FreeBSD ports problem
I have been trying to install virtualbox support for my FreeBSD 9.1. A package named v4l_compat-1.0.20120501.tar.gz is causing problems in the installation. The package was downloaded automatically and it exists in /usr/ports/distfiles, yet it keeps giving an error stating that the file doesn't exist. Please help. *Harpreet Singh Chawla* ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD ports problem
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Harpreet Singh Chawla preet10101...@gmail.com wrote: I have been trying to install virtualbox support for my FreeBSD 9.1. A package named v4l_compat-1.0.20120501.tar.gz is causing problems in the installation. The package was downloaded automatically and it exists in /usr/ports/distfiles, yet it keeps giving an error stating that the file doesn't exist. Please help. *Harpreet Singh Chawla* ___ No idea about virtualbox port, but have you tried deleting the offending file (rm -f /usr/ports/distfiles/v4l_compat-1.0.20120501.tar.gz)? Amitabh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD ports problem
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Harpreet Singh Chawla preet10101...@gmail.com wrote: yup...did it...and downloaded manually... But its giving a checksum matching error. *Harpreet Singh Chawla* On 29 August 2013 22:48, Amitabh Kant amitabhk...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Harpreet Singh Chawla preet10101...@gmail.com wrote: I have been trying to install virtualbox support for my FreeBSD 9.1. A package named v4l_compat-1.0.20120501.tar.gz is causing problems in the installation. The package was downloaded automatically and it exists in /usr/ports/distfiles, yet it keeps giving an error stating that the file doesn't exist. Please help. *Harpreet Singh Chawla* ___ No idea about virtualbox port, but have you tried deleting the offending file (rm -f /usr/ports/distfiles/v4l_compat-1.0.20120501.tar.gz)? Amitabh After deleting, you don't need to download it manually. The port should download it if needed. Try updating your ports tree to see if the problem has been rectified. Amitabh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [kde-freebsd] ports, area51
Hi, 2013/2/3 ajtiM lum...@gmail.com: Hi! I have installed KDE 4.9.5 and Calligra 2.5.5 from area51. I am not sure how is working: I use portsnap which update ports and KDE 4.9.5 ports are merged. Last time I saw many update for KDE 4.8.4 which update KDE 4.9.5 ports and so on. Does anyone knows when KDE 4.9.5 will be out in ports? They said after FreeBSD 9.1 but when should be the date for after? I think the answer is now : http://www.freshports.org/commit.php?category=astroport=marblefiles=yesmessage_id=201302032010.r13kadmh024...@svn.freebsd.org Cheers -- Olivier Smedts _ ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) e-mail: oliv...@gid0.org- against HTML email vCards X www: http://www.gid0.org- against proprietary attachments / \ Il y a seulement 10 sortes de gens dans le monde : ceux qui comprennent le binaire, et ceux qui ne le comprennent pas. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [kde-freebsd] ports, area51
On Sunday 03 February 2013 23:40:46 Olivier Smedts wrote: Hi, 2013/2/3 ajtiM lum...@gmail.com: Hi! I have installed KDE 4.9.5 and Calligra 2.5.5 from area51. I am not sure how is working: I use portsnap which update ports and KDE 4.9.5 ports are merged. Last time I saw many update for KDE 4.8.4 which update KDE 4.9.5 ports and so on. Does anyone knows when KDE 4.9.5 will be out in ports? They said after FreeBSD 9.1 but when should be the date for after? I think the answer is now : http://www.freshports.org/commit.php?category=astroport=marblefiles=yesme ssage_id=201302032010.r13kadmh024...@svn.freebsd.org Cheers Thank you. Mitja -- http://www.redbubble.com/people/lumiwa ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
FreeBSD Ports Batch Install
For those interested... hostileadmin.com has published a new blog entitled FreeBSD Ports Batch Install at http://blog.hostileadmin.com/2012/12/10/freebsd-ports-batch-install/ -- Take care Rick Miller ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Scalable Opengroupware (SOGo) in FreeBSD ports tree
Hello, I am thinking about creating a port for SOGo[1]. Is there already someone working on it? Kind regards, Matthias [1] http://www.sogo.nu/english.html -- Matthias Petermann matth...@d2ux.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Scalable Opengroupware (SOGo) in FreeBSD ports tree
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:55:22PM +0200, Matthias Petermann wrote: Hello, I am thinking about creating a port for SOGo[1]. Is there already someone working on it? Kind regards, Matthias [1] http://www.sogo.nu/english.html -- Matthias Petermann matth...@d2ux.net ___ freebsd-po...@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org I have done: http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/sogo.tar.gz and http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/sope.tar.gz One year ago. I have given up working on it :) Feel free to use it, or start from scratch. Regards, Bapt pgpAWxQRpyWPx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
Hello All, I have a similar problem with passive ftp due to a self-imposed restrictive firewall. When make fetch is run on a port and ftp data is required, the PF firewall stops the program from completing. I got around this problem by restarting the firewall with a separate set of rules that opened up more ports needed for passive ftp. After the fetch operation I would then restart PF with the more restrictive rules. This sequence works but is a pain to maintain and also opens up a large number of ports during ftp operations. I would like to have a setup in which I do not have to restart my firewall every time I need to use passive ftp. From past experience setting MASTER_SORT to http works for those ports that use http but obviously has not worked for those ports that ONLY use ftp. I tried to use ftp-proxy but as far as I'm able to ascertain it will not work on my simple home office setup. It is a single client connected to the internet via a router: host -- router -- adsl modem -- ISP. Any help to resolve this will be greatly appreciated. Cheers ... Mark On Thursday, 12 July 2012 12:23:29 Kaya Saman wrote: Hi, I am trying to introduce FreeBSD into my office and it's been looked at with quite a bit of enthusiasm however, what makes it look bad is our companies 'security' policy to block FTP. At present they are running a whole bunch of CentOS based boxes and VM's which of course can be run through port 80 when using YUM. How does one get round this issue as my superiors are telling me that opening up FTP is a security risk and therefor don't want to proceed? I would like to use ports specifically and not the pkg_add tool to get software. Can anyone sugget anything? Regards, Kaya ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
We handle a lot of highly sensitive information and that's the need for the severe lock-down. Even the web-proxy is restricted to the sites accessible meaning that we need to request access if we need to go somewhere not governed by that proxy. this make sense. just blocking everything except 80 is pure nonsense. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:58:24 +0200 (CEST) Wojciech Puchar articulated: We handle a lot of highly sensitive information and that's the need for the severe lock-down. Even the web-proxy is restricted to the sites accessible meaning that we need to request access if we need to go somewhere not governed by that proxy. this make sense. just blocking everything except 80 is pure nonsense. Not if that is specifically what the OP is attempting to accomplish. Whether or not you feel it is nonsense is about as relative to the problem as tits on a bull. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
Kaya Saman kayasaman at gmail.com writes: Hi, I am trying to introduce FreeBSD into my office and it's been looked at with quite a bit of enthusiasm however, what makes it look bad is our companies 'security' policy to block FTP. At present they are running a whole bunch of CentOS based boxes and VM's which of course can be run through port 80 when using YUM. How does one get round this issue as my superiors are telling me that opening up FTP is a security risk and therefor don't want to proceed? I would like to use ports specifically and not the pkg_add tool to get software. Can anyone sugget anything? Regards, Kaya Hi, ... We simply have it [ed: FTP] banned on a Juniper firewall. So http is being proxied by a web appliance but that's it... nothing else. ... Yep. It's up to your proxy server whether it's going to handle FTP or only HTTP (and/or HTTPS). ... We have an 'appliance' based proxy and as company policy FTP should be restricted, ie. not active on this as it's a security risk. Regardless of whether your corporate proxy can not handle FTP by its limited capability or by company's policy, there is a solution called proxy chaining. http://www.freeproxy.ru/en/free_proxy/faq/index.htm How to bypass corporate proxy? What is HTTP proxy server? ... HTTP Proxy Chaining What is proxy chaining (proxy to proxy)? FTP through a proxy server: problems and solutions jb ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
http://www.freeproxy.ru/en/free_proxy/faq/index.htm How to bypass corporate proxy? go away from corporation. A side effect is saving your mental health on the long run. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
Wojciech Puchar wojtek at wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl writes: http://www.freeproxy.ru/en/free_proxy/faq/index.htm How to bypass corporate proxy? go away from corporation. A side effect is saving your mental health on the long run. Well, judging by I am trying to introduce FreeBSD into my office ... and this work environment description We handle a lot of highly sensitive information and that's the need for the severe lock-down. Even the web-proxy is restricted to the sites accessible meaning that we need to request access if we need to go somewhere not governed by that proxy. there is no chance for fooling around or trying to bypass policy, in particular if you are not in charge. She has to play by the rules, if she is the person holding the hat in her hands. Period. jb ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
Hi, I am trying to introduce FreeBSD into my office and it's been looked at with quite a bit of enthusiasm however, what makes it look bad is our companies 'security' policy to block FTP. At present they are running a whole bunch of CentOS based boxes and VM's which of course can be run through port 80 when using YUM. How does one get round this issue as my superiors are telling me that opening up FTP is a security risk and therefor don't want to proceed? I would like to use ports specifically and not the pkg_add tool to get software. Can anyone sugget anything? Regards, Kaya ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Kaya Saman wrote: Hi, I am trying to introduce FreeBSD into my office and it's been looked at with quite a bit of enthusiasm however, what makes it look bad is our companies 'security' policy to block FTP. At present they are running a whole bunch of CentOS based boxes and VM's which of course can be run through port 80 when using YUM. How does one get round this issue as my superiors are telling me that opening up FTP is a security risk and therefor don't want to proceed? I would like to use ports specifically and not the pkg_add tool to get software. Can anyone sugget anything? env ftp_proxy=host:port command where command is your normal command, such as fetch. For a full list of environment variables you can use,… $ ldd -f '%p\n' `which fetch` | xargs grep -alr ftp_proxy | xargs strings -n 7 | grep _proxy fetch_no_proxy_match fetch_default_proxy_port http_proxy ftp_proxy no_proxy -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Devin Teske devin.te...@fisglobal.com wrote: On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Kaya Saman wrote: Hi, I am trying to introduce FreeBSD into my office and it's been looked at with quite a bit of enthusiasm however, what makes it look bad is our companies 'security' policy to block FTP. At present they are running a whole bunch of CentOS based boxes and VM's which of course can be run through port 80 when using YUM. How does one get round this issue as my superiors are telling me that opening up FTP is a security risk and therefor don't want to proceed? I would like to use ports specifically and not the pkg_add tool to get software. Can anyone sugget anything? env ftp_proxy=host:port command where command is your normal command, such as fetch. For a full list of environment variables you can use,… $ ldd -f '%p\n' `which fetch` | xargs grep -alr ftp_proxy | xargs strings -n 7 | grep _proxy fetch_no_proxy_match fetch_default_proxy_port http_proxy ftp_proxy no_proxy -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. Thanks Devin for this however, setenv ftp_proxy ftp://ip:port indicates that FTP is being proxied out. We simply have it banned on a Juniper firewall. So http is being proxied by a web appliance but that's it... nothing else. Regards, Kaya ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:23:29 -0500, Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to use ports specifically and not the pkg_add tool to get software. Getting the ports tree with csup/cvsup wouldn't use ftp. You could run your own local mirror (net/cvsup-mirror) as well. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Mark Felder f...@feld.me wrote: On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:23:29 -0500, Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to use ports specifically and not the pkg_add tool to get software. Getting the ports tree with csup/cvsup wouldn't use ftp. You could run your own local mirror (net/cvsup-mirror) as well. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org Yeah, this is a good idea I was actually thinking about this. I've never done it so I'd need to google around a bit and do some testing but it is probably what we would want to do! Regards, Kaya ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:00:01 -0500, Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, this is a good idea I was actually thinking about this. I've never done it so I'd need to google around a bit and do some testing but it is probably what we would want to do! Install the port, run the setup script, answer something like four questions, and you're done -- it will begin mirroring automatically. It might tell you to add a one-liner to cron but that's it. *Magic* :-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
