). From my perspective, the situation is better here (FreeBSD). Really? I've been using FreeBSD for over 10 years now, Gentoo for half of that time and I can surely say that Gentoo's portage is much better than FreeBSD's ports. There are some nice things that portage does, and my experience with Gentoo is a few years out of date by now, but I remember one difference that made software management on FreeBSD much better than on Gentoo: If there was something broken with a FreeBSD port (a relative rarity), it would fail to install, leaving me with the older version. If there was something wrong with a Gentoo port, I'd end up with a broken install. I suppose your mileage may vary. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpBGGbQAL3wB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 08:46:10PM +0200, Łukasz Wąsikowski wrote: W dniu 2011-09-15 20:08, Chad Perrin pisze: If there was something broken with a FreeBSD port (a relative rarity), it would fail to install, leaving me with the older version. If there was something wrong with a Gentoo port, I'd end up with a broken install. That's true. But I've got probably less then 5 situations when Gentoo port broke that way. Overall experience of every day portage use is just plain better. I hope for some changes in FreeBSD's ports system, we know where to look for some good ideas. It seems we have different priorities. I *hate* having a software update break my software. I would rather go through an extra step or two when updating my software if it means I won't get an update that makes the software unusable. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpY0oEeYLHFW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:10:51AM +0200, Michal Varga wrote: So believe me, as soon as my systems are all on [insert any modern and properly maintained desktop OS/distribution that works, which based on my tests over the last few weeks quite nicely fills Arch Linux, but then many else would surely work too] and thus my current work on constantly fixing *my* FreeBSDs is cut down by 99%, I'm all hands in for some good old fashioned volunteering. In my experience, FreeBSD is actually on the high side of the stable, sanely operating, well-maintained scale. That is not to say that I find it highly stable, very sanely operating, and extremely well-maintained. It just means that everything else I've used with any regularity is even worse. That means dozens of Linux distributions and almost every MS Windows release since 3.1 way back in the early '90s. I'm not in a position to speak directly of those characteristics for Arch Linux, but not for lack of trying: the two times I tried it, the damned thing wouldn't even install. From what I have seen, any time someone says Oh, I don't have any problems with this OS at all, for *any* OS -- and that includes the couple of times I've said that over the years -- the reason for saying so is a lack of lengthy experience with that OS or just a combination of pure blind luck and very low-demand usage. Every OS I've used with any regularity really kinda blows where one kind of stability or another is concerned; most of them suck in terms of the usability of whatever is its equivalent of a userland on that system; all of them suck to varying degrees where maintenance of the OS project is concerned (no offense to the people working hard to maintain it, most of whom do very good work). My prediction is that moving to Arch Linux will probably result in temporary relief from the problems of FreeBSD, but the experience will eventually be soured by the gradual recognition of (somewhat different) problems. For the moment, FreeBSD is still the best workstation OS I have encountered, for my purposes -- after about six years. That's some kind of record for me, and this is why I'm trying to avail myself of the relevant knowledge to contribute to the project by picking up maintainership if an unmaintained port. By the way, making it easier to get this stuff right would help a lot: * ensuring that there's more complete documentation for port maintenance (including adding the stuff about the CVS attic to the porter's handbook) * making the documentation more approachable for beginners who may not be C programmers with an in-depth understanding of makefiles * even making the documentation and/or operation of the send-pr tools more approachable, if only because this is an interface to ports maintenance that should be available and approachable for *every* user of the OS That's just my relatively uninformed opinion. I welcome corrections of any misunderstandings under which I may labor. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp6I4dbx384I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Stacey's was: ports-system priorities rant
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:53:54PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: Its time that commit bit was revoked to protect ports/ along with perhaps 3 other misguided butchers' commit bits, perhaps one of whom might have been your commit mentor. Get a life. The two of you come off like mirror images of each other. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgprwZAOlJLyL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Thank you (for making the ports less boring).
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 07:05:58PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:55:56 +0200
Michal Varga articulated:
So again, thank you for taking your part in ensuring that my days with
FreeBSD (the remaining few, so to say) won't become too boring. It's
much appreciated, really.
