Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program
On 27 Oct 2012 00:35, Simon J. Gerraty s...@juniper.net wrote: On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:02:00 +0100, Chris Rees writes: In that case we have a switch time on the order of years, not weeks; 8.3 is supported until May '14, and unless we get a :tl etc MFC into 8, even longer. All this time the ports tree must work with pmake. I'm pretty sure I was told it is already in 8 and 7 Not in 8.3 at least: svnweb.freebsd.org/base/releng/8.3/usr.bin/make/var.c?view=log I don't want to discourage you or belittle your excellent work here, but Marcel made me very nervous with his comment on the process being a few weeks. That was based on discussions at the last devsummit. These discussions need backing up with a real roadmap, including detail on exactly what 8.3 and 7.4 users will have to do to ensure that the ports tree still works. I don't see where these considerations have been made. Chris ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: How to boot FreeBSD and linux from FreeBSD MBR?
On 10/26/12 22:14, Yuri wrote: When I installed ubuntu on another partition, it overwrote BSD MBR with grub one. Now grub boots ubuntu without even asking what to boot. When I tried to restore BSD MBR, BSD boots but linux doesn't. This is because there is no bootable PBR in linux partition. When I tried to install grub into PBR on its own partition, like someone online suggested, it refused with the message that this is dangerous, etc. So is there a way to boot both linux and BSD from BSD MBR (by pressing F2 or whatever)? Are there quick instructions anywhere? I just don't want grub to take over the boot process. Yuri ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org This means you have grub2. It is slow as molasses and has to be the mbr. You could chainload freebsd's partition under a separate entry, like Windows The partition bootcode for FreeBSD will boot it from there. You can also boot loader or kernel directly from grub, your choice. Matt ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program
BTW, would it be useful to put a devel/fmake into ports to make it easy for people with older systems to install an up to date version of freebsd make (which groks both sets of toupper/tolower modifiers)? Perhaps a knob to install it or put in a link as /usr/bin/make ? ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program
[trim CC list a little to stop people regretting replying to this thread] On 27 October 2012 10:15, Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 Oct 2012 00:35, Simon J. Gerraty s...@juniper.net wrote: On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:02:00 +0100, Chris Rees writes: In that case we have a switch time on the order of years, not weeks; 8.3 is supported until May '14, and unless we get a :tl etc MFC into 8, even longer. All this time the ports tree must work with pmake. I'm pretty sure I was told it is already in 8 and 7 Not in 8.3 at least: svnweb.freebsd.org/base/releng/8.3/usr.bin/make/var.c?view=log I don't want to discourage you or belittle your excellent work here, but Marcel made me very nervous with his comment on the process being a few weeks. That was based on discussions at the last devsummit. These discussions need backing up with a real roadmap, including detail on exactly what 8.3 and 7.4 users will have to do to ensure that the ports tree still works. I don't see where these considerations have been made. OK, so how about this. We (ab)use the security update mechanism to merge the pmake changes (:tl and :tu) into releng/7.4 and releng/8.3 (possibly the earlier releng branches such as 7.3, 8.2, 9.0). We could then send out a message on ports-announce, giving a few weeks' notice that the change to bsd.port.mk is going through and that users need the latest 'security' patches. When we change bsd.port.mk over, include a snippet such as the one at [1], which gives more informative error text and refers user to documentation. Although I still think this is less than ideal, it is the only way I can see that we can switch before May '14, if the urgency is there. Chris [1] http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/bmake-pmake.diff ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program
On 27 October 2012 15:32, Bryan Drewery br...@shatow.net wrote: On 10/27/2012 8:23 AM, Chris Rees wrote: [trim CC list a little to stop people regretting replying to this thread] On 27 October 2012 10:15, Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 Oct 2012 00:35, Simon J. Gerraty s...