On 12 Jul 2012, at 17:23, Kaya Saman wrote: How does one get round this issue as my superiors are telling me that opening up FTP is a security risk and therefor don't want to proceed? I would like to use ports specifically and not the pkg_add tool to get software. Can anyone sugget anything? The usual solution appears to be to add MASTER_SORT_REGEX = ^http to your /etc/make.conf file see http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2011-January/226342.html - Mark ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Kaya Saman wrote: On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Devin Teske devin.te...@fisglobal.com wrote: On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Kaya Saman wrote: Hi, I am trying to introduce FreeBSD into my office and it's been looked at with quite a bit of enthusiasm however, what makes it look bad is our companies 'security' policy to block FTP. At present they are running a whole bunch of CentOS based boxes and VM's which of course can be run through port 80 when using YUM. How does one get round this issue as my superiors are telling me that opening up FTP is a security risk and therefor don't want to proceed? I would like to use ports specifically and not the pkg_add tool to get software. Can anyone sugget anything? env ftp_proxy=host:port command where command is your normal command, such as fetch. For a full list of environment variables you can use,… $ ldd -f '%p\n' `which fetch` | xargs grep -alr ftp_proxy | xargs strings -n 7 | grep _proxy fetch_no_proxy_match fetch_default_proxy_port http_proxy ftp_proxy no_proxy -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. Thanks Devin for this however, setenv ftp_proxy ftp://ip:port indicates that FTP is being proxied out. We simply have it banned on a Juniper firewall. So http is being proxied by a web appliance but that's it... nothing else. Yep. It's up to your proxy server whether it's going to handle FTP or only HTTP (and/or HTTPS). I use squid a lot and it handles FTP great. -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Mark Felder f...@feld.me wrote: On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:23:29 -0500, Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to use ports specifically and not the pkg_add tool to get software. Getting the ports tree with csup/cvsup wouldn't use ftp. You could run your own local mirror (net/cvsup-mirror) as well. Yeah, this is a good idea I was actually thinking about this. I've never done it so I'd need to google around a bit and do some testing but it is probably what we would want to do! It's quite easy. It does require letting cvsup through the firewall, though. Getting the ports tree through HTTP is best done with portsnap, but once you get it inside your network you can run a cvsup server, NFS mount it on the other machines, or even run your own internal ports build server. As for fetching the distfiles, most of them are available through HTTP URLs as well as FTP. For ones that aren't, (and assuming the rather silly security policies won't allow for an external web-based FTP proxy) you may need to bring them in by offline media. Good luck. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Devin Teske devin.te...@fisglobal.com wrote: On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Kaya Saman wrote: On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Devin Teske devin.te...@fisglobal.com wrote: On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Kaya Saman wrote: Hi, I am trying to introduce FreeBSD into my office and it's been looked at with quite a bit of enthusiasm however, what makes it look bad is our companies 'security' policy to block FTP. At present they are running a whole bunch of CentOS based boxes and VM's which of course can be run through port 80 when using YUM. How does one get round this issue as my superiors are telling me that opening up FTP is a security risk and therefor don't want to proceed? I would like to use ports specifically and not the pkg_add tool to get software. Can anyone sugget anything? env ftp_proxy=host:port command where command is your normal command, such as fetch. For a full list of environment variables you can use,… $ ldd -f '%p\n' `which fetch` | xargs grep -alr ftp_proxy | xargs strings -n 7 | grep _proxy fetch_no_proxy_match fetch_default_proxy_port http_proxy ftp_proxy no_proxy -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. Thanks Devin for this however, setenv ftp_proxy ftp://ip:port indicates that FTP is being proxied out. We simply have it banned on a Juniper firewall. So http is being proxied by a web appliance but that's it... nothing else. Yep. It's up to your proxy server whether it's going to handle FTP or only HTTP (and/or HTTPS). I use squid a lot and it handles FTP great. -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. We have an 'appliance' based proxy and as company policy FTP should be restricted, ie. not active on this as it's a security risk. Thats my major issue. I will try the suggested method of: MASTER_SORT_REGEX = ^http for the time being to see if that helps before setting up our own repository. Regards, Kaya ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
I am trying to introduce FreeBSD into my office and it's been looked at with quite a bit of enthusiasm however, what makes it look bad is our companies 'security' policy to block FTP. do you work FOR that company. Ask administrator to unblock if for you as you need it for work. Do you do your private things at worktime? Then stop it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote: I am trying to introduce FreeBSD into my office and it's been looked at with quite a bit of enthusiasm however, what makes it look bad is our companies 'security' policy to block FTP. do you work FOR that company. Ask administrator to unblock if for you as you need it for work. Do you do your private things at worktime? Then stop it. I do infact work for this company and additionally I am one of the administrators of the company. The information comes straight down from the IT director who will **not** change his mind on this as I have asked several times in the past. Basically without getting too distracted and off-topic: I open the ports on the firewall - tomorrow I am not employed anymore ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
Hello. 2012/07/12 13:19:56 -0400 Lowell Gilbert freebsd-questions-lo...@be-well.ilk.org = To Kaya Saman : LG URLs as well as FTP. For ones that aren't, (and assuming the rather LG silly security policies won't allow for an external web-based FTP proxy) LG you may need to bring them in by offline media. I believe there should be the way of using the passive ftp (and any other protocol) via the HTTP CONNECT method to the ftp (or any other port needed for other protocol/app) port and then handling the both control and data connections through the consequent copmmands and data exhange. As far as I remember this can be done at least via the http://delegate.org software, certainly available in the ports collection. Kaya, if your http proxy handles HTTP CONNECT to the port 21/ftp this can be the workaround for you about the freebsd ports requiring ftp download ability. Most surprise for me is why no one is interested about what kind of a danger the ftp protocol can ever be? i. e. skype is much more vicious in comparison to ftp and s much harder to be restricted by a packet filter if even possoible. -- Peter Vereshagin pe...@vereshagin.org (http://vereshagin.org) pgp: A0E26627 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Peter Vereshagin pe...@vereshagin.org wrote: Hello. 2012/07/12 13:19:56 -0400 Lowell Gilbert freebsd-questions-lo...@be-well.ilk.org = To Kaya Saman : LG URLs as well as FTP. For ones that aren't, (and assuming the rather LG silly security policies won't allow for an external web-based FTP proxy) LG you may need to bring them in by offline media. I believe there should be the way of using the passive ftp (and any other protocol) via the HTTP CONNECT method to the ftp (or any other port needed for other protocol/app) port and then handling the both control and data connections through the consequent copmmands and data exhange. As far as I remember this can be done at least via the http://delegate.org software, certainly available in the ports collection. Kaya, if your http proxy handles HTTP CONNECT to the port 21/ftp this can be the workaround for you about the freebsd ports requiring ftp download ability. Most surprise for me is why no one is interested about what kind of a danger the ftp protocol can ever be? i. e. skype is much more vicious in comparison to ftp and s much harder to be restricted by a packet filter if even possoible. -- Peter Vereshagin pe...@vereshagin.org (http://vereshagin.org) pgp: A0E26627 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org Thanks Peter for the advise. Our system is totally locked down with hardly any ports open on our NAT, only the necessary ones. I'm not sure if the Proxy would support the HTTP CONNECT as it's an appliance which my superior has control over. I will check it out however and see if that method is best, however CVSup would be the best way for us and I'm already looking at this: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cvsup.html which should be enough to get a demo up and running. Regards, Kaya ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
The information comes straight down from the IT director who will **not** change his mind on this as I have asked several times in the past. I just told about solution to a problem. Not a workaround. How you can make your work if your director actively prevent it!? Basically without getting too distracted and off-topic: I open the ports on the firewall - tomorrow I am not employed anymore Do not change anything in config if you got fired. It is not the clever and polite. Spent your time for starting out your own business or at least choose better employee, instead of revenge. PS. Start out using real private e-mail not @gmail.com if you want to be treated more seriously and not hurt yourself anymore. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
Most surprise for me is why no one is interested about what kind of a danger the ftp protocol can ever be? i. e. skype is much more vicious in comparison to As in lots of companies where idiots are directors (common case) the danger is because it is something that doesn't exist. As we all know only WWW do exist ;) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
Peter Vereshagin pe...@vereshagin.org writes: 2012/07/12 13:19:56 -0400 Lowell Gilbert freebsd-questions-lo...@be-well.ilk.org = To Kaya Saman : LG URLs as well as FTP. For ones that aren't, (and assuming the rather LG silly security policies won't allow for an external web-based FTP proxy) LG you may need to bring them in by offline media. I believe there should be the way of using the passive ftp (and any other protocol) via the HTTP CONNECT method to the ftp (or any other port needed for other protocol/app) port and then handling the both control and data connections through the consequent copmmands and data exhange. You've just described an FTP proxy. That's already been ruled out. Most surprise for me is why no one is interested about what kind of a danger the ftp protocol can ever be? i. e. skype is much more vicious in comparison to ftp and s much harder to be restricted by a packet filter if even possoible. Unfortunately, it's common. Often it's a reaction to the idea that FTP is an insecure protocol -- which is true, in a sense, because authentication information is passed in the clear, but irrelevant to anonymous use. This is silly, yes, but it's fairly popular among the types of IT people who think that NAT is a security service. Or possibly Nothing But HTTP is allowed through the firewall (which is, at least, a rational response to not knowing much about TCP/IP). Be well. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