Seriously now, I thought I was the only one allowed to criticize
FreeBSD for {Pick a topic}. You have to remember the motto:
I found Michal Varga's critique snarky and unnecessarily sarcastic, but
on-point and lacking in unreasonable choices of what to criticize. I
cannot say the same for the majority of yours.
Now that you have vented, have you filed a PR against this
behavior/port/WTF? If not, I would recommend you do so.
. . . as would I. It's interesting you got around to saying something
useful. Keep up the good work.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgpnKiRfdoLqH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: ports deprecations (was: sysutils/cfs)
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:24:33PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: The open question is, is there a point in marking a point DEPRECATED without giving an expiration date. My personal answer is no because no-one will believe in a DEPRECATED tag without EXPIRATION_DATE and people will be disappointed because they've grown used to custom and practice and I can already see the we told you it was DEPRECATED. The real point is that the FreeBSD ports system can not fill in for the maintainers of discontinued ports. There is a certain pragmatism to as long as it builds, appears to work, and there are no known critical bugs, let's keep it, but it has this organizational drawback that it becomes custom and practice at some time, and ends up hurting more people in the end. Maybe DEPRECATED is the wrong term for something that builds and works but has no maintainer, then. Maybe the term for it should be something like UNMAINTAINED or ABANDONED. That way, the message conveyed to the user is This appears to work for now, and there are still using it, so we aren't going to make it exceedingly difficult to install on new deployments where people feel a need for it or want to maintain compatibility with other systems. There is no guarantee it will work in six months, though. Use at your own risk. If someone wants to start maintaining it, now is the time. I think part of the problem with the disagreements in this discussion is that everyone is focused on whether something builds, whether it has an obscure vulnerability that only affects particular use cases, and whether there is an upstream maintainer. Meanwhile, nobody seems to be discussing whether anyone uses it. I used a window manager in FreeBSD for about five years that had not upstream maintainer, because while the creator still maintained the codebase on his Website he no longer used it himself and never put any time into upkeep. Luckily, it was stable, had no known vulnerabilities, and did not appear to need any feature additions, either. It was my favorite window manager during that entire time and, though I've moved on early this year, the switch to a new window manager turns out to be a bit of a trade-off rather than a clear improvement -- but a trade-off that I think suits my current needs. No, I won't tell you which window manager, because if I want to use it again I don't want to discover that calling it to the minds of some of the ports people caused it to be deleted. Anyway, my point is that someone was *using* it, and quite liked it. If something is stable and secure and has an active maintainer, but nobody in the world uses it (or is likely to use it) other than that maintainer, it probably doesn't matter if it gets deleted from ports. If it has no upstream maintainer, but still builds, appears to be secure for pretty much every use case, and there are hundreds of users, deleting it is likely to make a lot of people unhappy. The problem with that, of course, is that it can be very difficult to measure actual users. I just don't think we should lose sight of the fact that should be regarded as one of the most important factors in determining whether a given port should exist. If enough people want it, a maintainer will probably appear eventually, even if it's not in the next few weeks, after all. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgphmrMrwk5h2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sysutils/cfs
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:09:16PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: On the other hand, you're pointing out a problem of dead ports in the first place: if the API of (usually library) port Y changes, and port X is unmaintained, that's typically a situation where port X needs to be deprecated and removed (and also will no longer build and/or work). I want to understand all the reasoning behind this stuff. Please explain the reason that library Y changing means that dependent port X should be deprecated and removed, regardless of whether it no longer builds and/or works. Note that I'm working on the assumption that your assertion it should be deprecated and removed does not rely on it no longer building and/or working because of the way you mentioned no longering building and/or working as a parenthetical addendum rather than a condition of deprecation and removal. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpKRwbf1dYTs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: I want to make installing dead ports harder for users. Why? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpVidnJd8Edb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 06:48:30PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: On 10 September 2011 18:15, Chad Perrin c...@apotheon.net wrote: On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: I want to make installing dead ports harder for users. Why? Someone who wants to install a port that has been deprecated and removed should really have enough skills to check a port out of the Attic at least-- it's one command line. I don't see how much simpler it could get: This does not answer my question. I find the very concept of wanting to make it harder for a user to install software bizarre. I could understand wanting to achieve some other goal, and suffering the unfortunate case of making it harder to install something, but I do not understand the simple fact of wanting to make life harder for others, unless it is a matter of pure spite. Thus my question: Why? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpjC6TJTJnQb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sysutils/cfs
