As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in the
FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users about
ports that are marked as "forbidden" in their Makefiles. Often,
these ports are so marked due to security concerns, such as known
exploits.
An overview of each port, inclu
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 09:35:53AM +0900, oyaaji wrote:
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I have received following e-mail.
> However I am not a port maintainer and never was.
Apparently this was sent to a mailing list:
> To: v...@freebsd.org
mcl
___
freebsd-port
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:53:17PM +1000, Dylan Leigh wrote:
> Don't know anything about staging yet but I will take maintainership
> and do it if noone else is willing to save the port.
If you're not familiar with port maintainership, here are the best
places to start:
http://www.freebsd.org/d
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 08:20:52PM +0200, Eric Masson wrote:
> I don't use lpr-wrapper anymore, it seems to me that lpr-wrapper & psdim
> have been superseded by P. Selinger's upprint :
> http://www.mathstat.dal.ca/~selinger/upprint/
>
> Thanks for resetting maintainer, please.
Done, thanks.
mcl
On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 12:42:27AM +0200, John Marino wrote:
> The next time you are right will be the first time. [...] You are being
> ridiculed because you're a boor and consistently wrong, which is not a
> good combination.
None of the above represents what I think FreeBSD ought to be about.
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in the
FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users about
ports that are marked as "forbidden" in their Makefiles. Often,
these ports are so marked due to security concerns, such as known
exploits.
An overview of each port, inclu
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 04:10:03PM -0400, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
> Not to get too far off topic but as a life long east coaster (except
> for a short sojourn in the flatlands of Kansas), and being old
> enough to know better, that is not "normal" east coast chiding.
> Maybe that's normal northeast tal
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 01:50:23PM -0700, Eitan Adler wrote:
> > I don't concede killing anonymous means killing trivial bug reporting,
> > but if that was the case: Oh well, I guess we have to focus on
> > non-trivial bugs.
>
> Trivial bugs are important too.
I'll echo eadler a bit here, but wit
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 10:59:54PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> Well, I didn't mean *via* email, but specifying a valid email address
> in a web form. This could be done using the old web form on freebsd.org
> and using an email verification loop
Hmm. Well, I think we're really hoping to deorbi
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:11:29AM -0700, Eitan Adler wrote:
> What about bug followups via email? That one won't be supported for a
> bit as we get used to bugzilla. It certainly on the cards to support
> in the future.
I initially thought this would be a problem for me, but even in 24 hours
of
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 08:09:36AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> I forgot I had the DOCS option unset as it was unset ages ago
> and updates have always worked. The question is "why are changes
> to a port committed without proper testing?" Yes, "proper
> testing" should include testing of the effe
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in the
FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users about
ports that are marked as "forbidden" in their Makefiles. Often,
these ports are so marked due to security concerns, such as known
exploits.
An overview of each port, inclu
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in the
FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users about
ports that are marked as "forbidden" in their Makefiles. Often,
these ports are so marked due to security concerns, such as known
exploits.
An overview of each port, inclu
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
>From UPDATING:
20140327:
AFFECTS: users of lang/php5 and lang/php55 with Apache module
AUTHOR: a...@freebsd.org
The Apache PHP module has been separated from the main PHP port.
If you had the APACHE OPTION selected, you have to perform the
following steps:
1) update your lang/php* o
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in the
FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users about
ports that are marked as "forbidden" in their Makefiles. Often,
these ports are so marked due to security concerns, such as known
exploits.
An overview of each port, inclu
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
Other useful resources:
http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portoverview.py?category=devel&portname=tex-kpathsea
http://www.freshports.org/devel/tex-kpathsea
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in the
FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users about
ports that are marked as "forbidden" in their Makefiles. Often,
these ports are so marked due to security concerns, such as known
exploits.
An overview of each port, inclu
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in the
FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users about
ports that are marked as "forbidden" in their Makefiles. Often,
these ports are so marked due to security concerns, such as known
exploits.
An overview of each port, inclu
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 11:34:29AM +0100, John Marino wrote:
> Don't dish it out if you don't want a response.
The fact that you want to put it in these terms tells me everything I
need to know.
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://list
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 09:39:42AM +0100, John Marino wrote:
> *this* is a crappy attitude though.
No, that's the sound of burnout.
IMVHO, one of the contributing factors to burnout is exactly this kind
of email. It was certainly the case in my decision to step back over a
year ago.
I appreciat
Synopsis: net/boinc-client broken with OPTIMIZE
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-ports->freebsd-ports-bugs
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Sat Mar 29 05:00:29 UTC 2014
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Canonicalize assignment.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:58:16PM +, Big Lebowski wrote:
> There's already my PR with that update hanging around for quite some
> time... http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=185896
>
> How come mine can hang for so long, while other one is being accepted and
> processed quite quickly?
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in the
FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users about
ports that are marked as "forbidden" in their Makefiles. Often,
these ports are so marked due to security concerns, such as known
exploits.
An overview of each port, inclu
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
Currently there are 1973 ports PR; AFAICR, an all-time high.
Many of these are attempting to fix existing ports (1608), particularly,
problems with clang and staging.
These numbers are overwhelming. You can see the full count at:
http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portsoverall.py
All I can recommen
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in the
FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users about
ports that are marked as "forbidden" in their Makefiles. Often,
these ports are so marked due to security concerns, such as known
exploits.
An overview of each port, inclu
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 08:51:38AM +0200, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> The porter's handbook states that the "package building logs and
> errors" would be found at http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/ but the site
> is not working. Where are the package building logs now?
The porter's handbook is stale. poin
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 03:19:10PM +0100, Guido Falsi wrote:
> First of all you can look here:
>
> http://portscout.freebsd.org/po...@freebsd.org.html
>
> This is a list of unmaintained ports, with highlight for the ones
> needing to be updated.
Another tool is portsmon, which cross-references p
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in the
FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users about
ports that are marked as "forbidden" in their Makefiles. Often,
these ports are so marked due to security concerns, such as known
exploits.
An overview of each port, inclu
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
Synopsis: security/cyrus-sasl2-saslauthd erroneously asserts wrong openldap
version
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: linimon
State-Changed-When: Wed Oct 16 01:31:39 UTC 2013
State-Changed-Why:
Closed at submitter's request.
Responsible-Changed-From-To: ports-
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in the
FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users about
ports that are marked as "forbidden" in their Makefiles. Often,
these ports are so marked due to security concerns, such as known
exploits.
An overview of each port, inclu
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:05:52PM -0300, William Grzybowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Due to the bureaucracy involved its always best if you file a pr
> (send-pr(1)) reporting the issue. Unless a portmgr steps in to fix the
> problem.
It may seem like bureaucracy to folks, but it's a deliberately chosen
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 10:40:09PM +0700, Victor Sudakov wrote:
> Could you update the port please?
The best way to help with this is to file a PR; with the patches
(if you have already made them).
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://l
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically notify users of ports
that are marked as "broken" in their Makefiles. In many cases
these ports are failing to compile on some subset of the FreeBSD
build environments. The most common probl
As part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of problems in
the FreeBSD ports system, we periodically schedule removal of ports
that have been judged to have outlived their usefulness. Often,
this is due to a better alternative having become available and/or
the cessation of development on th
201 - 300 of 1353 matches
Mail list logo