Hello. Why don't you use a portsnap? it's over http... 2012/07/12 19:01:15 +0100 Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com = To Peter Vereshagin : KS I will check it out however and see if that method is best, however KS CVSup would be the best way for us and I'm already looking at this: KS KS http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cvsup.html 1. cvsup is not about comparison to ftp. cvsup is a way to obtain fresh port for the program distribution, ie set of patches, list of package's files, sample configuration files for the particular program(s) those are not the part of the base system but supplied with taking the OS specs in mind. ftp is a way to obtain a distfile, ie what the 3rd party software developer use to distribute. For FreeBSD ports cvsup and ftp are not competent in the daiy use as they have different purposes. Some 3rd party software is released and published authoritatively on ftp only. And that is the only problem possible for you on ftp usage by freebsd ports. But I believe there is only a few of them you need if any at all. I guess you may want to download the initial ports tree tarball, the ports.tgz, via the ftp. But it's certainly a) available over there via the http and b) is outdated and is needed to be updated via the portsnap and/or cvsup. 2. Use csup from the base system, don't use cvsup from ports if you use its protocol. And, portsnap seems to be even more recommended since some days. KS which should be enough to get a demo up and running. A Demo? Am I invited for the show? ;-) -- Peter Vereshagin pe...@vereshagin.org (http://vereshagin.org) pgp: A0E26627 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
Hello. 2012/07/12 14:44:48 -0400 Lowell Gilbert freebsd-questions-lo...@be-well.ilk.org = To Peter Vereshagin : LG Peter Vereshagin pe...@vereshagin.org writes: LG LG 2012/07/12 13:19:56 -0400 Lowell Gilbert freebsd-questions-lo...@be-well.ilk.org = To Kaya Saman : LG LG URLs as well as FTP. For ones that aren't, (and assuming the rather LG LG silly security policies won't allow for an external web-based FTP proxy) LG LG you may need to bring them in by offline media. LG LG I believe there should be the way of using the passive ftp (and any other LG protocol) via the HTTP CONNECT method to the ftp (or any other port needed for LG other protocol/app) port and then handling the both control and data LG connections through the consequent copmmands and data exhange. LG LG You've just described an FTP proxy. That's already been ruled out. But I thought the squid-like http proxy while serving the FTP URLs is what the ftp proxy is? It's a different matter at least because it's a nothing about HTTP's CONNECT method. Can you point me to a definition of 'ftp proxy' please? Wikipedia and Google have nothing on this. What I described is mentioned as 'http tunneling' in delegate's docs and isn't specific for ftp at all. LG Most surprise for me is why no one is interested about what kind of a danger LG the ftp protocol can ever be? i. e. skype is much more vicious in comparison to LG ftp and s much harder to be restricted by a packet filter if even possoible. LG LG Unfortunately, it's common. Often it's a reaction to the idea that FTP LG is an insecure protocol -- which is true, in a sense, because LG authentication information is passed in the clear, but irrelevant to LG anonymous use. This is silly, yes, but it's fairly popular among the LG types of IT people who think that NAT is a security service. Or LG possibly Nothing But HTTP is allowed through the firewall (which is, at LG least, a rational response to not knowing much about TCP/IP). Management is always the same on both sides of Earth, right. -- Peter Vereshagin pe...@vereshagin.org (http://vereshagin.org) pgp: A0E26627 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
Does your IT director understand the active/passive distinction? If not From what he described his director is plain moron. He required him to block things that HE needs to work, leaving port 80 open so things that are best in distracting from work (youtube, facebook...) works, as well as major virus source. In places i work i was requested to a) block some websites (facebook always first on list - very good). b) block most things EXCEPT the ones needed for work, full access only for some people. So some ports and some targets do work, rest does not. This is normal IMHO. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
On 07/12/2012 07:54 PM, Peter Vereshagin wrote: Hello. Why don't you use a portsnap? it's over http... 2012/07/12 19:01:15 +0100 Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com = To Peter Vereshagin : KS I will check it out however and see if that method is best, however KS CVSup would be the best way for us and I'm already looking at this: KS KS http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cvsup.html 1. cvsup is not about comparison to ftp. cvsup is a way to obtain fresh port for the program distribution, ie set of patches, list of package's files, sample configuration files for the particular program(s) those are not the part of the base system but supplied with taking the OS specs in mind. ftp is a way to obtain a distfile, ie what the 3rd party software developer use to distribute. For FreeBSD ports cvsup and ftp are not competent in the daiy use as they have different purposes. Some 3rd party software is released and published authoritatively on ftp only. And that is the only problem possible for you on ftp usage by freebsd ports. But I believe there is only a few of them you need if any at all. I guess you may want to download the initial ports tree tarball, the ports.tgz, via the ftp. But it's certainly a) available over there via the http and b) is outdated and is needed to be updated via the portsnap and/or cvsup. 2. Use csup from the base system, don't use cvsup from ports if you use its protocol. And, portsnap seems to be even more recommended since some days. KS which should be enough to get a demo up and running. A Demo? Am I invited for the show? ;-) -- Peter Vereshagin pe...@vereshagin.org (http://vereshagin.org) pgp: A0E26627 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org Hi Peter, portsnap works fine :-) My issues start coming into play when building the actual port itself. Ie. fetching the distfile, as you suggested above. As soon as I start running portmaster -a or a 'make install clean' on certain ports, the progress just bombs out totally. It would be really cool if I could find a way to centrally manage all of this. So perhaps in conjunction with CVSup. Something like a Linux repo server if you will - though I mention the term very loosely. Regards, Kaya ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
On 07/12/2012 08:13 PM, kpn...@pobox.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 06:44:56PM +0100, Kaya Saman wrote: I do infact work for this company and additionally I am one of the administrators of the company. The information comes straight down from the IT director who will **not** change his mind on this as I have asked several times in the past. Basically without getting too distracted and off-topic: I open the ports on the firewall - tomorrow I am not employed anymore So called active ftp requires having the server open a connection back to the client. This will be blocked by a firewall unless the firewall has special support for it. I can see having a firewall not allow those connections into your network. With passive ftp with or without a proxy all connections are opened from your end. No opening up of the firewall is required. Plus, if you don't touch your filewall then attempted use of active ftp will just result in a hung network connection. I believe active ftp was the default and perhaps only option for a number of years. Does your IT director understand the active/passive distinction? If not then perhaps you could explain it in a way that acknowledges that his concerns have some merit but those concerns are not relevant to passive ftp. Yes, this is very easy for me to suggest since I don't know any of the relevant people and my paycheck is not on the line. And my suggestion may be worth what you paid for it. ;) Hi, of course everything is known but still it is preferred to keep a total lock-down on outbound ports. We handle a lot of highly sensitive information and that's the need for the severe lock-down. Even the web-proxy is restricted to the sites accessible meaning that we need to request access if we need to go somewhere not governed by that proxy. Regards, Kaya ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
My issues start coming into play when building the actual port itself. Ie. fetching the distfile, as you suggested above. As soon as I start running portmaster -a or a 'make install clean' on certain ports, the progress just bombs out totally. as you've said it is not a problem at all tomorrow. It would be really cool if I could find a way to centrally manage all of this. So perhaps in conjunction with CVSup. What you mean? common /usr/ports/distfiles ? You may mirror it all if you wish and then NFS export. But if you want to install lots of ports to many computers i would recommend building on one and then just make binary packages. Something like a Linux repo server if you will no idea what it is. have not use linux for 9 years, and before that few years using my own manual distro as anything else wasn't usable. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
On 12/07/2012 21:26, Kaya Saman wrote: My issues start coming into play when building the actual port itself. Ie. fetching the distfile, as you suggested above. As soon as I start running portmaster -a or a 'make install clean' on certain ports, the progress just bombs out totally. It would be really cool if I could find a way to centrally manage all of this. So perhaps in conjunction with CVSup. Something like a Linux repo server if you will - though I mention the term very loosely. Have you played with pkgng at all? It's a bit new to use in production just yet, although reports from testers have been pretty positive so far, and it's perfectly fine for evaluation purposes. It will solve your main problem of not being allowed FTP traffic, as you can select a package repository accessible through HTTP -- like the main test repository http://pkgbeta.freebsd.org/freebsd-9-amd64/latest See http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
Hello. 2012/07/12 21:26:22 +0100 Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com = To freebsd-questions@freebsd.org : KS A Demo? Am I invited for the show? ;-) KS Something like a Linux repo server if you will - though I mention the KS term very loosely. SHould you try with a ixsystems's pcbsd.org then? http://pcbsd.org If you need to install a program from a freebsd port then pcbsd allows it,too. -- Peter Vereshagin pe...@vereshagin.org (http://vereshagin.org) pgp: A0E26627 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
On 07/12/2012 09:46 PM, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 12/07/2012 21:26, Kaya Saman wrote: My issues start coming into play when building the actual port itself. Ie. fetching the distfile, as you suggested above. As soon as I start running portmaster -a or a 'make install clean' on certain ports, the progress just bombs out totally. It would be really cool if I could find a way to centrally manage all of this. So perhaps in conjunction with CVSup. Something like a Linux repo server if you will - though I mention the term very loosely. Have you played with pkgng at all? It's a bit new to use in production just yet, although reports from testers have been pretty positive so far, and it's perfectly fine for evaluation purposes. It will solve your main problem of not being allowed FTP traffic, as you can select a package repository accessible through HTTP -- like the main test repository http://pkgbeta.freebsd.org/freebsd-9-amd64/latest See http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng Cheers, Matthew Thanks Matthew I will give this a go, although currently I have 2x FreeBSD machines in 'almost' full production as testing will cease quite shortly. It might actually be quite useful in conjunction with Puppet and Cobbler (not sure if is for FreeBSD too). Regards, Kaya ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is there a way to run FreeBSD ports through port 80?