@juniper.net wrote: On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:02:00 +0100, Chris Rees writes: In that case we have a switch time on the order of years, not weeks; 8.3 is supported until May '14, and unless we get a :tl etc MFC into 8, even longer. All this time the ports tree must work with pmake. I'm pretty sure I was told it is already in 8 and 7 Not in 8.3 at least: svnweb.freebsd.org/base/releng/8.3/usr.bin/make/var.c?view=log I don't want to discourage you or belittle your excellent work here, but Marcel made me very nervous with his comment on the process being a few weeks. That was based on discussions at the last devsummit. These discussions need backing up with a real roadmap, including detail on exactly what 8.3 and 7.4 users will have to do to ensure that the ports tree still works. I don't see where these considerations have been made. OK, so how about this. We (ab)use the security update mechanism to merge the pmake changes (:tl and :tu) into releng/7.4 and releng/8.3 (possibly the earlier releng branches such as 7.3, 8.2, 9.0). We could then send out a message on ports-announce, giving a few weeks' notice that the change to bsd.port.mk is going through and that users need the latest 'security' patches. This weeks is making a assumptions that users 1. reads ports@ or 2. Update to security/errata patches in a timely manner or 3. Read UPDATING Quite. This should be at least a few months, otherwise we're making unreasonable requests of our users, and yet again annoy them by breaking older versions-- this time with no real benefit for end-users. Chris ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program
On 10/27/2012 8:23 AM, Chris Rees wrote: [trim CC list a little to stop people regretting replying to this thread] On 27 October 2012 10:15, Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 Oct 2012 00:35, Simon J. Gerraty s...@juniper.net wrote: On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:02:00 +0100, Chris Rees writes: In that case we have a switch time on the order of years, not weeks; 8.3 is supported until May '14, and unless we get a :tl etc MFC into 8, even longer. All this time the ports tree must work with pmake. I'm pretty sure I was told it is already in 8 and 7 Not in 8.3 at least: svnweb.freebsd.org/base/releng/8.3/usr.bin/make/var.c?view=log I don't want to discourage you or belittle your excellent work here, but Marcel made me very nervous with his comment on the process being a few weeks. That was based on discussions at the last devsummit. These discussions need backing up with a real roadmap, including detail on exactly what 8.3 and 7.4 users will have to do to ensure that the ports tree still works. I don't see where these considerations have been made. OK, so how about this. We (ab)use the security update mechanism to merge the pmake changes (:tl and :tu) into releng/7.4 and releng/8.3 (possibly the earlier releng branches such as 7.3, 8.2, 9.0). We could then send out a message on ports-announce, giving a few weeks' notice that the change to bsd.port.mk is going through and that users need the latest 'security' patches. This weeks is making a assumptions that users 1. reads ports@ or 2. Update to security/errata patches in a timely manner or 3. Read UPDATING When we change bsd.port.mk over, include a snippet such as the one at [1], which gives more informative error text and refers user to documentation. Although I still think this is less than ideal, it is the only way I can see that we can switch before May '14, if the urgency is there. Chris [1] http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/bmake-pmake.diff ___ freebsd-a...@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-arch-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program
On 27 October 2012 10:34, Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote: This weeks is making a assumptions that users 1. reads ports@ or 2. Update to security/errata patches in a timely manner or 3. Read UPDATING Quite. This should be at least a few months, otherwise we're making unreasonable requests of our users, and yet again annoy them by breaking older versions-- this time with no real benefit for end-users. +1 I would venture to guess that most of our users don't even read -announce. In addition there are non-ports concerns here. Many people probably have custom Makefiles they use for their own projects which may rely on existing behavior. -- Eitan Adler ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program
On 10/27/2012 9:40 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: On 27 October 2012 10:34, Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote: This weeks is making a assumptions that users 1. reads ports@ or 2. Update to security/errata patches in a timely manner or 3. Read UPDATING Quite. This should be at least a few months, otherwise we're making unreasonable requests of our users, and yet again annoy them by breaking older versions-- this time with no real benefit for end-users. +1 I would venture to guess that most of our users don't even read -announce. In addition there are non-ports concerns here. Many people probably have custom Makefiles they use for their own projects which may rely on existing behavior. I apologize for not reading the full thread. Could there be a make.conf/env setting to make bmake run AS pmake in full compat mode? On by default until all older branches are EoL, then it can flip and be optional. Or even via a symlink, whatever it is invoked as is what mode it runs in. Bryan ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Call for review -- rc needs some love!
