Re: DoveCot 2.3

On Mar 07 09:17, The Doctor wrote: What are the hold ups for Dovecot 2.3 ? You, constantly asking this list why they haven't upgraded any ports to the latest versions but not actually providing any patches yourself to help the volunteers do this more quickly. -- Matt

Re: Call for help: www/nginx and 3rd party module

On Feb 21 17:18, Jochen Neumeister wrote: Which 3rd party modules do you use, which the port itself provides? This type of thing may be better suited for an online webpage type survey rather than potentially getting lots of posts to the mailing list with similar things? I always use and

Re: All those notes...

On Jan 08 14:44, Dave Horsfall wrote: Why would /usr/local/etc/apache24/httpd.conf need to be removed if not needed? Surely as I've just upgraded it, I might want it? The notes are for people installing the port/package for the very first time or for people removing the package. It's telling

Re: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

On Oct 02 11:51, Don Lewis wrote: Yes, but at least the poudriere jail doesn't build the kernel bits. The real pain point is that when you update the jail, the next bulk package build will toss all the previously built packages and force a full rebuild from scratch. That makes sense if you

Re: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

On Oct 02 20:01, Marco Beishuizen wrote: On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, the wise Don Lewis wrote: Yes it can. If you use the svn method when creating a jail you can chose any arbitrary source branch from the svn repository and then you can specify any desired svn revision on that branch when you

Re: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

On Oct 02 12:05, Vlad K. wrote: On 2017-10-02 11:57, abi wrote: 2. Dependency chain is not updated - if I disable B feature on port A, poudriere asks me for options of ports implementing B. I have to Ctrl+C after any option change. I find that annoying as well, but isn't that just how

Re: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

On Oct 02 09:07, Carmel NY wrote: On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 23:49:14 +0100, Matthew Seaman stated: On 01/10/2017 11:34, Carmel NY wrote: 1. Does it determine out-of-date update packages automatically or does the user have to determine that what is out-of-date and feed them to poudriere manually and

Re: Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

On Sep 29 20:23, Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! What is one officially supposed to use to build and upgrade packages from source? I doubt that we already have a 'official' consensus, but buildung using poudriere, while expensive from the hardware resource point of view, looks to me as the most

Re: synth install ... builds but does not always install named packages

On Sep 15 08:23, Thomas Mueller wrote: In some cases, the named packages failed to install the first time (math/gnumeric and editors/abiword), and in other cases desired dependencies didn't install (devel/nasm and sysutils/coreutils, for instance). I need some of those build dependencies for

Re: synth install ... builds but does not always install named packages

On Sep 15 07:34, Thomas Mueller wrote: I am building up a system (FreeBSD 11.1-STABLE amd64) using synth, but even when the packages build and appear in /var/synth/live_packages/All , some of the packages don't install. When I type "which gnumeric", "which bison", "which abiword", I just get

Re: Pkg does not upgrade if more than one repository is defined

On Jul 28 11:40, Miroslav Lachman wrote: Matthias Fechner wrote on 2017/07/28 10:55: Dear all, I have a problem with pkg and I'm not sure if it is a bug in pkg or a configuration issue. I work on new version on ports which are in a separate poudriere repository (to be able to easily test it).

Re: What to do when the port fails in poudriere with "Too many open files" ?

On Jun 28 22:38, Yuri wrote: I have the port that builds fine without poudriere, but in poudriere it always fails with "Too many open files". This happens during the Java build. Where is the limit set in jail? /etc/login.conf doesn't have any limit. What to do in such case? Maybe there is

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Jun 23 08:02, scratch65...@att.net wrote: On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:36:19 +0200, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15: [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at

Re: Keeping -CURRENT up to date with Poudriere

On Jun 19 23:14, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: On Jun 19, 2017, at 20:24, Ben Lavery-Griffiths wrote: Thanks very much, I’ll look into doing similar. What I do is to have STABLE and CURRENT jails using the svn method. Then "poudriere jail -u" takes care of the update.