On 2012-07-12 15:26, Kaya Saman wrote: On 07/12/2012 07:54 PM, Peter Vereshagin wrote: Hello. Why don't you use a portsnap? it's over http... 2012/07/12 19:01:15 +0100 Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com = To Peter Vereshagin : KS I will check it out however and see if that method is best, however KS CVSup would be the best way for us and I'm already looking at this: KS KS http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cvsup.html 1. cvsup is not about comparison to ftp. cvsup is a way to obtain fresh port for the program distribution, ie set of patches, list of package's files, sample configuration files for the particular program(s) those are not the part of the base system but supplied with taking the OS specs in mind. ftp is a way to obtain a distfile, ie what the 3rd party software developer use to distribute. For FreeBSD ports cvsup and ftp are not competent in the daiy use as they have different purposes. Some 3rd party software is released and published authoritatively on ftp only. And that is the only problem possible for you on ftp usage by freebsd ports. But I believe there is only a few of them you need if any at all. I guess you may want to download the initial ports tree tarball, the ports.tgz, via the ftp. But it's certainly a) available over there via the http and b) is outdated and is needed to be updated via the portsnap and/or cvsup. 2. Use csup from the base system, don't use cvsup from ports if you use its protocol. And, portsnap seems to be even more recommended since some days. KS which should be enough to get a demo up and running. A Demo? Am I invited for the show? ;-) -- Peter Vereshagin pe...@vereshagin.org (http://vereshagin.org) pgp: A0E26627 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org Hi Peter, portsnap works fine :-) My issues start coming into play when building the actual port itself. Ie. fetching the distfile, as you suggested above. As soon as I start running portmaster -a or a 'make install clean' on certain ports, the progress just bombs out totally. It would be really cool if I could find a way to centrally manage all of this. So perhaps in conjunction with CVSup. Something like a Linux repo server if you will - though I mention the term very loosely. Regards, Kaya ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org If the volume of machines you have isn't very high I would consider asking the Director if you could have a machine in the DMZ that would be able to use FTP, and cvsup to get outbound. Install Squid on that, and allow Squid to use FTP then allow only SSH from the inside systems to that machine. From there you can use SSH on the inside systems to tunnel the cvsup data outbound for source updates, and to tunnel the Squid connection outbound to be able to use FTP for the port updates via the SSH tunnel using Squids FTP connect over HTTP. This method would eliminate the need to setup your own local cvsup mirror, but does still allow FTP, but it doesn't leave any internal connections possible except when intended. It doesn't open it up to any users without SSH access into the DMZ machine so it can be controlled who has access to it. As the goto guy at my company for internet security I understand the need to lock things down and sadly wish my boss would allow me to lock down ours more than it is, though I don't see blocking outbound FTP as a requirement (though we only allow passive). Its interesting to see this from the side of the other guy who's stuff doesn't work due to the restrictions in place. I deal all the time with employees trying to do online conferences or file downloads with other companies using obscure tools that won't work through an HTTP proxy, use some random high port like 1 and want me to open up the port through the firewall right then so they can do the conference or get the file without any time to make sure the application is actually safe. Of course the main response to no I can't do that, is why does it work for everyone else on the conference. Can't seem to make them understand that the other people might not have to explain to the bank why they weren't following the PCI (payment card industry) guidelines they signed a document stating we would adhere to. And its my job on the line and not theirs if my allowing the port through the firewall for them allows the security breach. -- Thanks, Dean E. Weimer http://www.dweimer.net/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd
FreeBSD ports patch count
Hiya I would just like to ask / know. Did anything weird or wonderful happen on the FreeBSD ports. To show you what I mean. [root@torry /usr/home/bclark]# portaudit -F -a; portsnap fetch update; pkg_version -vIL=; freebsd-update fetch install auditfile.tbz 100% of 77 kB 6570 Bps 00m00s New database installed. 0 problem(s) in your installed packages found. Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 9 mirrors found. Fetching snapshot tag from geodns-1.portsnap.freebsd.org... done. Fetching snapshot metadata... done. Updating from Thu May 31 19:58:31 SAST 2012 to Fri Jun 1 08:51:05 SAST 2012. Fetching 4 metadata patches... done. Applying metadata patches... done. Fetching 0 metadata files... done. Fetching 4180 patches.10203040 4180 patches really !!! I run the above command almost everyday, so the most I have ever really seen is 300 - 400 patches. But 4180 has got me attention. Thanks Brent ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD ports patch count
On 6/1/12 9:49 AM, Brent Clark wrote: Hiya I would just like to ask / know. Did anything weird or wonderful happen on the FreeBSD ports. To show you what I mean. [root@torry /usr/home/bclark]# portaudit -F -a; portsnap fetch update; pkg_version -vIL=; freebsd-update fetch install auditfile.tbz 100% of 77 kB 6570 Bps 00m00s New database installed. 0 problem(s) in your installed packages found. Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 9 mirrors found. Fetching snapshot tag from geodns-1.portsnap.freebsd.org... done. Fetching snapshot metadata... done. Updating from Thu May 31 19:58:31 SAST 2012 to Fri Jun 1 08:51:05 SAST 2012. Fetching 4 metadata patches... done. Applying metadata patches... done. Fetching 0 metadata files... done. Fetching 4180 patches.10203040 4180 patches really !!! I run the above command almost everyday, so the most I have ever really seen is 300 - 400 patches. But 4180 has got me attention. Thanks Brent I may be mistaken but I would guess it has to do with the vulnerabilities addressed in OpenSSL in the 30/05/2012 update. I'm assuming authors have bumped their ports' revision numbers to force a rebuild, using the patched openssl lib. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD ports patch count
On 01/06/2012 09:34, Damien Fleuriot wrote: On 6/1/12 9:49 AM, Brent Clark wrote: Hiya I would just like to ask / know. Did anything weird or wonderful happen on the FreeBSD ports. To show you what I mean. [root@torry /usr/home/bclark]# portaudit -F -a; portsnap fetch update; pkg_version -vIL=; freebsd-update fetch install auditfile.tbz 100% of 77 kB 6570 Bps 00m00s New database installed. 0 problem(s) in your installed packages found. Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 9 mirrors found. Fetching snapshot tag from geodns-1.portsnap.freebsd.org... done. Fetching snapshot metadata... done. Updating from Thu May 31 19:58:31 SAST 2012 to Fri Jun 1 08:51:05 SAST 2012. Fetching 4 metadata patches... done. Applying metadata patches... done. Fetching 0 metadata files... done. Fetching 4180 patches.10203040 4180 patches really !!! I run the above command almost everyday, so the most I have ever really seen is 300 - 400 patches. But 4180 has got me attention. Thanks Brent I may be mistaken but I would guess it has to do with the vulnerabilities addressed in OpenSSL in the 30/05/2012 update. I'm assuming authors have bumped their ports' revision numbers to force a rebuild, using the patched openssl lib. There might be a little of that, but most of the recent activity is accounted for by * Numerous ports moving to the new OPTIONSng framework * Hundreds of PORTREVISION bumps after an update to graphics/png * Removal of old koffice ports and the import of the Calligra office suite to replace it. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: FreeBSD ports patch count
On Friday 01 June 2012 04:25:12 Matthew Seaman wrote: On 01/06/2012 09:34, Damien Fleuriot wrote: On 6/1/12 9:49 AM, Brent Clark wrote: Hiya I would just like to ask / know. Did anything weird or wonderful happen on the FreeBSD ports. To show you what I mean. [root@torry /usr/home/bclark]# portaudit -F -a; portsnap fetch update; pkg_version -vIL=; freebsd-update fetch install auditfile.tbz 100% of 77 kB 6570 Bps 00m00s New database installed. 0 problem(s) in your installed packages found. Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 9 mirrors found. Fetching snapshot tag from geodns-1.portsnap.freebsd.org... done. Fetching snapshot metadata... done. Updating from Thu May 31 19:58:31 SAST 2012 to Fri Jun 1 08:51:05 SAST 2012. Fetching 4 metadata patches... done. Applying metadata patches... done. Fetching 0 metadata files... done. Fetching 4180 patches.10203040 4180 patches really !!! I run the above command almost everyday, so the most I have ever really seen is 300 - 400 patches. But 4180 has got me attention. Thanks Brent I may be mistaken but I would guess it has to do with the vulnerabilities addressed in OpenSSL in the 30/05/2012 update. I'm assuming authors have bumped their ports' revision numbers to force a rebuild, using the patched openssl lib. There might be a little of that, but most of the recent activity is accounted for by * Numerous ports moving to the new OPTIONSng framework * Hundreds of PORTREVISION bumps after an update to graphics/png * Removal of old koffice ports and the import of the Calligra office suite to replace it. Cheers, Matthew My system is FreeBSD 9.0 Release and the lst time I use Clang. It works very good but the lst problem was with Calligra which didn't built. As I red in /usr/ports/UPDATING I ran portmaster -r png- and there are so many ports which should be rebuild. My question is: Is it better (safer) to use gcc or try clang? Or is it better to not update png? Thanks in advance. Mitja http://jpgmag.com/people/lumiwa ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Emulators to test non-x86 FreeBSD ports?
Hello list, are there any emulators out there that can run the non-x86 versions of FreeBSD on a FreeBSD/i386 or FreeBSD/amd64 host? I'm especially interested in trying FreeBSD/sparc64 port, but I'd also like to test the FreeBSD/powerpc and the FreeBSD/arm ports on an emulator, before seeking real hardware. Oh, and btw, what kind of affordable SPARC-based desktops with newish SPARC processors (i.e. above UltraSparc IIIi) would you recommend for testing? I've read this page: http://www.freebsd.org/platforms/sparc.html but I'm at a loss as to what vendor, model etc. to get. Thanks, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Emulators to test non-x86 FreeBSD ports?
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Fri Jan 28 11:37:00 2011 Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:27:35 +0100 From: C. P. Ghost cpgh...@cordula.ws To: FreeBSD Mailing List freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Emulators to test non-x86 FreeBSD ports? Hello list, are there any emulators out there that can run the non-x86 versions of FreeBSD on a FreeBSD/i386 or FreeBSD/amd64 host? Such things, by definition, are a 'simulator', not an 'emulator'. They exist, they are *pricey* (think 5 figures, left of the decimal point) and they are =SLOW= (very, VERY slow!) compared to the real hardware. I'm especially interested in trying FreeBSD/sparc64 port, but I'd also like to test the FreeBSD/powerpc and the FreeBSD/arm ports on an emulator, before seeking real hardware. Pick up some low-end used hardware, it's _lots_ cheaper, and will give you a better feel for how it works. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Emulators to test non-x86 FreeBSD ports?
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:27 AM, C. P. Ghost cpgh...@cordula.ws wrote: Hello list, are there any emulators out there that can run the non-x86 versions of FreeBSD on a FreeBSD/i386 or FreeBSD/amd64 host? I'm especially interested in trying FreeBSD/sparc64 port, but I'd also like to test the FreeBSD/powerpc and the FreeBSD/arm ports on an emulator, before seeking real hardware. QEMU claims PowerPC and ARM emulation support, but I don't know if it's good enough to run FreeBSD. PearPC is another PowerPC emulator, but it was mainly targeted at running MacOS and the project appears to have been stagnant since 2005. It depends a bit on what you're trying to determine. If you're looking to test stability or performance, the results you get from an emulator are unlikely to have any real comparison to what you get on real hardware. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Emulators to test non-x86 FreeBSD ports?
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote: From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Fri Jan 28 11:37:00 2011 Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:27:35 +0100 From: C. P. Ghost cpgh...@cordula.ws To: FreeBSD Mailing List freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Emulators to test non-x86 FreeBSD ports? Hello list, are there any emulators out there that can run the non-x86 versions of FreeBSD on a FreeBSD/i386 or FreeBSD/amd64 host? Such things, by definition, are a 'simulator', not an 'emulator'. They exist, they are *pricey* (think 5 figures, left of the decimal point) and they are =SLOW= (very, VERY slow!) compared to the real hardware. Okay, let it be a simulator then. ;) I don't care that they're slow (I know how emulators work under the hood). As I've used Bochs on SPARC back then to run x86 OS, it was slow too, but that didn't matter either. The only multiplatform simulators I've seen right now belong to the qemu family: /usr/local/bin/qemu /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-mipsel /usr/local/bin/qemu-img /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-ppc /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-arm /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-ppc64 /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-cris /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-ppcemb /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-m68k /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-sh4 /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-microblaze /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-sh4eb /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-mips /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-sparc /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-mips64 /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-sparc64 /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-mips64el /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-x86_64 But they don't emulate enough of a real system to run the FreeBSD ports, AFAICT. That's why I'm asking for other (more specialized?) emulators/simulators. I'm especially interested in trying FreeBSD/sparc64 port, but I'd also like to test the FreeBSD/powerpc and the FreeBSD/arm ports on an emulator, before seeking real hardware. Pick up some low-end used hardware, it's _lots_ cheaper, and will give you a better feel for how it works. Yep, that's always an option. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Emulators to test non-x86 FreeBSD ports?