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:38:55PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: Am 10.09.2011 18:17, schrieb Chad Perrin: On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:09:16PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: On the other hand, you're pointing out a problem of dead ports in the first place: if the API of (usually library) port Y changes, and port X is unmaintained, that's typically a situation where port X needs to be deprecated and removed (and also will no longer build and/or work). I want to understand all the reasoning behind this stuff. Please explain the reason that library Y changing means that dependent port X should be deprecated and removed, regardless of whether it no longer builds and/or works. Note that I'm working on the assumption that your assertion it should be deprecated and removed does not rely on it no longer building and/or working because of the way you mentioned no longering building and/or working as a parenthetical addendum rather than a condition of deprecation and removal. I suppose you missed the meaning of if the API of port Y changes. API = application programming interface. This implies that either the application no longer builds, or it is known that it would behave inappropriately with the new library (because semantics changed). That would have been an unwarranted assumption. If the API changes, it might mean a couple of changes were made -- and they do not affect the parts of the API that port X uses. I chose to take what you said at face value, rather than make a bunch of assumptions about it. Thanks for clearing up your intended meaning, though. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp66Owl5ETND.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 03:01:09AM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote: Matthias Andree wrote: Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.: Having a poor port of an obscure piece of software is better, than no port at all. A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the first place). Wrong. A `poor' port is is still a port else it would be marked Broken. Still a lot less work to polish than writing a port from scratch. Still a damn sight more use to non programmers than no port. Maybe it might just need a bit more work to speify more depends, but still be working anyway. It occurs to me there are people who would call KDE4 a poor port. I suspect deleting that would not go over well. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpdi6O07OpJt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:36:46PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.: An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in the first place). Wait -- what? Why should something not be ported if it's not popular? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpp62DGAXkxK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sysutils/cfs
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 09:15:01PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: On 09/07/2011 00:07, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: How is it impractical to, as a rule, set an expiration date based on an anticipated future release date rather than only a month or two out from when the decision is made? As has repeatedly been explained to you, you're asking the wrong question. The question is, how does it benefit the users to leave it in when we know that we're going to delete it? Either way the user will discover that the port is not easily available for installation when they update their ports tree. The difference is that in the meantime people doing work on the ports tree don't have to work around the old port (that's going to be removed anyway). The point has repeatedly been made that with almost 23,000 ports in the tree both innovation and maintenance become significantly more difficult. Keeping that burden as low as possible is a feature. Perhaps I have not been paying enough attention, but this is the first time I have seen this argument advanced clearly in this particular thread of discussion. I can fully understand the reasoning, now that it has been explained. (It might be obvious from this that I'm relatively new to this list.) I realize that what you're proposing sounds attractive from a purely theoretical standpoint. The problem is that it increases the maintenance burden a non-trivial amount without providing any substantive benefit. I think it might provide some benefit to users that place a premium on certain types of stability, but it probably doesn't approach offsetting the additional investment of time and effort it would require. Perhaps something could be done with little or no additional effort to help ease the process for those conservative users, probably involving some kind of notification mechanism not currently in place -- or perhaps not. I'm no expert on the management of FreeBSD's ports system. One thing I've seen come up that I definitely think would be a good idea, though, is more accessible documentation of the CVS attic, though. I had no idea such a thing existed for old FreeBSD ports until fairly recently, and still don't know much about it. I would think that the porter's handbook, at least, should mention it (perhaps with a brief explanation of why and how one might make use of it). -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpvIVs270KlM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sysutils/cfs
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 12:53:31PM +0200, Kurt Jaeger wrote: One thing I've seen come up that I definitely think would be a good idea, though, is more accessible documentation of the CVS attic, though. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/?hideattic=0#dirlist For example, net/ztelnet is no longer in the ports, but: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/net/ztelnet/?hideattic=0 will list the files and you can download from there. Where is this documented? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpCEAG2Kgybw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sysutils/cfs