Hi all, I've tried to have a look at some of the lingering issues in our rc [1] as well as kick up some discussion over some other patches, but looking over the archives of the list it seems that no-one is maintaining it or reviewing patches. Because of this, I'm having a hard time working out how to get any of my patches in! Please would someone with a src bit review some of my fixes [2]? I'm working on a few more, but I would need approval for anything committed. Thanks! Chris [1] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?responsible=freebsd-rc [2] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-rc/2012-October/thread.html ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program
On 27 October 2012 18:27, Simon J. Gerraty s...@juniper.net wrote:
These discussions need backing up with a real roadmap, including detail on
exactly what 8.3 and 7.4 users will have to do to ensure that the ports
tree still works.
I've tested the ports tree converted to bmake - per the patch I
mentioned on a 7.1 box. It worked for me. Once the ports tree has
found or installed bmake, the system version makes no further
difference.
Obviously not a conclusive result, but yes this issue has been given
consideration.
What about these?
[crees@pegasus]~% grep -n :\[LU] /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk | tee
/dev/tty | wc -l
1324:PORTVERSION=
${DISTVERSION:L:C/([a-z])[a-z]+/\1/g:C/([0-9])([a-z])/\1.\2/g:C/:(.)/\1/g:C/[^a-z0-9+]+/./g}
1451:.if (defined(USE_QT_VER) ${USE_QT_VER:L} == 3) ||
defined(USE_KDELIBS_VER) || defined(USE_KDEBASE_VER)
1455:.if defined(USE_QT_VER) ${USE_QT_VER:L} == 4 || defined(USE_QT4)
1674:.if ${USE_PKGCONFIG:L} == yes || ${USE_PKGCONFIG:L} == build
1677:.elif ${USE_PKGCONFIG:L} == both
1681:.elif ${USE_PKGCONFIG:L} == run
1696:${b}= ${LOCALBASE}/bin/${b:C/PP/++/:L}
1763:_USE_OPENAL+= ${_OPENAL_${_OPENAL_SYSTEM:U}}
1783:_USE_OPENAL+= ${_OPENAL_${component:U}}
1829:.if defined(FAM_SYSTEM_${FAM_SYSTEM:U})
1830:LIB_DEPENDS+= ${FAM_SYSTEM_${FAM_SYSTEM:U}}
1836:.if defined(USE_RC_SUBR) ${USE_RC_SUBR:U} != YES
1844:.if defined(USE_LDCONFIG) ${USE_LDCONFIG:L} == yes
1847:.if defined(USE_LDCONFIG32) ${USE_LDCONFIG32:L} == yes
1856:. if ${USE_GETTEXT:L} == build
1858:. elif ${USE_GETTEXT:L} == run
1860:. elif ${USE_GETTEXT:L} == yes
1888:. if ${USE_LINUX:L} == yes
1899:. if ${USE_LINUX:L} == yes
1977:. if ${USE_GL:L} == yes
1994:. if ${USE_BISON:L} == build
1996:. elif ${USE_BISON:L} == run
1998:. elif ${USE_BISON:L} == both
2044:.if defined(USE_QT_VER) ${USE_QT_VER:L} == 4 || defined(USE_QT4)
3038:_MANPAGES+=
${MAN${sect}:S%^%${MAN${sect}PREFIX}/${manlang}/man${sect:L}/%}
3043:.if defined(MAN${sect}_${manlang:S%^man/%%:U})
3044:_MANPAGES+=
${MAN${sect}_${manlang:S%^man/%%:U}:S%^%${MAN${sect}PREFIX}/${manlang}/man${sect:L}/%}
3056:_MANPAGES+=
${MAN${sect}_EN:S%^%${MAN${sect}PREFIX}/man/man${sect:L}/%}
3312: || defined(CONFIG_DONE_${UNIQUENAME:U}) || \
3600:.if ${USE_DOS2UNIX:U}==YES
4361:${target}: ${${target:U}_COOKIE}
4364: @cd ${.CURDIR} ${MAKE} CONFIG_DONE_${UNIQUENAME:U}=1
${${target:U}_COOKIE}
4368:.if !exists(${${target:U}_COOKIE})
4370:.if ${UID} != 0 defined(_${target:U}_SUSEQ) !defined(INSTALL_AS_USER)
4372:${${target:U}_COOKIE}: ${_${target:U}_DEP}
4373: @cd ${.CURDIR} ${MAKE} ${_${target:U}_SEQ}
4375:${${target:U}_COOKIE}: ${_${target:U}_DEP} ${_${target:U}_SEQ}
4379: ${SU_CMD} ${MAKE} ${_${target:U}_SUSEQ}
4383:${${target:U}_COOKIE}: ${_${target:U}_DEP}
4385: ${MAKE} ${_${target:U}_SEQ} ${_${target:U}_SUSEQ}
4388:${${target:U}_COOKIE}: ${_${target:U}_DEP} ${_${target:U}_SEQ}
${_${target:U}_SUSEQ}