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:56 PM, David Brodbeck g...@gull.us wrote: On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:27 AM, C. P. Ghost cpgh...@cordula.ws wrote: Hello list, are there any emulators out there that can run the non-x86 versions of FreeBSD on a FreeBSD/i386 or FreeBSD/amd64 host? I'm especially interested in trying FreeBSD/sparc64 port, but I'd also like to test the FreeBSD/powerpc and the FreeBSD/arm ports on an emulator, before seeking real hardware. QEMU claims PowerPC and ARM emulation support, but I don't know if it's good enough to run FreeBSD. PearPC is another PowerPC emulator, but it was mainly targeted at running MacOS and the project appears to have been stagnant since 2005. I'll check it out, thanks. It depends a bit on what you're trying to determine. If you're looking to test stability or performance, the results you get from an emulator are unlikely to have any real comparison to what you get on real hardware. Basically, I'm interested in assembly language programming on those platforms. So if they ran in an emulator, that would be ideal, but I wouldn't mind a couple of real hardware boxes if there's no software alternative. BTW, have you guys any experience with emulators/gxemul? It doesn't cover sparc but claims to implement a complete arm and powerpc machine, at least for the corresponding netbsd ports. Thanks, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: New FreeBSD ports system
Em Qui, 2010-04-29 às 23:27 +0530, Ashish SHUKLA escreveu: Aldis Berjoza writes: Hello! Some time ago I've read, that FreeBSD might be interested to move ports tree to database (sqlite?). This would require rewriting of all existing and writing some new tools related to ports. I hope pkg_improved[1] GSoC project might interest you. [1] - http://wiki.freebsd.org/AndersNore/pkg_improved Ashish Interesting project.. but the link to the patches are broken === http://home.no.net/andenore/patches/ does someone knows a site with have the patches??? I would like to give it a try... thanks... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: New FreeBSD ports system
Sergio de Almeida Lenzi writes: [...] Interesting project.. but the link to the patches are broken === http://home.no.net/andenore/patches/ does someone knows a site with have the patches??? I would like to give it a try... Must be in FreeBSD's perforce repository. -- Sent via Gnus from GNU Emacs They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin pgpNTscUkdiNe.pgp Description: PGP signature
UTF-8 and FreeBSD Ports make config / ncurses
Hi, I can't get the ncurses-based menu shown by running make config for an arbitrary port in FreeBSD 8.0 to use UTF-8 line drawing characters, rather than ISO-8859-1. I've configured my locale by setting :charset=UTF-8:\ :lang=en_US.UTF-8: in /etc/login.conf and then running cap_mkdb, and this has been sufficient to get other programs, such as mc, to provide UTF-8 output. But `make config` in the ports tree is still giving me ISO-8859-1, resulting in garbled characters in my terminal emulator (PuTTY), which is configured for UTF-8. What am I missing? Thanks, Mark -- Mark Shroyer http://markshroyer.com/contact/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Drop-box application in the FreeBSD ports?
Hello, I've been looking for drop-box functionality for a while, but I can't find any in the ports. Perhaps it's there but I'm not looking for the right keywords. Preferably something that's completely web-based (PHP) (no FTP or SCP) and maintenance-free. For example: a user uploads a (set of) file(s), and the application returns a hashed URL that can be passed on to the person that can then download the file(s). After downloading (or after a certain period of time) the file will be removed automaticaly. Is there any such thing in the ports for FreeBSD, or perhaps something not in the ports? Thanks, -- FR ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
RE: Firewall and FreeBSD ports
On Behalf Of RW I don't normally do this as Watson is usually less impressed when Holmes reveals his working, but the clues were there. He wrote: install software with ports (i.e, the /usr/ports collection.) and FTP to grab source files from mirrors If you combine that with crediting the poster with enough common sense to mention he was using a version before 6.2, then it seemed unlikely to be a problem with active FTP. BTW neither of us actually answered the question. I know I forgot as I was in a hurry. I'm pretty sure you didn't either, but I don't have the time to read all of your reply in detail. The answer is: enable outgoing tcp connections to port 21 and to all ports above 1023. Is there a way to set up any firewall so that while there is an active outgoing connection on port 21, allow any incoming connections from the same IP address? Bob McConnell ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Firewall and FreeBSD ports
I just set up a new server with a very restricted PF configuration. One problem: I can no longer install software with ports (i.e, the / usr/ports collection.) I have to disable PF to do so. Obviously not a great solution. Am I correct in guessing that ports uses FTP to grab source files from mirrors? I'm trying to figure out the smallest number of ports (the TCP/IP kind) that I need to open in my firewall. I don't want to enable incoming FTP requests, but do want to allow outgoing ftp requests, I believe. Am I on the right track, here? Thanks: John ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Firewall and FreeBSD ports
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:45:04PM -0400, John Almberg wrote: I just set up a new server with a very restricted PF configuration. One problem: I can no longer install software with ports (i.e, the / usr/ports collection.) I have to disable PF to do so. Obviously not a great solution. Am I correct in guessing that ports uses FTP to grab source files from mirrors? I'm trying to figure out the smallest number of ports (the TCP/IP kind) that I need to open in my firewall. I don't want to enable incoming FTP requests, but do want to allow outgoing ftp requests, I believe. Am I on the right track, here? See the fetch(1) man page. Try this first: sh/bash: export FTP_PASSIVE_MODE=true csh: setenv FTP_PASSIVE_MODE true Chances are this will address the problem for you. -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Firewall and FreeBSD ports
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:51:16 -0700 Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:45:04PM -0400, John Almberg wrote: I just set up a new server with a very restricted PF configuration. One problem: I can no longer install software with ports (i.e, the / usr/ports collection.) I have to disable PF to do so. Obviously not a great solution. Am I correct in guessing that ports uses FTP to grab source files from mirrors? I'm trying to figure out the smallest number of ports (the TCP/IP kind) that I need to open in my firewall. I don't want to enable incoming FTP requests, but do want to allow outgoing ftp requests, I believe. Am I on the right track, here? See the fetch(1) man page. Try this first: sh/bash: export FTP_PASSIVE_MODE=true csh: setenv FTP_PASSIVE_MODE true passive ftp has been the default for long time, fetch is called with the -p option. If you have access to an http-proxy that supports ftp requests over http, fetch can use that. Alternately you can probably avoid ftp altogether by setting: MASTER_SORT_REGEX?= ^http: in make.conf ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Firewall and FreeBSD ports
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:54:32PM +0100, RW wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:51:16 -0700 Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:45:04PM -0400, John Almberg wrote: I just set up a new server with a very restricted PF configuration. One problem: I can no longer install software with ports (i.e, the / usr/ports collection.) I have to disable PF to do so. Obviously not a great solution. Am I correct in guessing that ports uses FTP to grab source files from mirrors? I'm trying to figure out the smallest number of ports (the TCP/IP kind) that I need to open in my firewall. I don't want to enable incoming FTP requests, but do want to allow outgoing ftp requests, I believe. Am I on the right track, here? See the fetch(1) man page. Try this first: sh/bash: export FTP_PASSIVE_MODE=true csh: setenv FTP_PASSIVE_MODE true passive ftp has been the default for long time, fetch is called with the -p option. Let's give the users some actual detail, not terse one-liners which will induce more questions/confusion. First off, libfetch (which is what fetch(1)) uses) itself DOES NOT default to using FTP passive mode. You have to either pass the -p option to the fetch(1) binary, or you have to set the FTP_PASSIVE_MODE environment variable (which affects anything using libfetch). Secondly, the ports framework (not pkg_* tools!), specifically ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk, defines FETCH_ARGS with the -p argument to force passive mode. This will be used for things like make fetch. It *will not* be used for things like pkg_add -r or pkg_add ftp://...; The addition of the -p argument to FETCH_ARGS in ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk was applied to HEAD on 2006/09/20. HEAD at that time is what became FreeBSD 6.2. Of course, anyone updating their ports tree after that date would also get the change; I'm just pointing it out so people know what the actual date was when -p was added to the default argument list. Now let's expand a bit on FTP_PASSIVE_MODE, because I'm absolutely sure someone will try to argue that's also been turned on by default for a long time; I know how people are... :-) FTP_PASSIVE_MODE being set by default on login shells was induced by an addition to login.conf(5) back in late 2001 (around the time of RELENG_6). See revision 1.45 (not 1.44!) of src/etc/login.conf in cvsweb. But I'll remind people that login.conf only applies to login shells; logging in on the console, or logging in to an account via ssh [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Most people I know of *do not* SSH into their servers as root; they SSH in as themselves and use sudo. Some use su2, and some use su. Let's examine the behaviours: $ env | grep FTP FTP_PASSIVE_MODE=YES As you can see here, the machine I've SSH'd into as myself does apply login.conf's defaults. But... $ sudo -s # env | grep FTP # exit $ sudo -i # env | grep FTP # The above scenario (as root) fails, since the FTP_PASSIVE_MODE environment variable isn't being handed down from the login shell (my user account) to the root shell spawned by sudo[1]. su, on the other hand, does it a little differently: $ su Password: # env | grep FTP FTP_PASSIVE_MODE=YES And likewise, su -l behaves the same way. The OP did not disclose how he was installing ports. A lot of users think that packages == ports, so for all we know, he could be pkg_add'ing things while using sudo and running into this. If make fetch in an actual port is timing out, then he's either doing it on a machine with a ports tree prior to 2006/09/20 (see above), or his outbound pf rules are so strict that the machine is absurdly limited. I've advocated in another thread my displeasure for filtering outbound traffic *solely* because of this exact scenario. Network admins seem to think that oh, HTTP is always going to use port 80, and likewise, oh, FTP is always going to use ports 20-21. Bzzzt. Nothing stops a MASTER_SITE from being http://lelele.com:9382/. [1]: The problem with sudo can be addressed; FTP_PASSIVE_MODE needs to be added to the env_keep list in the default sudoers file. I know the port maintainer, so I'll take this up with him so that users (including myself) don't keep getting bit by forgetting to set FTP_PASSIVE_MODE after doing a sudo. -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Firewall and FreeBSD ports
problem: I can no longer install software with ports (i.e, the /usr/ports collection.) I have to disable PF to do so. Obviously not a great solution. Am I correct in guessing that ports uses FTP to grab source files from FTP or HTTP. if you have http proxy like squid in your network do export http_proxy=http://yourproxy:port export ftp_proxy=http://yourproxy:port ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: Firewall and FreeBSD ports