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 09:37:07PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: On 2011-Sep-07 01:35:54 -0600, Chad Perrin c...@apotheon.net wrote: One thing I've seen come up that I definitely think would be a good idea, though, is more accessible documentation of the CVS attic, though. I had no idea such a thing existed for old FreeBSD ports until fairly recently, and still don't know much about it. Any VCS worthy of the name will retain history for objects that no longer exist because you might want to look at the state as it was at some point in the past when that object still existed. CVS stores the RCS masters for these deleted files is a subdirectory 'Attic' under the original directory. The data is only accessible via CVS - either using a local repository or via CVSweb. As an example, look at: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/audio/xmms/?hideattic=0 My understanding is that you are saying attic is just the standard term for CVS history. Is that the case, or do I misunderstand your point? I would think that the porter's handbook, at least, should mention it (perhaps with a brief explanation of why and how one might make use of it). Again, it comes down to someone with the knowledge, motivation and time to write the content. I'm aware of that. I just wanted to support the notion so that someone with the knowledge and time might be encouraged to have the motivation. It seemed to get lost in the argumentative back-and-forth about other details in the discussion, and I thought it would be a shame for this matter to go ignored because of that. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpZZNHUTWu8r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sysutils/cfs
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 05:57:17PM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 09:25:15AM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: My understanding is that you are saying attic is just the standard term for CVS history. Is that the case, or do I misunderstand your point? Almost correct. Attic is the standard term for where CVS stores files that have been deleted. Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I first started using version control with any regularity in the days of Subversion, so I (for good or ill) I missed out on the CVS culture that came before it. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpqVWYtpZHXY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: suggestion for pkgdb from ports-mgmt/portupgrade: add more explanation
On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 11:26:07AM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: I'd support a motion to replace dependency by requisite in port and package management tools to remove the ambiguity. I think that's a terrible idea. If we are going to change the terms used for such things, we should angle more toward an E-Prime approach to phrasing in such cases. Don't misunderstand -- I think that trying to write or speak in E-Prime all the time is an even worse idea. There are contexts where it's a great idea, though, and this is one of them. Using terms like dependency and requisite in this context tends toward tortuous sentence construction and other Byzantine absurdities. If we're going to change the phrasing, go with this like Foo depends on bar, and Bar requires foo. Aruing over whether it should be Foo is a dependency of bar, or Foo is a requisite of bar, utterly misses the most important point here: both of them suck. By the way, dependency in simplest terms just means that the thing in question is dependent or subordinate upon something else. That, to me, means that stale dependency says the dependency information for the dependent port is stale. That doesn't sound wrong at all. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp5DoKdriHyC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ports system quality
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:13:58AM +0200, Michel Talon wrote: Chad Perrin wrote: Of course, your goal is apparently to convince me that yours are the correct priorities. Indeed i think having the correct priorities is essential when choosing between different options, and i am sincerely convinced that my choices are shared by a lot more people than yours. You're right that having the correct priorities is good. You're probably right that more people have your OS preference priorities than I do. Popularity doesn't mean something is correct, though, and popularity of particular priorities for OS choice doesn't mean a given OS project should emulate those priorities. Would you suggest that every high-quality steakhouse in the United States should emulate the food preparation policies of McDonald's? The world needs an OS that serves the preferences FreeBSD serves so much better than Ubuntu, because the fact that a set of priorities favoring Ubuntu is more popular is not synonymous with the notion that it's ubiquitous. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpFAnTxlCcIv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why do we not mark vulnerable ports DEPRECATED?
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:48:31PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: I'm doing some updates and came across mail/postfix-policyd-spf which relies on mail/libspf2-10. The latter had a vuxml entry added on 2008-10-27. So my question is, why has mail/libspf2-10 been allowed to remain in the tree vulnerable for almost 3 years? Wouldn't it make more sense to mark vulnerable ports DEPRECATED immediately with a short expiration? When they get fixed they get un-deprecated. If they don't, they get removed. Can someone explain why this would be a bad idea? Might that not interfere with the process of getting a new maintainer for a popular port when its previous maintainer has been lax (or hit by a bus)? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgphdRX2NJxzy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why do we not mark vulnerable ports DEPRECATED?