4393:${${target:U}_COOKIE}::
4802: for alg in ${CHECKSUM_ALGORITHMS:U}; do \
4825: for alg in ${CHECKSUM_ALGORITHMS:U}; do \
4836: for alg in ${CHECKSUM_ALGORITHMS:U}; do \
4850: for alg in ${CHECKSUM_ALGORITHMS:U}; do \
4904: for alg in ${CHECKSUM_ALGORITHMS:U}; do \
5032:${deptype:L}-depends:
5653:${i:S/-//:U}= ${WRKDIR}/${SUB_FILES:M${i}*}
5700:.if defined(PLIST_REINPLACE_${reinplace:U})
5701: @${SED} -i -e '${PLIST_REINPLACE_${reinplace:U}}' ${TMPPLIST}
5854:.if defined(USE_RCORDER) || defined(USE_RC_SUBR)
${USE_RC_SUBR:U} != YES
5864:.if defined(USE_RC_SUBR) ${USE_RC_SUBR:U} != YES
53
[crees@pegasus]~%
Chris
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program
These discussions need backing up with a real roadmap, including detail on exactly what 8.3 and 7.4 users will have to do to ensure that the ports tree still works. I've tested the ports tree converted to bmake - per the patch I mentioned on a 7.1 box. It worked for me. Once the ports tree has found or installed bmake, the system version makes no further difference. Obviously not a conclusive result, but yes this issue has been given consideration. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program
On 27 October 2012 19:52, Simon J. Gerraty s...@juniper.net wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:23:29 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
We (ab)use the security update mechanism to merge the pmake changes
(:tl and :tu) into releng/7.4 and releng/8.3 (possibly the earlier
I originally provided the :tl and :tu patch for something like that
(not planning any abuse mind ;-)
But, if portmgr test my patch and find it works ok (for some value of
ok) for older releases, this probably isn't necessary?
It may still be useful though to provide an updated fmake via ports,
which could make it easier for folk to migrate other code bases.
The sed script to be applied to makefiles is trivial btw:
$ cat f2bmake.sed
/$.*:[UL][:)}]/ { s,:L,:tl,g;s,:U,:tu,g; }
$
I know the fix is trivial :)
I'm saying that it's unacceptable to expect people to change their
systems just to make the ports tree work after we have broken it on a
supposedly supported version.
Chris
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:44:36 -0500, Bryan Drewery writes: Could there be a make.conf/env setting to make bmake run AS pmake in full compat mode? On by default until all older branches are EoL, then it can flip and be optional. This has been mentioned before. Firstly, I have changed bmake behavior in a number of ways to better fit FreeBSD, but in each case I could justify the change to the NetBSD folk as well (or at least most of them ;-) The above idea though would require doing more violence to bmake's internals than I think is desirable, plus it would be counter productive. Today, you can test for defined(.PARSEDIR) and *know* if you have bmake or not, and if you have, how it behaves. If we start hacking compat modes and such to avoid changing, it would be more trouble that it is worth to try and make use of bmake in any meaningful way. The simpler implementation of this idea is to simply leave the old make in place. Or even via a symlink, whatever it is invoked as is what mode it runs in. This is more practical I think. Making /usr/bin/make - [fb]make ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:32:56 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
On 27 October 2012 18:27, Simon J. Gerraty s...@juniper.net wrote:
I've tested the ports tree converted to bmake - per the patch I
mentioned on a 7.1 box. It worked for me. Once the ports tree has
What about these?