On Oct 10, 2008, at 2:41 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:54:32PM +0100, RW wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:51:16 -0700 Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:45:04PM -0400, John Almberg wrote: I just set up a new server with a very restricted PF configuration. One problem: I can no longer install software with ports (i.e, the / usr/ports collection.) I have to disable PF to do so. Obviously not a great solution. Am I correct in guessing that ports uses FTP to grab source files from mirrors? I'm trying to figure out the smallest number of ports (the TCP/IP kind) that I need to open in my firewall. I don't want to enable incoming FTP requests, but do want to allow outgoing ftp requests, I believe. Am I on the right track, here? See the fetch(1) man page. Try this first: sh/bash: export FTP_PASSIVE_MODE=true csh: setenv FTP_PASSIVE_MODE true First off, this did solve the problem. Thank you, Jeremy. Now, as to the why... passive ftp has been the default for long time, fetch is called with the -p option. Let's give the users some actual detail, not terse one-liners which will induce more questions/confusion. First off, libfetch (which is what fetch(1)) uses) itself DOES NOT default to using FTP passive mode. You have to either pass the -p option to the fetch(1) binary, or you have to set the FTP_PASSIVE_MODE environment variable (which affects anything using libfetch). Secondly, the ports framework (not pkg_* tools!), specifically ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk, defines FETCH_ARGS with the -p argument to force passive mode. This will be used for things like make fetch. It *will not* be used for things like pkg_add -r or pkg_add ftp://...; The addition of the -p argument to FETCH_ARGS in ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk was applied to HEAD on 2006/09/20. HEAD at that time is what became FreeBSD 6.2. Of course, anyone updating their ports tree after that date would also get the change; I'm just pointing it out so people know what the actual date was when -p was added to the default argument list. Now let's expand a bit on FTP_PASSIVE_MODE, because I'm absolutely sure someone will try to argue that's also been turned on by default for a long time; I know how people are... :-) FTP_PASSIVE_MODE being set by default on login shells was induced by an addition to login.conf(5) back in late 2001 (around the time of RELENG_6). See revision 1.45 (not 1.44!) of src/etc/login.conf in cvsweb. But I'll remind people that login.conf only applies to login shells; logging in on the console, or logging in to an account via ssh [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Most people I know of *do not* SSH into their servers as root; they SSH in as themselves and use sudo. Some use su2, and some use su Root ssh access is disabled on this machine. I login as a normal user, and then use sudo. The only time I use su is when sudo does not work (another question for another day!) Let's examine the behaviours: $ env | grep FTP FTP_PASSIVE_MODE=YES As you can see here, the machine I've SSH'd into as myself does apply login.conf's defaults. But... $ sudo -s # env | grep FTP # exit $ sudo -i # env | grep FTP # H'mmm... yes. This is true on my machine, too. The above scenario (as root) fails, since the FTP_PASSIVE_MODE environment variable isn't being handed down from the login shell (my user account) to the root shell spawned by sudo[1]. su, on the other hand, does it a little differently: $ su Password: # env | grep FTP FTP_PASSIVE_MODE=YES And likewise, su -l behaves the same way. Yes... although I must say I'm confused by this behavior... In fact, it's the exact opposite of what I'd expect... from the su man pages -l Simulate a full login. The environment is discarded except for HOME, SHELL, PATH, TERM, and USER. HOME and SHELL are modified as above. USER is set to the target login. PATH is set to ``/bin:/usr/bin''. So why isn't the FTP environment variable discarded? The OP did not disclose how he was installing ports. A lot of users think that packages == ports, so for all we know, he could be pkg_add'ing things while using sudo and running into this. I believe I am using ports. In this case, I had just installed and configured PF (the first thing I do, now, when building a new machine.) I then wanted to install NTP: cd /usr/ports/net/ntp make config; make install clean This failed because the mirrors were not accessible. If make fetch in an actual port is timing out, then he's either doing it on a machine with a ports tree prior to 2006/09/20 (see above), or his outbound pf rules are so strict that the machine is absurdly limited. The machine has Production Release 7.0 My outbound PF rules are fairly loose. Inbound are very tight. This is going to be a database server with 1 user. It's going to be running one Ruby application that will accept new data and
Fwd: Firewall and FreeBSD ports
sh/bash: export FTP_PASSIVE_MODE=true Ah... because in passive mode, the client (my server) sets the data port, and my PF rules allow return data on the port used for the request. Okay... that makes sense, I think... (little by little, it sinks in...) -- John ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Firewall and FreeBSD ports
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:41:40 -0700 Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:54:32PM +0100, RW wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:51:16 -0700 Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: passive ftp has been the default for long time, fetch is called with the -p option. Let's give the users some actual detail, not terse one-liners which will induce more questions/confusion. Snip some facts used as a blunt instrument The OP did not disclose how he was installing ports. A lot of users think that packages == ports, I don't normally do this as Watson is usually less impressed when Holmes reveals his working, but the clues were there. He wrote: install software with ports (i.e, the /usr/ports collection.) and FTP to grab source files from mirrors If you combine that with crediting the poster with enough common sense to mention he was using a version before 6.2, then it seemed unlikely to be a problem with active FTP. BTW neither of us actually answered the question. I know I forgot as I was in a hurry. I'm pretty sure you didn't either, but I don't have the time to read all of your reply in detail. The answer is: enable outgoing tcp connections to port 21 and to all ports above 1023. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fwd: Firewall and FreeBSD ports
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:16:29 -0400 John Almberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 10, 2008, at 2:41 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: See the fetch(1) man page. Try this first: sh/bash: export FTP_PASSIVE_MODE=true csh: setenv FTP_PASSIVE_MODE true First off, this did solve the problem. Thank you, Jeremy. Now, as to the why... That's odd, because if you are running 7.x with a default settings, FTP_PASSIVE_MODE should be irrelevant to fetching distfiles - even if it's set to no. Do you have any FETCH_* variables defined? What happens if you cd to a port directory and type: make -V FETCH_CMD ? I believe I am using ports. In this case, I had just installed and configured PF (the first thing I do, now, when building a new machine.) I then wanted to install NTP: cd /usr/ports/net/ntp make config; make install clean This failed because the mirrors were not accessible. I just tried this port myself and it failed on all four servers configured in the Makefile, only succeeding on the fallback Freebsd server, (Freebsd's own cache for package building). Unless you turn-up something odd for FETCH_CMD, I think there's a good chance that you never had an FTP firewall problem in the first place, and that the file has simply been added to ftp.freebsd.org since you got the original failure. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Firewall and FreeBSD ports
sh/bash: export FTP_PASSIVE_MODE=true csh: setenv FTP_PASSIVE_MODE true First off, this did solve the problem. Thank you, Jeremy. Now, as to the why... That's odd, because if you are running 7.x with a default settings, FTP_PASSIVE_MODE should be irrelevant to fetching distfiles - even if it's set to no. Do you have any FETCH_* variables defined? No What happens if you cd to a port directory and type: make -V FETCH_CMD ? [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~] cd /usr/ports/shells/zsh '[EMAIL PROTECTED]:zsh] make -V FETCH_CMD /usr/bin/fetch -ApRr [EMAIL PROTECTED]:zsh] I then wanted to install NTP: cd /usr/ports/net/ntp make config; make install clean This failed because the mirrors were not accessible. I just tried this port myself and it failed on all four servers configured in the Makefile, only succeeding on the fallback Freebsd server, (Freebsd's own cache for package building). Unless you turn-up something odd for FETCH_CMD, I think there's a good chance that you never had an FTP firewall problem in the first place, and that the file has simply been added to ftp.freebsd.org since you got the original failure. I just removed the FTP_PASSIVE_MODE variable from .bash_profile, logged out, and logged back in. I then tried to install another port and it installed without problem. -- John ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
list files in FreeBSD ports tree package
Hi FreeBSD users I am searching for something similar to Red Hat's rpm -q -l package and Debian's dpkg -L package. cheers Simon -- XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: list files in FreeBSD ports tree package
El día Thursday, June 05, 2008 a las 03:35:01PM +0200, Simon Jolle escribió: Hi FreeBSD users I am searching for something similar to Red Hat's rpm -q -l package and Debian's dpkg -L package. cheers Simon Don't know nothing about Red Hat or Debian, but how about $ pkg_info -L stardict-2.4.8_5 or even $ man pkg_info HIH matthias -- Matthias Apitz Manager Technical Support - OCLC GmbH Gruenwalder Weg 28g - 82041 Oberhaching - Germany t +49-89-61308 351 - f +49-89-61308 399 - m +49-170-4527211 e [EMAIL PROTECTED] - w http://www.oclc.org/ http://www.UnixArea.de/ b http://gurucubano.blogspot.com/ «...una sola vez, que es cuanto basta si se trata de verdades definitivas.» «...only once, which is enough if it has todo with definite truth.» José Saramago, Historia del Cerca de Lisboa ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: list files in FreeBSD ports tree package
On 6/5/08, Matthias Apitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't know nothing about Red Hat or Debian, but how about $ pkg_info -L stardict-2.4.8_5 or even $ man pkg_info HIH matthias Thank you Matthias -- XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: list files in FreeBSD ports tree package
The best way to do searches on a BSD system is to use good old 'locate,' or even 'find / -name package.' This will give you a result based on the ports package which you can then add using 'pkg_add -r package name.' Camilo Bono Vince Malum -- Message: 6 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:35:01 +0200 From: Simon Jolle Subject: list files in FreeBSD ports tree package To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi FreeBSD users I am searching for something similar to Red Hat's rpm -q -l package and Debian's dpkg -L package. cheers Simon -- XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: list files in FreeBSD ports tree package
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 19:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Camilo Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The best way to do searches on a BSD system is to use good old 'locate,' or even 'find / -name package.' i think you can also look in /var/db/pkg or do pkg_info | grep WHATEVER if i understood the original post correctly. -- In friendship, prad ... with you on your journey Towards Freedom http://www.towardsfreedom.com (website) Information, Inspiration, Imagination - truly a site for soaring I's ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenLDAP 2.4 and FreeBSD Ports
Add the following to /etc/make.conf (create if it doesn't exist): WANT_OPENLDAP_VER= 24 Eric (Thanks folks) On Feb 11, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Mark Foster wrote: Eric F Crist wrote: I'm trying to use OpenLDAP 2.4, which I installed from the FreeBSD ports tree. However, everything else I try to install, LDAP support in Apache22, pam_ldap, seems to want to use 2.3.40 instead. Obviously, it tries to install that version, which fails since 2.4.7 is installed. How do I tell the ports system I'm using 2.4 instead of 2.3 so it links correctly? I've noticed the same for phpLDAPadmin. Would like to use it with 2.4 on the same server but it wants 2.3. -- Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints... Mark D. Foster, CISSP [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mark.foster.cc/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Eric F Crist Secure Computing Networks ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenLDAP 2.4 and FreeBSD Ports
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Eric F Crist wrote: I'm not finding what you're referring to. I've looked into all the Makefile* files in /usr/ports/www/apache22 and I cannot find an option to tell apache22 to build with openldap24-sasl-client. WITH_SASL= yes WITH_APACHE2= yes APACHE_PORT=www/apache22 WANT_OPENLDAP_VER= 24 WANT_OPENLDAP_SASL= yes WITH_BDB_VER= 46 Cheers, Matthew - -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHsL6+8Mjk52CukIwRCEdEAJ9KKRKGHmxHFARa/wm7CDUQ5/DaLgCfV8Nr UbdDA+XzG5vjQ65eGuwMgOU= =2HRb -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenLDAP 2.4 and FreeBSD Ports
I'm not finding what you're referring to. I've looked into all the Makefile* files in /usr/ports/www/apache22 and I cannot find an option to tell apache22 to build with openldap24-sasl-client. Any more pointers? Eric On Feb 11, 2008, at 12:26 PM, David Alanis wrote: Eric: Can you include this in your make.conf: DEFAULT_PHP_VER=5 DEFAULT_MYSQL_VER=50 APACHE_PORT=www/apache22 DEFAULT_LDAP_VER= number goes here but I don't know the correct wording this is just an example of my make.conf Otherwise: Edit usr/ports/www/apache22/Makefile and select the correct version of ldap you want that port to use. David Alanis Quoting Eric F Crist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello folks! First off, please reply-all as I'm not longer a subscriber. I'm trying to use OpenLDAP 2.4, which I installed from the FreeBSD ports tree. However, everything else I try to install, LDAP support in Apache22, pam_ldap, seems to want to use 2.3.40 instead. Obviously, it tries to install that version, which fails since 2.4.7 is installed. How do I tell the ports system I'm using 2.4 instead of 2.3 so it links correctly? thanks! - Eric F Crist Secure Computing Networks ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. - Eric F Crist Secure Computing Networks ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenLDAP 2.4 and FreeBSD Ports