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:55:25AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: On 08/30/2011 08:29, Chad Perrin wrote: Might that not interfere with the process of getting a new maintainer for a popular port when its previous maintainer has been lax (or hit by a bus)? Sorry if I'm being dense, but I'm not seeing the connection. Can you elaborate? I'll put it another way: Wouldn't it be easier for a new maintainer to pick up maintenance of a port if (s)he doesn't have to start over from scratch? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpFstKgGCRTW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ports system quality
laptops because it is the *least* painful system to use for desktop purposes, in my experience. I like a system that offers the software and capaibilities I need without taking away from me the ability to actually control the system's configuration to a reasonable degree. Note that the laptop on which I'm typing this is an exception, because I bought it with an Intel Core i5 before I knew about the graphics support issues. That does not mean that the OS I'm running on it instead it is less painful to use for such a purpose than FreeBSD would be. I have only barely continued to lean to the side of not dealing with a 4:3 resolution stretched to a 16:9 display aspect ratio (as I would get with FreeBSD). The hassles and frustrations of a constantly changing Linux-based software ecosystem that seems intent on growing more non-deterministic in its behavior over time are very nearly enough to make me choose the horribly stretched resolution over these technical annoyances that do things like prevent me from connecting reliably to certain wireless networks. It has gotten bad enough that I have recently started using an older laptop for close to half of what I do, just so I can have a sane, stable environment (relative to MS Windows and any modern Linux distribution I've encountered). That is not to say that FreeBSD does not have its own annoyances (as this thread has pointed out, sometimes even accurately) -- but please do not go pursuing the policies of a system that throws away all the benefits that drew me to FreeBSD in the first place in search of a more painless user experience. I do not, at the moment, feel a burning need to find excuses to switch to NetBSD or OpenBSD as my primary laptop OS of choice. Don't let me throw fuel on the fire, here, but please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, either. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpJnVjxAaOsy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ports system quality
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:44:27PM +0200, Michel Talon wrote: Chad Perrin said: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:17:12AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: FreeBSD needs to get better in this area, but I seriously doubt it will ever be as easy and painless as something like ubuntu. For a great many use cases, Ubuntu is one of the most painful desktop user experiences I have ever encountered. Please, *please* do not emulate Ubuntu. Any discussion on such subjects should begin by switching off the reality distortion field. For *my own experience* Ubuntu works perfectly OK, in particular all the hardware on my laptop works, suspend works, i have zero problem keeping the ports updated, etc. It is the completely no fuss solution. Wether FreeBSD needs to go in a direction or another is a different subject, but *please* be objective in your descriptions. There's no reality distortion field here, unless it's yours. Neither Ubuntu nor FreeBSD is objectively better. Each is better for specific use cases. Your *subjective* experience of no fuss is based on a wildly different set of priorities than me. If you prefer Ubuntu's usability priorities, I wish you'd just use Ubuntu, rather than try to convince people that it's objectively better than FreeBSD -- thus implying FreeBSD should emulate as if it is without flaws. By the way: it installs software and runs servers the user will never have any occasion to use, with no obvious way to deactivate them; and it essentially enforces the use of huge collections of software by way of hopelessly intertangled dependencies. is a sentence you can easily apply to any modern system. And most users could not care less that there is *bloat* on their hard disk. Anyways you can find a functional and installable desktop Ubuntu system on a simple CDROM, show me the same for FreeBSD and i will happily conclude it is less bloated. And for the same price you have on said CDROM a live system and an installer which is not a joke like FreeBSD one. Wonder why one system has more users than the other ... That would have been much shorter if you just said: I can't tell the difference between the two where it matters, and I have different priorities than you. Of course, your goal is apparently to convince me that yours are the correct priorities. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpdXqRj9e1sN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Time to remove the GNUTLS option in the print/cups-client port
