FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date

Dear port maintainer, The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate, submit/commit an update. If any ports have already been updated,

Re: Synth and circular dependencies

> On 31 August 2017 at 17:59, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > Now I've been busy, selecting port options to include in > > /usr/local/etc/synth/LiveSystem-make.conf > > but when I run "synth status gnumeric", I get > > Configuration invalid: [D] Port options directory:

Re: somebody typed the USES setting in /usr/ports/sysutils/screen?

In message , Randy Bush writes: > up to date 10.3 > up to date ports > > psg.com:/usr/ports/sysutils/screen# make config > make: "/usr/ports/Mk/Uses/ncurses.mk" line 84: USES=ncurses only accept 'port > ' and 'base' as arguments, got ports I'm sorry about that. Fixed

Re: somebody typed the USES setting in /usr/ports/sysutils/screen?

>> psg.com:/usr/ports/sysutils/screen# make config >> make: "/usr/ports/Mk/Uses/ncurses.mk" line 84: USES=ncurses only accept 'port >> ' and 'base' as arguments, got ports > > I'm sorry about that. Fixed in r449031. thanks! randy ___

Re: FYI: qemu-ppc64-static and qemu-ppc-static "live-hang" when I attempt use with poudriere; qemu-arm-static and qemu-aarch64-static work

[I show some of the target/ppc/translate.c source code and related material this time. Not that I know enough to patch it correctly.] On 2017-Aug-31, at 12:13 PM, Mark Millard wrote: > [Turns out that the emulated program counter is not progressing > for syscall emulation, at least for [some]

Re: standard locations for port files

Adam Weinberger wrote: On 31 Aug, 2017, at 9:07, Ernie Luzar wrote: Lets say I have a product that I want to port to Freebsd. Were is the standard location for the log file and PID file. Would it be in /usr/local/etc/product/product.log /usr/local/etc/product/product.pid

standard locations for port files

Lets say I have a product that I want to port to Freebsd. Were is the standard location for the log file and PID file. Would it be in /usr/local/etc/product/product.log /usr/local/etc/product/product.pid or /var/log/product.log /var/run/product.pid

Re: standard locations for port files

> On 31 Aug, 2017, at 9:07, Ernie Luzar wrote: > > Lets say I have a product that I want to port to Freebsd. > > Were is the standard location for the log file and PID file. > > Would it be in > /usr/local/etc/product/product.log > /usr/local/etc/product/product.pid > > or

Re: standard locations for port files

Ernie Luzar wrote on 2017/08/31 17:07: Lets say I have a product that I want to port to Freebsd. Were is the standard location for the log file and PID file. Would it be in /usr/local/etc/product/product.log /usr/local/etc/product/product.pid or /var/log/product.log /var/run/product.pid

Re: standard locations for port files

31.08.2017 22:07, Ernie Luzar wrote: > Lets say I have a product that I want to port to Freebsd. > > Were is the standard location for the log file and PID file. > > Would it be in > /usr/local/etc/product/product.log > /usr/local/etc/product/product.pid > > or > > /var/log/product.log >

Re: standard locations for port files

Le 31/08/2017 à 17:25, Ernie Luzar a écrit : > Adam Weinberger wrote: >>> On 31 Aug, 2017, at 9:07, Ernie Luzar wrote: >>> >>> Lets say I have a product that I want to port to Freebsd. >>> >>> Were is the standard location for the log file and PID file. >>> >>> Would it be in

Re: standard locations for port files

[Default] On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:53:27 -0500, Adam Vande More wrote: >On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:41 PM, wrote: > >> Why wouldn't logs be in /usr/local/var/...? Given that all >> other port "stuff" is under /usr/local, what advantage is there >> in

Re: standard locations for port files

> On 31 Aug, 2017, at 13:54, > wrote: > > [Default] On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:53:27 -0500, Adam Vande More > wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:41 PM, wrote: >> >>> Why wouldn't logs be in

Re: standard locations for port files

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:41 PM, wrote: > Why wouldn't logs be in /usr/local/var/...? Given that all > other port "stuff" is under /usr/local, what advantage is there > in making logs an exception? > Because logs shouldn't be under /usr. man hier -- Adam

Re: standard locations for port files

Why wouldn't logs be in /usr/local/var/...? Given that all other port "stuff" is under /usr/local, what advantage is there in making logs an exception? [Default] On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:16:20 -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: >> On 31 Aug, 2017, at 9:07, Ernie Luzar

Re: standard locations for port files

> On 31 Aug, 2017, at 12:41, scratch65...@att.net wrote: > > Why wouldn't logs be in /usr/local/var/...? Given that all > other port "stuff" is under /usr/local, what advantage is there > in making logs an exception? > > [Default] On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:16:20 -0600, Adam Weinberger >

Re: FYI: qemu-ppc64-static and qemu-ppc-static "live-hang" when I attempt use with poudriere; qemu-arm-static and qemu-aarch64-static work

[Turns out that the emulated program counter is not progressing for syscall emulation, at least for syscall falure cases.] On 2017-Aug-30, at 8:43 PM, Mark Millard wrote: > On 2017-Aug-30, at 4:32 PM, Don Lewis wrote: > >> On 30 Aug, Mark Millard wrote: >>> On 2017-Aug-30, at 4:00 AM, Mark

Re: FYI: qemu-ppc64-static and qemu-ppc-static "live-hang" when I attempt use with poudriere; qemu-arm-static and qemu-aarch64-static work

[Just adding Sean Bruno in case the information is new to him. I top post a note for that.] Sean: The below reports on what I've found for what is happening for qemu-ppc64-static (and possibly others) when it gets stuck eating CPU time (and leaking memory), at least for the example I ran into

Re: standard locations for port files

On 1 September 2017 at 07:54, wrote: > [Default] On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:53:27 -0500, Adam Vande More > wrote: > >>On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:41 PM, wrote: >> >>> Why wouldn't logs be in /usr/local/var/...? Given that all >>>

Re: standard locations for port files

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:54:09 -0400 wrote: > [Default] On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:53:27 -0500, Adam Vande More > wrote: > > >On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:41 PM, wrote: > > > >> Why wouldn't logs be in /usr/local/var/...? Given

Re: standard locations for port files

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:54 PM, wrote: > [Default] On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:53:27 -0500, Adam Vande More > wrote: > > >On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:41 PM, wrote: > > > >> Why wouldn't logs be in /usr/local/var/...? Given that

Re: Synth and circular dependencies

On 31 August 2017 at 17:59, Thomas Mueller wrote: > Now I've been busy, selecting port options to include in > /usr/local/etc/synth/LiveSystem-make.conf > > but when I run "synth status gnumeric", I get > > Configuration invalid: [D] Port options directory: /var/db/ports > >

Re: Synth and circular dependencies

Now I've been busy, selecting port options to include in /usr/local/etc/synth/LiveSystem-make.conf but when I run "synth status gnumeric", I get Configuration invalid: [D] Port options directory: /var/db/ports so without a directory like /var/db/ports showing options derived from the ports

somebody typed the USES setting in /usr/ports/sysutils/screen?

up to date 10.3 up to date ports psg.com:/usr/ports/sysutils/screen# make config make: "/usr/ports/Mk/Uses/ncurses.mk" line 84: USES=ncurses only accept 'port' and 'base' as arguments, got ports ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list