Hello folks! First off, please reply-all as I'm not longer a subscriber. I'm trying to use OpenLDAP 2.4, which I installed from the FreeBSD ports tree. However, everything else I try to install, LDAP support in Apache22, pam_ldap, seems to want to use 2.3.40 instead. Obviously, it tries to install that version, which fails since 2.4.7 is installed. How do I tell the ports system I'm using 2.4 instead of 2.3 so it links correctly? thanks! - Eric F Crist Secure Computing Networks ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenLDAP 2.4 and FreeBSD Ports
Eric: Can you include this in your make.conf: DEFAULT_PHP_VER=5 DEFAULT_MYSQL_VER=50 APACHE_PORT=www/apache22 DEFAULT_LDAP_VER= number goes here but I don't know the correct wording this is just an example of my make.conf Otherwise: Edit usr/ports/www/apache22/Makefile and select the correct version of ldap you want that port to use. David Alanis Quoting Eric F Crist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello folks! First off, please reply-all as I'm not longer a subscriber. I'm trying to use OpenLDAP 2.4, which I installed from the FreeBSD ports tree. However, everything else I try to install, LDAP support in Apache22, pam_ldap, seems to want to use 2.3.40 instead. Obviously, it tries to install that version, which fails since 2.4.7 is installed. How do I tell the ports system I'm using 2.4 instead of 2.3 so it links correctly? thanks! - Eric F Crist Secure Computing Networks ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenLDAP 2.4 and FreeBSD Ports
Eric F Crist wrote: I'm trying to use OpenLDAP 2.4, which I installed from the FreeBSD ports tree. However, everything else I try to install, LDAP support in Apache22, pam_ldap, seems to want to use 2.3.40 instead. Obviously, it tries to install that version, which fails since 2.4.7 is installed. How do I tell the ports system I'm using 2.4 instead of 2.3 so it links correctly? I've noticed the same for phpLDAPadmin. Would like to use it with 2.4 on the same server but it wants 2.3. -- Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints... Mark D. Foster, CISSP [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mark.foster.cc/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-5-stable/All
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:00:08AM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 05:57:56PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote: Hi Kris, I know things must be pretty busy with 6.2, but is there any chance that the 5.5-STABLE packages can be updated soon? I just checked again, and at least apache and phpyadmin are still stale, going on two months now. Mark, what is the status of the upload of these packages? The past 9 days I was sitting at various pay-fer internet cafes and thus have not dealt with i386-5 (I had hoped it was going to be finished while I was still in Munich and had the wireless). I had thought of 'sending the reminder mails' and 'uploading the packages' as one unit, but I suppose I should have split them up. The former was not feasible from the cafes. I am now back but suffering from jet-lag so it will be another more 12 hours or so before I can look at the reminder-mails. (I had a 25-hour travel marathon between Koln and Houston.) mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-5-stable/All
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 at 04:17:21 -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:00:08AM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 05:57:56PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote: Hi Kris, I know things must be pretty busy with 6.2, but is there any chance that the 5.5-STABLE packages can be updated soon? I just checked again, and at least apache and phpyadmin are still stale, going on two months now. Mark, what is the status of the upload of these packages? The past 9 days I was sitting at various pay-fer internet cafes and thus have not dealt with i386-5 (I had hoped it was going to be finished while I was still in Munich and had the wireless). I had thought of 'sending the reminder mails' and 'uploading the packages' as one unit, but I suppose I should have split them up. The former was not feasible from the cafes. I am now back but suffering from jet-lag so it will be another more 12 hours or so before I can look at the reminder-mails. (I had a 25-hour travel marathon between Koln and Houston.) Hey, get some sleep, have a day off .. you're worth more to us alive :) Thanks guys, Ian ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-5-stable/All
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:00:08AM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 05:57:56PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote: Hi Kris, I know things must be pretty busy with 6.2, but is there any chance that the 5.5-STABLE packages can be updated soon? I just checked again, and at least apache and phpyadmin are still stale, going on two months now. Mark, what is the status of the upload of these packages? OK, I've uploaded the packages now and they'll begin propagating out to the mirrors. Kris pgpshUaurwYPz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: /pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-5-stable/All
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote: OK, I've uploaded the packages now and they'll begin propagating out to the mirrors. Thanks again. Now I'm right out of excuses, eh? Cheers, Ian ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-5-stable/All
Hi Kris, I know things must be pretty busy with 6.2, but is there any chance that the 5.5-STABLE packages can be updated soon? I just checked again, and at least apache and phpyadmin are still stale, going on two months now. Cheers, Ian ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-5-stable/All
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 05:57:56PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote: Hi Kris, I know things must be pretty busy with 6.2, but is there any chance that the 5.5-STABLE packages can be updated soon? I just checked again, and at least apache and phpyadmin are still stale, going on two months now. Mark, what is the status of the upload of these packages? Kris pgpUFYxpmYL53.pgp Description: PGP signature
FreeBSD ports tree on OpenBSD/NetBSD
Does the FreeBSd ports tree work on NetBSD or OpenBSD? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD ports tree on OpenBSD/NetBSD
On Thursday 14 December 2006 18:37, Ansar Mohammed wrote: Does the FreeBSd ports tree work on NetBSD or OpenBSD? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD's ports tree only works on FreeBSD. NetBSD and OpenBSD have their own ports trees derived from FreeBSD. NetBSD's port tree (pkgsrc) will work on quite a few other operating sytems, including FreeBSD. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-5-stable/All/
Hi all, FreeBSD paqi.smithi.id.au 5.5-STABLE FreeBSD 5.5-STABLE #0: Sun Nov 19 20:22:12 EST 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/PAQI5S_2 i386 On 4th December, after a recent portsnap fetch/update, I ran portupgrade -anPP to prefetch all available packages for a well overdue upgrade of all ports on this box, most dating from 5.4-RELEASE CDs blush Apart from taking ~7 hours to fetch ~550MB for ~220 packages, and except for a few non-packageable ports, that went fine. Then on 10th December, after much study of UPDATING and adopting the procedures there for KDE, I ran portupgrade -aPP on those packages, which apart from updating PHP4 then installing PHP5 on top of it (which I'll take up later) went better than I'd dared to dream, taking ~8 hours. Awesome work guys! However after then running portsnap fetch/update to pick up anything new since the 4th, and after upgrading portupgrade, ran another portupgrade -anPP to pick up available packages for the ~35 ports newly out of date, intending to finish off by building any remaining ports from sources. I was glad I'd specified -PP .. every fetch from $subject directory failed. Checking manually, then and again tonight, I see that indeed only the versions of files that were (correctly) current at 4th December are still there now. The latest file date there says 17th November. Is this likely a temporary glitch, or do -stable packages only get updated to match the current ports tree after some expectable delay? Cheers, Ian ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-5-stable/All/
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:44:13AM +1100, Ian Smith wrote: Hi all, FreeBSD paqi.smithi.id.au 5.5-STABLE FreeBSD 5.5-STABLE #0: Sun Nov 19 20:22:12 EST 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/PAQI5S_2 i386 On 4th December, after a recent portsnap fetch/update, I ran portupgrade -anPP to prefetch all available packages for a well overdue upgrade of all ports on this box, most dating from 5.4-RELEASE CDs blush Apart from taking ~7 hours to fetch ~550MB for ~220 packages, and except for a few non-packageable ports, that went fine. Then on 10th December, after much study of UPDATING and adopting the procedures there for KDE, I ran portupgrade -aPP on those packages, which apart from updating PHP4 then installing PHP5 on top of it (which I'll take up later) went better than I'd dared to dream, taking ~8 hours. Awesome work guys! However after then running portsnap fetch/update to pick up anything new since the 4th, and after upgrading portupgrade, ran another portupgrade -anPP to pick up available packages for the ~35 ports newly out of date, intending to finish off by building any remaining ports from sources. I was glad I'd specified -PP .. every fetch from $subject directory failed. Checking manually, then and again tonight, I see that indeed only the versions of files that were (correctly) current at 4th December are still there now. The latest file date there says 17th November. Is this likely a temporary glitch, or do -stable packages only get updated to match the current ports tree after some expectable delay? There's always a lag, of course (computers aren't yet infinitely fast ;-). It's usually only a lag of a couple of days for 6.x, longer for 5.x since it's a legacy branch and not our main focus of activity. However the main FTP distribution server has been offline with hardware failure for the past week or two, so I can't push out any of the subsequent updates. Hopefully this will be resolved soon (it's also holding up the 6.2 release cycle). Kris pgpMT8zVTzbiv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: /pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-5-stable/All/
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:44:13AM +1100, Ian Smith wrote: [..] I was glad I'd specified -PP .. every fetch from $subject directory failed. Checking manually, then and again tonight, I see that indeed only the versions of files that were (correctly) current at 4th December are still there now. The latest file date there says 17th November. Is this likely a temporary glitch, or do -stable packages only get updated to match the current ports tree after some expectable delay? There's always a lag, of course (computers aren't yet infinitely fast ;-). It's usually only a lag of a couple of days for 6.x, longer for 5.x since it's a legacy branch and not our main focus of activity. As we're often enough reminded :) Thought I'd get it all up to date, then cvsup to 6.2 once released. However the main FTP distribution server has been offline with hardware failure for the past week or two, so I can't push out any of the subsequent updates. Hopefully this will be resolved soon (it's also holding up the 6.2 release cycle). Thanks Kris, may it Get Well Soon. BTW, just to try, I'd installed 6.1-R on another box over the net from the boot-only CD, and enjoyed being able to install heaps of packages from sysinstall that way, but was a bit dismayed to find it hadn't kept the fetched packages .. is there a way to ask sysinstall to do that? Cheers, Ian ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-5-stable/All/
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 07:26:42AM +1100, Ian Smith wrote: On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:44:13AM +1100, Ian Smith wrote: [..] I was glad I'd specified -PP .. every fetch from $subject directory failed. Checking manually, then and again tonight, I see that indeed only the versions of files that were (correctly) current at 4th December are still there now. The latest file date there says 17th November. Is this likely a temporary glitch, or do -stable packages only get updated to match the current ports tree after some expectable delay? There's always a lag, of course (computers aren't yet infinitely fast ;-). It's usually only a lag of a couple of days for 6.x, longer for 5.x since it's a legacy branch and not our main focus of activity. As we're often enough reminded :) Thought I'd get it all up to date, then cvsup to 6.2 once released. However the main FTP distribution server has been offline with hardware failure for the past week or two, so I can't push out any of the subsequent updates. Hopefully this will be resolved soon (it's also holding up the 6.2 release cycle). Thanks Kris, may it Get Well Soon. BTW, just to try, I'd installed 6.1-R on another box over the net from the boot-only CD, and enjoyed being able to install heaps of packages from sysinstall that way, but was a bit dismayed to find it hadn't kept the fetched packages .. is there a way to ask sysinstall to do that? I dont think so, sysinstall isn't really intended as a post-install package management tool. Kris pgpX5si95BLLb.pgp Description: PGP signature
How to link CPAN to FreeBSD ports perl modules?