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Dec 08 05:16, Daniil Berendeev wrote: Although portmaster is not releated to the FreeBSD project and is an outside tool, there aren't any alternatives from the project itself. So use it or die. Not a nice situation. People have been trying to get portmaster deprecated and removed from the

Re: lighttpd does not pull OpenSSL dependency

On Oct 27 16:22, Matt Smith wrote: I don't see this on my system which is FreeBSD 11.0-STABLE #0 r307132 $ ldd /usr/local/sbin/ntpd | grep -E '(crypto|ssl)' libcrypto.so.38 => /usr/local/lib/libcrypto.so.38 (0x800cee000) libssl.so.39 => /usr/local/lib/libssl.so.39 (0x801aca000) Oh neve

Re: lighttpd does not pull OpenSSL dependency

On Oct 27 10:00, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 03:05:03PM +0200 I heard the voice of Mathieu Arnold, and lo! it spake thus: Once you install openssl from ports, the ports framework will use it, always. That is absolutely not the case since OpenSSL in base was updated to

Re: Upcoming OpenSSL 1.1.0 release

On Aug 24 21:18, Bernard Spil wrote: Today new vulnerabilities with (3)DES and BlowFish were made public and I believe we'll see release of another paper which is OpenSSL 1.1 related with the release of OpenSSL 1.1.0. I have no knowledge if the paper/report contained vulnerabilities that have

Re: Upcoming OpenSSL 1.1.0 release

On Aug 23 12:19, Roger Marquis wrote: Matt Smith wrote: Going slightly off-topic, I'm curious what the opinion is around this and LibreSSL. My organization evaluated this a few months ago and after a few diffs and code reviews decided that libressl was the future. We updated poudriere

Re: Upcoming OpenSSL 1.1.0 release

On Aug 22 20:39, Mathieu Arnold wrote: ports-committers is a *NEVER POST DIRECTLY TO* list, so, moving it to ports@ where this belongs a lot more. +--On 22 août 2016 20:30:15 +0200 Bernard Spil wrote: | Curious to know how we should procede with the upgrade of the OpenSSL |

Re: pkg updating -d broken?

On May 26 21:53, Alphons van Werven wrote: Matt Smith via freebsd-ports wrote: Anybody else notice that pkg updating -d has been broken for a while? Or is it just me? # grep 2016 /usr/ports/UPDATING | head -4 20160526: 20160525: 20160523: 20160511: # pkg updating -d 20160523 Just

pkg updating -d broken?

Anybody else notice that pkg updating -d has been broken for a while? Or is it just me? # grep 2016 /usr/ports/UPDATING | head -4 20160526: 20160525: 20160523: 20160511: # pkg updating -d 20160523 # -- Matt ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: mail/postfix and mail/postfix-current need upgrading

On Feb 26 18:48, olli hauer wrote: In some weeks 3.1.x will become the default postfix, and 3.0.x will be removed from the tree, postfix211 will stay as the last postfix 2.x releases and current will become again current. There are some users using VDA patches, only available for postfix 2.8

Re: PHP7 + Synth issue

On Feb 17 15:05, Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! > The long term solution will be switching to mysqli or pdo_mysql which is > provided by php70 (and php55/56), I am working right now on cleaning up > the pecl ports, after that I'll go and check which port can switch already. The problem with that

Re: PHP7 + Synth issue

On Feb 17 14:16, John Marino wrote: It seems like a problem with comms/atslog to me. You can work around it now by removing MYSQL as a default option for that port (either modifying the port itself or adding something in -make.conf to change it) atslog is not maintained. Another option is

PHP7 + Synth issue

Hi guys, I'm using the ports-mgmt/synth package builder to build my packages. I just tried to build all of the packages for PHP7 from the new ports and came across an issue. If I set php=7.0 in DEFAULT_VERSIONS in the LiveSystem-make.conf (make.conf) then Synth bails out and refuses to build

Re: Removing documentation (was: [Bug 206922] Handbook: Chapter 4.5+ changes)