[crees@pegasus]~% grep -n :\[LU] /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk | tee
/dev/tty | wc -l
1324:PORTVERSION=
${DISTVERSION:L:C/([a-z])[a-z]+/\1/g:C/([0-9])([a-z])/\1.\2/g:C/:(.)/\1/g:C/[^
a-z0-9+]+/./g}
1451:.if (defined(USE_QT_VER) ${USE_QT_VER:L} == 3) ||
defined(USE_KDELIBS_VER) || defined(USE_KDEBASE_VER)
I'm not sure I follow, that tree has not been patched.
If it were:
$ grep -l '$.*:[UL][:)}]' Mk/*mk
$
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:23:29 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
We (ab)use the security update mechanism to merge the pmake changes
(:tl and :tu) into releng/7.4 and releng/8.3 (possibly the earlier
I originally provided the :tl and :tu patch for something like that
(not planning any abuse mind ;-)
But, if portmgr test my patch and find it works ok (for some value of
ok) for older releases, this probably isn't necessary?
It may still be useful though to provide an updated fmake via ports,
which could make it easier for folk to migrate other code bases.
The sed script to be applied to makefiles is trivial btw:
$ cat f2bmake.sed
/$.*:[UL][:)}]/ { s,:L,:tl,g;s,:U,:tu,g; }
$
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Porting patch(1) from NetBSD to FreeBSD (was Re: FreeBSD in Google Code-In 2012? You can help too!)
[removing the CC list] On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org wrote: (cc'ing -ports and cutting most of the rest) From: Eitan Adler . On 24 October 2012 13:24, Fernando Apesteguía wrote: Also related to that, what about writing a section about redports[1] in the porter's handbook[2]? This is a good documentation task... but we need more *coding* tasks as well. We do need to port and test patch (1) from NetBSD or DragonFly to replace GNU patch, and this shouldn't be difficult. Hi Pedro / List, I am not part of google summer of code but I've tried to port patch(1) from NetBSD into FreeBSD head. I hope that is okay. Patching was trivial and It _seems_ to be working fine. I would appreciate any ideas around how to test the changes and how to proceed further. Thanks, Hiren ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:53:56 +0100, Chris Rees writes: I'm saying that it's unacceptable to expect people to change their systems just to make the ports tree work after we have broken it on a supposedly supported version. But there's no suggestion of that. The ports tree would take care of itself. The comment about fixing makefiles refered to the concern about things outside of base/ports. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Porting patch(1) from NetBSD to FreeBSD (was Re: FreeBSD in Google Code-In 2012? You can help too!)
On 27 October 2012 22:17, hiren panchasara hiren.panchas...@gmail.com wrote: [removing the CC list] On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org wrote: (cc'ing -ports and cutting most of the rest) From: Eitan Adler . On 24 October 2012 13:24, Fernando Apesteguía wrote: Also related to that, what about writing a section about redports[1] in the porter's handbook[2]? This is a good documentation task... but we need more *coding* tasks as well. We do need to port and test patch (1) from NetBSD or DragonFly to replace GNU patch, and this shouldn't be difficult. Hi Pedro / List, I am not part of google summer of code but I've tried to port patch(1) from NetBSD into FreeBSD head. I hope that is okay. Patching was trivial and It _seems_ to be working fine. I would appreciate any ideas around how to test the changes and how to proceed further. Have you a patch :)? You're right, there shouldn't have been many changes needed. Chris ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Porting patch(1) from NetBSD to FreeBSD (was Re: FreeBSD in Google Code-In 2012? You can help too!)
+ Sean, who has been helping me. On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Chris Rees cr...@freebsd.org wrote: On 27 October 2012 22:17, hiren panchasara hiren.panchas...@gmail.com wrote: [removing the CC list] On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org wrote: (cc'ing -ports and cutting most of the rest) From: Eitan Adler . On 24 October 2012 13:24, Fernando Apesteguía wrote: Also related to that, what about writing a section about redports[1] in the porter's handbook[2]? This is a good documentation task... but we need more *coding* tasks as well. We do need to port and test patch (1) from NetBSD or DragonFly to replace GNU patch, and this shouldn't be difficult. Hi Pedro / List, I am not part of google summer of code but I've tried to port patch(1) from NetBSD into FreeBSD head. I hope that is okay. Patching was trivial and It _seems_ to be working fine. I would appreciate any ideas around how to test the changes and how to proceed further. Have you a patch :)? You're right, there shouldn't have been many changes needed. Will prepare a patch and post here as soon as I get a chance :-) Thanks, Hiren ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Porting patch(1) from NetBSD to FreeBSD (was Re: FreeBSD in Google Code-In 2012? You can help too!)