Hello everyone, I'm looking for a way to link perl modules found in CPAN and the ones found in the FreeBSD ports repository. For example, let's say I need to install the following CPAN module: http://search.cpan.org/dist/libwww-perl/lib/HTTP/Request/Common.pm A search in the ports for ^p5-HTTP will return all perl modules which names start with p5-HTTP. But the above CPAN module does not exist. Does this means that the CPAN module is not in the ports? Or is there another way to link CPAN modules to the ports collection? Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, David -- David Robillard UNIX systems administrator, CISSP Montreal: +1 514 966 0122 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to link CPAN to FreeBSD ports perl modules?
David Robillard wrote: Hello everyone, I'm looking for a way to link perl modules found in CPAN and the ones found in the FreeBSD ports repository. For example, let's say I need to install the following CPAN module: http://search.cpan.org/dist/libwww-perl/lib/HTTP/Request/Common.pm A search in the ports for ^p5-HTTP will return all perl modules which names start with p5-HTTP. But the above CPAN module does not exist. Does this means that the CPAN module is not in the ports? Or is there another way to link CPAN modules to the ports collection? The CPAN module is libwww-perl, in the ports as p5-libwww-perl $ pkg_info -o p5-libwww\* Information for p5-libwww-5.805: Origin: www/p5-libwww hth, --Alex ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mirror of FreeBSD Ports
Hi there, I would like to know if it would be possible to mirror the FreeBSD Ports on a server in Australia, I would not require any rsync it would be set up manually. If you could please let me know that would be great. Many thanks James D www.exetel.com.au ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mirror of FreeBSD Ports
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 06:52:49AM +1100, James D wrote: Hi there, I would like to know if it would be possible to mirror the FreeBSD Ports on a server in Australia, I would not require any rsync it would be set up manually. If you could please let me know that would be great. I think there's documentation on becoming a mirror on the website. Kris pgpocEabPBwFi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Let's make a FreeBSD ports blog! CCCCOOOL =)
Vaaf wrote: We need someone to do the coding, XHTML/CSS, though some Ruby and Ajax too wouldn't hurt, so we can have a decent system in the back, and in the front be able to present information in a very intuitive way. Then, we'd need lots of members to write articles, rate ports and such. I'd have to come up with some wording. And ofcourse a design. Thank you so much for your interest! What you're looking for is something similar to the firefox extensions site? The author presents his extension and users can add comments or rate it. You can show the most popular by rating or downloads - for freebsd the latter would be difficult though. Cheers, Erik ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's make a FreeBSD ports blog! CCCCOOOL =)
Hey! There are about 10.000 ports, am I right? Not all FreeBSD users have the time to go through all of the package descriptions. But definitely all FreeBSD users have their share of favorite ports, and are interested in finding new ports that may compliment their lives. Not is the ports collection already too big for the average human intellect. It also continues to span. New programs appear on a daily basis, however there's nothing to grasp their presence and determine their quality I see this as a chance to promote FreeBSD to desktop users, which is what this project lacks. It has everything to make it superior to all the other open source operating systems, but nothing to really let it out in the open. Imagine a FreeBSD ports blog that tries to gather data on the most popular ports, sorted by ratings, downloads etc. In addition, it posts articles every now and then telling people about recent discoveries made among all the 10.000 ports. This could be a great thing! I am aware of freshports.org, this would be totally different. I know a thing or two about design, and could make the site look something like lounge72.com or linkdup.com. I have high speed hosting all standing by. A splendid name for it as well :D So, who's game? :) All the best, Vaaf ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's make a FreeBSD ports blog! CCCCOOOL =)
Vaaf, 14,187 ports... http://www.freebsd.org/ports/. Sounds like a good idea to me. What kind of help are you looking for? -David On 3/8/06, Kristian Vaaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey! There are about 10.000 ports, am I right? Not all FreeBSD users have the time to go through all of the package descriptions. But definitely all FreeBSD users have their share of favorite ports, and are interested in finding new ports that may compliment their lives. Not is the ports collection already too big for the average human intellect. It also continues to span. New programs appear on a daily basis, however there's nothing to grasp their presence and determine their quality I see this as a chance to promote FreeBSD to desktop users, which is what this project lacks. It has everything to make it superior to all the other open source operating systems, but nothing to really let it out in the open. Imagine a FreeBSD ports blog that tries to gather data on the most popular ports, sorted by ratings, downloads etc. In addition, it posts articles every now and then telling people about recent discoveries made among all the 10.000 ports. This could be a great thing! I am aware of freshports.org, this would be totally different. I know a thing or two about design, and could make the site look something like lounge72.com or linkdup.com. I have high speed hosting all standing by. A splendid name for it as well :D So, who's game? :) All the best, Vaaf ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's make a FreeBSD ports blog! CCCCOOOL =)
This is a useful idea, but i don't think you have to go and develop a whole new site to make it happen. simply take the existing ports search application ([1]www.freebsd.com/ports) and make some small modifications to it. stuff like when the search results come up, when you click on the name of the app, instead of taking you to the CVS, it takes you to the blog for that app where the long description is the starting article. then you can add all the rating stuff and whatever you want below that. also, a link to the homepage for the app would be nice. im constantly searching freebsd ports and then in another tab searching google for the app i just found to figure out what in the world it is. i realize it would be double work for some maintainers but it can be written to be fairly automated im sure. and the port maintainers can just leave it up to the users to maintain the blog part if they like. David Stanford wrote: Vaaf, 14,187 ports... [2]http://www.freebsd.org/ports/. Sounds like a good idea to me. What kind of help are you looking for? -David On 3/8/06, Kristian Vaaf [3][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey! There are about 10.000 ports, am I right? Not all FreeBSD users have the time to go through all of the package descriptions. But definitely all FreeBSD users have their share of favorite ports, and are interested in finding new ports that may compliment their lives. Not is the ports collection already too big for the average human intellect. It also continues to span. New programs appear on a daily basis, however there's nothing to grasp their presence and determine their quality I see this as a chance to promote FreeBSD to desktop users, which is what this project lacks. It has everything to make it superior to all the other open source operating systems, but nothing to really let it out in the open. Imagine a FreeBSD ports blog that tries to gather data on the most popular ports, sorted by ratings, downloads etc. In addition, it posts articles every now and then telling people about recent discoveries made among all the 10.000 ports. This could be a great thing! I am aware of freshports.org, this would be totally different. I know a thing or two about design, and could make the site look something like lounge72.com or linkdup.com. I have high speed hosting all standing by. A splendid name for it as well :D So, who's game? :) All the best, Vaaf ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list [5]http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list [8]http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [9][EMAIL PROTECTED] References 1. http://www.freebsd.com/ports 2. http://www.freebsd.org/ports/ 3. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 4. mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org 5. http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions 6. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7. mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org 8. http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions 9. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's make a FreeBSD ports blog! CCCCOOOL =)
At 20:46 09.03.2006, David Stanford wrote: Vaaf, 14,187 ports... http://www.freebsd.org/ports/http://www.freebsd.org/ports/. Sounds like a good idea to me. What kind of help are you looking for? -David On 3/8/06, Kristian Vaaf mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey! There are about 10.000 ports, am I right? Not all FreeBSD users have the time to go through all of the package descriptions. But definitely all FreeBSD users have their share of favorite ports, and are interested in finding new ports that may compliment their lives. Not is the ports collection already too big for the average human intellect. It also continues to span. New programs appear on a daily basis, however there's nothing to grasp their presence and determine their quality I see this as a chance to promote FreeBSD to desktop users, which is what this project lacks. It has everything to make it superior to all the other open source operating systems, but nothing to really let it out in the open. Imagine a FreeBSD ports blog that tries to gather data on the most popular ports, sorted by ratings, downloads etc. In addition, it posts articles every now and then telling people about recent discoveries made among all the 10.000 ports. This could be a great thing! I am aware of http://freshports.orgfreshports.org, this would be totally different. I know a thing or two about design, and could make the site look something like http://lounge72.comlounge72.com or http://linkdup.comlinkdup.com. I have high speed hosting all standing by. A splendid name for it as well :D So, who's game? :) All the best, Vaaf ___ mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.orgfreebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questionshttp://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey David! Thank you for such urgent response. We need someone to do the coding, XHTML/CSS, though some Ruby and Ajax too wouldn't hurt, so we can have a decent system in the back, and in the front be able to present information in a very intuitive way. Then, we'd need lots of members to write articles, rate ports and such. I'd have to come up with some wording. And ofcourse a design. Thank you so much for your interest! Speak to you soon, Vaaf ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's make a FreeBSD ports blog! CCCCOOOL =)
At 20:55 09.03.2006, Steel City Phantom wrote: This is a useful idea, but i don't think you have to go and develop a whole new site to make it happen. simply take the existing ports search application ([1]www.freebsd.com/ports) and make some small modifications to it. stuff like when the search results come up, when you click on the name of the app, instead of taking you to the CVS, it takes you to the blog for that app where the long description is the starting article. then you can add all the rating stuff and whatever you want below that. also, a link to the homepage for the app would be nice. im constantly searching freebsd ports and then in another tab searching google for the app i just found to figure out what in the world it is. i realize it would be double work for some maintainers but it can be written to be fairly automated im sure. and the port maintainers can just leave it up to the users to maintain the blog part if they like. Steel City Phantom :) Thank you for your input! Best regards, Vaaf ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's make a FreeBSD ports blog! CCCCOOOL =)
I developed a useful habit of reading a full commits log on freshports every morning. This way you always taste the cream of the collection. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Ports vs. Gentoo Portage (a matter of concept)
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:10:26 -0500, Parv wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote martinko thusly... Norberto Meijome wrote: Hans Nieser wrote: FreeBSD Prospect wrote: ... What I am especially fond of in portage is the USE-flags and the way you can specify then globally and individually for each package and how you can get a nice, short overview of which USE-flags a package uses and which of them are enabled with emerge -pv port. ... there are global USE-flags in FreeBSD too and you also can configure ports individually, but i'd agree that Gentoo way is more transparent. Those USE_* flags are for port creators/maintainers not users/installers; user use of, well, USE_* flags may get you in a trouble. OTOH, WITH_* WITHOUT_* flags lie in user domain. - Parv -- sorry, i had WITH[OUT] flags on my mind, of course.. :o) m. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