On Feb 11 22:25, Lev Serebryakov wrote: On 07.02.2016 17:28, John Marino wrote: ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing portmaster can do that Synth can't. (honestly) Be installed FROM PORTS without all this build-one-more-gcc stuff. Ada? For *port*management* tool? Are

Re: Removal of $UNIQUENAME

On Aug 18 22:49, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: It would have been nice to have some kind of announcement about the removal of $UNIQUENAME. I for example was depending on it in my make.conf with declarations like these: vim_SET= CONSOLE vim_UNSET= GTK2 RUBY TCL I can of course rewrite those now using

Re: OpenSSL Security Advisory [11 Jun 2015]

On Jun 13 13:13, Michelle Sullivan wrote: Don Lewis wrote: On 13 Jun, Michelle Sullivan wrote: SSH would be the biggie that most security departments are scared of... Well, ssh is available in ports, though I haven't checked to see that it picks up the correct version of openssl.

ports/base ntpd rc.d script with WITHOUT_NTP=yes

Hi, I just upgraded my server to 10.1-STABLE r281264 and when I ran mergemaster it told me that /etc/rc.d/ntpd was stale and would I like to delete it. It's never done this before. I've figured out it's because I have WITHOUT_NTP=yes in /etc/src.conf. I did this because I use the ports

Re: BIND REPLACE_BASE option

On Jan 14 12:15, Mathieu Arnold wrote: Well, like I said, REPLACE_BASE was an abomination that should never have existed, now that it's gone, it'll never get back, and you'll never see it again. Doug Barton who used to maintain BIND in both the base system and the port used to always say

Re: BIND REPLACE_BASE option

On Jan 14 13:30, Michelle Sullivan wrote: Matt Smith wrote: Doug Barton who used to maintain BIND in both the base system and the port used to always say that the version in the base system was only designed to be used as a local resolver on a laptop/desktop. If it was used as a proper DNS

Re: gnupg-2.1 - 2.1 appears to break decryption of saved messages

On Jan 07 07:49, Corey Halpin wrote: On 2014-11-20, David Wolfskill wrote: It has been my practice for several years to email sensitive information (such as passwords) to myself via envrypted email, using mutt and GPG. [...] Then, a few minutes ago, I tried to retrieve a password from one of

Re: gnupg pinentry

On Dec 23 07:44, Mark Felder wrote: It looks as though it would be feasible to write an extremely lightweight pinentry-compatible program to depend on so we can kill the dependency bloat and have a simple shell-based password entry option. Anyone up for a weekend challenge? :-) There has

Re: gnupg pinentry

On Dec 22 22:33, Jonathan Chen wrote: Hi, Once upon a time, installing gnupg didn't require pinentry, and I could run it quite happily on the command line. However, nowadays if I install the port it drags in pinentry and a whole set of graphical libraries that I don't really need on a headless

Re: Unbound/NSD rc startup order

On Dec 12 12:07, Mathieu Arnold wrote: +--On 12 décembre 2014 05:00:00 -0600 Scot Hetzel swhet...@gmail.com wrote: | On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Darren Pilgrim | list_free...@bluerosetech.com wrote | On 12/11/2014 11:53 PM, Matt Smith wrote: | | Somebody has let me know that I made

Unbound/NSD rc startup order

Hi, I have run Unbound and NSD for a long time and everything was working fine until the recent 1.5.x update for Unbound. Now if I reboot my server I get DNSSEC validation errors for my own local domain until I restart Unbound once again. I believe this is possibly related to the rc startup

Re: Unbound/NSD rc startup order

On Dec 11 10:51, Matt Smith wrote: Hi, I have run Unbound and NSD for a long time and everything was working fine until the recent 1.5.x update for Unbound. Now if I reboot my server I get DNSSEC validation errors for my own local domain until I restart Unbound once again. I believe

Re: Why was ispell removed?

On Dec 01 13:58, Stephen Fisher wrote: I recently noticed that the ispell port has been removed in favor of the aspell-ispell port (ispell compatibility script for aspell). Does anyone know why it was removed? All I see on Fresh Ports is that it was deprecated and finally removed in