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 07:08:28PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: On 28 August 2011 19:04, Jerry je...@seibercom.net wrote: It has become apparent that the: [ ] GNUTLS Build with GNUTLS instead of OpenSSL option in the print/cups-client port is not working. Activating it causes the port build to fail. Perhaps it is time to remove this option from the port. Hopefully it will only be a temporary problem. What exactly is the benefit of using GnuTLS instead of OpenSSL anyway? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpzPJuqKpPbW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Time to remove the GNUTLS option in the print/cups-client port
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 06:50:07PM -0400, Jerry wrote: On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:04:42 -0700 The only benefit that I have heard of is that gnutls works around at least one of the patent issues that openssl has. (the probably both infringe on dozens, if not hundreds, of erroneously issued American patents) Erroneously issued in the sense that you are suppose to be paying for the right to use it and are attempting to circumvent the law or issued in the sense that someone else had all ready been issued a valid patent? Or, could it be that you feel someone should work for an indeterminate amount of time, invest his/her monies and take the risks of developing a new product and then be deprived of the right to make a return on their investment just so you can use the article for free? I think I know the answer to that one. Probably erroneously issued in that you should stop trolling, because no matter how much someone likes the patent system in principle, the US patent system has become horribly broken in practice. The world's biggest patent-holders that actually produce anything pretty much all agree that the system is horribly broken, and mostly collect patents for defensive use. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpmmCXBDNmqL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian GNU/kFreeBSD
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:12:05AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote: My question is: WHY need 7 DVDs??? DVDs?? Even M$ does not do such a crazy thing with its bloat-ware!! FreeBSD ships 1 DVD. What is it that this Debian GNU/kFreeBSD ships in those 7 DVDs? It's probably just that portion of the complete Debian APT archives that has been compiled for the kFreeBSD variant of Debian. Those who want the complete set of archives on hand, for some version or other, rather than having to connect to the Internet every now and then to get packages, might find it handy. I've never used Debian (or any other open source OS) that way, though. Keep in mind that Debian's package archives have more software in them than any other OS software management system archives -- though I think FreeBSD is a not-too-distant second place. Also . . . do you think that top-posting helped? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpRrXwmUMmX1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: www/chromium MAINTAINER, was Re: chromium producing constant hdd access
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 02:54:23PM +0100, Julian H. Stacey wrote: A MAINTAINER who does not maintain is not a maintainer. Makefile broke in the last month MAINTAINER rene@ should add a BUILD_DEPENDS or whatever, else resign let someone else eg You Thomas become MAINTAINER It has come to my attention that the maintainer for the Chromium port has changed in recent months. My comment that (inadvertently) touched off this little firestorm in a teacup referred to the *previous* maintainer's business model. In any case, a change in maintainer for a project as big as the Chromium port is sure to involve some upheaval, and I am willing to be patient a little while longer. The new maintainer will surely get us on at least the current major version number, whereas with the previous we ended up lagging behind by about two major version numbers, at least once he gets things sorted out. Someone mentioned the mailing list for the freebsd-chromium support group. I'm inclined to check it out. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpN5AkCy4oLt.pgp Description: PGP signature
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: ion windows manager on FreeBSD
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 01:25:35PM -0300, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote: You can fork the code, rename it, whathever, 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! There. I fixed it for you. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpQqR1Uuu0LO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ruby port broken? SOLVED
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 08:35:00AM +0200, Jack Raats wrote: The new commit solved the problem. Apparently, whatever worked for you hasn't done me any good: === Patching for ruby-1.8.6.287,1 === Applying FreeBSD patches for ruby-1.8.6.287,1 Ignoring previously applied (or reversed) patch. 3 out of 3 hunks ignored--saving rejects to lib/cgi.rb.rej = Patch patch-lib_cgi.rb failed to apply cleanly. = Patch(es) patch-ext_tk_tkutil_extconf.rb patch-io.c applied cleanly. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/lang/ruby18. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/lang/ruby18. ** Command failed [exit code 1]: /usr/bin/script -qa /tmp/portupgrade.20719.0 env UPGRADE_TOOL=portupgrade UPGRADE_PORT=ruby-1.8.6.111_5,1 UPGRADE_PORT_VER=1.8.6.111_5,1 make ** Fix the problem and try again. -- Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ] Jon Postel, RFC 761: [B]e conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. pgpUGWiu1OuOQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