Hello Hiren; On 10/27/2012 16:48, hiren panchasara wrote: + Sean, who has been helping me. On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Chris Rees cr...@freebsd.org mailto:cr...@freebsd.org wrote: On 27 October 2012 22:17, hiren panchasara hiren.panchas...@gmail.com mailto:hiren.panchas...@gmail.com wrote: [removing the CC list] On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org mailto:p...@freebsd.org wrote: (cc'ing -ports and cutting most of the rest) From: Eitan Adler . On 24 October 2012 13:24, Fernando Apesteguía wrote: Also related to that, what about writing a section about redports[1] in the porter's handbook[2]? This is a good documentation task... but we need more *coding* tasks as well. We do need to port and test patch (1) from NetBSD or DragonFly to replace GNU patch, and this shouldn't be difficult. Hi Pedro / List, I am not part of google summer of code but I've tried to port patch(1) from NetBSD into FreeBSD head. I hope that is okay. Patching was trivial and It _seems_ to be working fine. I would appreciate any ideas around how to test the changes and how to proceed further. Have you a patch :)? You're right, there shouldn't have been many changes needed. Will prepare a patch and post here as soon as I get a chance :-) This is great news Hiren, Thanks! The stress test for this utility is the ports tree but before that we have to know what will change. What needs to be done is: 1- Compare the options between our old patch and the new BSD patch. 2- Document this in FreeBSD's wiki. 3- Prepare a port for testing. Unfortunately I will be very busy for more than a month and I can't help much but I am sure some other committer will love to follow on this. Thanks for taking the initiative, that's what FreeBSD needs! Pedro. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Installing make as pmake when WITH_BMAKE specified (was Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program)
Can someone please explain to me what the original reason is for causing such ridiculously large, far reaching issues? And why people seem to be in a really, really big rush for it? Adrian ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: How to boot FreeBSD and linux from FreeBSD MBR?
On 10/27/2012 02:42, matt wrote: This means you have grub2. It is slow as molasses and has to be the mbr. You could chainload freebsd's partition under a separate entry, like Windows The partition bootcode for FreeBSD will boot it from there. You can also boot loader or kernel directly from grub, your choice. So you are saying I can't keep BSD MBR and boot linux from under it when linux uses grub2? Is it still possible to still use lilo? I vaguely remember that it used to work like this. Yuri ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Porting patch(1) from NetBSD to FreeBSD (was Re: FreeBSD in Google Code-In 2012? You can help too!)
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org wrote: Hello Hiren; On 10/27/2012 16:48, hiren panchasara wrote: + Sean, who has been helping me. On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Chris Rees cr...@freebsd.org wrote: On 27 October 2012 22:17, hiren panchasara hiren.panchas...@gmail.com wrote: [removing the CC list] On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org wrote: (cc'ing -ports and cutting most of the rest) From: Eitan Adler . On 24 October 2012 13:24, Fernando Apesteguía wrote: Also related to that, what about writing a section about redports[1] in the porter's handbook[2]? This is a good documentation task... but we need more *coding* tasks as well. We do need to port and test patch (1) from NetBSD or DragonFly to replace GNU patch, and this shouldn't be difficult. Hi Pedro / List, I am not part of google summer of code but I've tried to port patch(1) from NetBSD into FreeBSD head. I hope that is okay. Patching was trivial and It _seems_ to be working fine. I would appreciate any ideas around how to test the changes and how to proceed further. Have you a patch :)? You're right, there shouldn't have been many changes needed. Will prepare a patch and post here as soon as I get a chance :-) This is great news Hiren, Thanks! The stress test for this utility is the ports tree but before that we have to know what will change. Thanks Pedro! I will have a lot of questions as I am a newbie here. :-) What needs to be done is: 1- Compare the options between our old patch and the new BSD patch. Will do. 2- Document this in FreeBSD's wiki. I think this needs to be done when we are done deciding on diffs and how the changes look, right? Also, I do not think I have write access to the wiki. 3- Prepare a port for testing. Does this need to be a port? I thought this would live in /src/usr.bin/patch. Also, I believe this will co-exist with current gnu patch(1). Is that a right assumption? Thank you, Hiren Unfortunately I will be very busy for more than a month and I can't help much but I am sure some other committer will love to follow on this. Thanks for taking the initiative, that's what FreeBSD needs! Pedro. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Porting patch(1) from NetBSD to FreeBSD (was Re: FreeBSD in Google Code-In 2012? You can help too!)
Hi; On 10/27/2012 22:08, hiren panchasara wrote: On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org mailto:p...@freebsd.org wrote: Hello Hiren; On 10/27/2012 16:48, hiren panchasara wrote: ... This is great news Hiren, Thanks! The stress test for this utility is the ports tree but before that we have to know what will change. Thanks Pedro! I will have a lot of questions as I am a newbie here. :-) What needs to be done is: 1- Compare the options between our old patch and the new BSD patch. Will do. 2- Document this in FreeBSD's wiki. I think this needs to be done when we are done deciding on diffs and how the changes look, right? Also, I do not think I have write access to the wiki. Well, I am hoping that we don't have to do any hacking on patch to be acceptable but having a table like this would be nice: http://wiki.freebsd.org/SOC2010BenFiedler This is mandatory though, just planning ahead. http://wiki.freebsd.org/SOC2010BenFiedler 3- Prepare a port for testing. Does this need to be a port? I thought this would live in /src/usr.bin/patch. Also, I believe this will co-exist with current gnu patch(1). Is that a right assumption? We like to be safe and having it in the ports tree makes it easier to test it on all FreeBSD versions and platforms before it finds it's way into the base system. I know this sounds like a long tedious process but we have a reputation to take care of ;). Creating a new port of this is really easy though; you can probably start with the bsd sort port as a template and check porter's handbook if there is any doubt. Let us know if you need to a place to put of the tarball. Pedro. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Porting patch(1) from NetBSD to FreeBSD (was Re: FreeBSD in Google Code-In 2012? You can help too!)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, On 10/27/12 2:17 PM, hiren panchasara wrote: [removing the CC list] On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org wrote: (cc'ing -ports and cutting most of the rest) From: Eitan Adler . On 24 October 2012 13:24, Fernando Apesteguía wrote: Also related to that, what about writing a section about redports[1] in the porter's handbook[2]? This is a good documentation task... but we need more *coding* tasks as well. We do need to port and test patch (1) from NetBSD or DragonFly to replace GNU patch, and this shouldn't be difficult. Hi Pedro / List, I am not part of google summer of code but I've tried to port patch(1) from NetBSD into FreeBSD head. I hope that is okay. Patching was trivial and It _seems_ to be working fine. I would appreciate any ideas around how to test the changes and how to proceed further. I've a version of OpenBSD patch(1) at: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/user/delphij/patch/ But I don't have much time to work on it lately, so I wouldn't mind if someone more energized to take over the lead :) Note that if this is intended to replace the current FreeBSD half-GNU patch(1), please make sure that the features are all in your version before proceeding. Cheers, -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJQjLx4AAoJEG80Jeu8UPuzfsgIAKRpxxX2+KYHeHNCiFOVOyd4 V39XPaVocxHajjtGagWTZ4VfFWKhWMwz2vl94wjApkBpDGpE6Vt6/17g8xyAZJ4a krNF+TobXR2LFjUffDgKBNwouwqxnaPk1fm3M0+HJJPCc+O79Im5pEZfOf3J1atV k4Z2qliYjphPXUFjq/6+vUWPt2N35OyxQAtDJrRWGD6j8sKE/uzmGF4jIKibY0Sx Z5wx3q06xdXpvHFFqKU7AZvTu0Jz22S2MEMTV+0OJdOAka8BDWsM9UwIlSdD90VT VgWjv3M0+eZLa7vxhXEzEw/uLfeDsBmuT7zq6CUHFRaMvVGLN99yZu97tpwvy6E= =sHUs -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
