Re: LICENSE documentation

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > This interpretation is based on the hypothesis that the user is located > in a country that has this kind of legal rule. > > This is not the case in every country, so your conclusion is not always > valid. What percentage of countries are signatories

Google Code as an upstream is gone

Hello, Google Code has been deprecated[1] since March 2015, and read-only since August 2015, giving time to software developers to move their development some place else. All the distribution files that still use solely googlecode.com as their source have been marked BROKEN today in r422140[2],

Re: What exactly are slave ports?

Le 14/09/2016 à 21:03, abi a écrit : > Hello, > > I want to add to existing port another one for the same program, but > with different git branch and (possibly) with slightly different > dependencies. Is this a good case for slave port ? > Slave ports are not documented in porter handbook and I'm

Re: What exactly are slave ports?

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:03 PM, abi wrote: > Hello, > > I want to add to existing port another one for the same program, but with > different git branch and (possibly) with slightly different dependencies. > Is this a good case for slave port ? > Slave ports are not documented

What exactly are slave ports?

Hello, I want to add to existing port another one for the same program, but with different git branch and (possibly) with slightly different dependencies. Is this a good case for slave port ? Slave ports are not documented in porter handbook and I'm not sure how they work and when used.

Re: n00b problem installing postfix package

On 2016-09-14 19:11, Bryan C. Everly wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to set up a new 10.3 server that includes postfix and > majordomo for a BUG I'm trying to get off the ground. I'm normally an > OpenBSD guy but I thought I'd give it a try on FreeBSD. > > Anyhow, I'm wanting to follow this guide:

Re: n00b problem installing postfix package

Thank you for the help! On Sep 14, 2016 2:45 PM, "olli hauer" wrote: > On 2016-09-14 19:11, Bryan C. Everly wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm trying to set up a new 10.3 server that includes postfix and > > majordomo for a BUG I'm trying to get off the ground. I'm normally an > >

Re: n00b problem installing postfix package

Bryan C. Everly wrote on 09/14/2016 19:11: Hi, I'm trying to set up a new 10.3 server that includes postfix and majordomo for a BUG I'm trying to get off the ground. I'm normally an OpenBSD guy but I thought I'd give it a try on FreeBSD. Anyhow, I'm wanting to follow this guide:

n00b problem installing postfix package

Hi, I'm trying to set up a new 10.3 server that includes postfix and majordomo for a BUG I'm trying to get off the ground. I'm normally an OpenBSD guy but I thought I'd give it a try on FreeBSD. Anyhow, I'm wanting to follow this guide:

Las 5´s de la Calidad Total Japonesa

En línea y en Vivo / Para todo su Equipo con una sola Conexión Las 5´s de la CALIDAD TOTAL JAPONESA Y cómo ponerlo en marcha HOY en su compañía 28 de septiembre - Online en Vivo - 10:00 a 13:00 y de 15:00 a 18:00 Hrs Conozca las cinco reglas japonesas que revolucionaron el concepto

Re: LICENSE documentation

Hi! > On 2016-09-14 11:49, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > >> [...] > >> the license. If no license statement can be found in the sources or the > >> website, then no permission is given, and it's technically illegal for > >> anyone but the author(s) to use the software. > > This is not the case in every

Mariadb101 does compile on i386 if use gcc

While working through my ports' patches to revert the local changes for libressl [Thanks to John Marino, your ssl commits are appreciated :) ], I came across this for /usr/ports/databases/mariadb101-server/Makefile -NOT_FOR_ARCHS= i386 -NOT_FOR_ARCHS_REASON= currently does not compile on

Re: LICENSE documentation

On 2016-09-14 11:49, Kurt Jaeger wrote: >> My interpretation of this phrase is not that LICENSE variable is >> mandatory (to which I would object on the basis that ports licensing >> framework is vague, incomplete, and apparently used by noone too), but >> rather that for the program to be freely

Re: LICENSE documentation

Hi! > On 2016-09-14 10:19, Bob Eager wrote: > > This port never did have LICENSE, and it had been updated recently with > > no issues. However, I was told that "I don't see any mention of any > > kind of license in the package or on the site, so it should be > > LICENSE= NONE. Note that without

Re: LICENSE documentation

On 2016-09-14 10:19, Bob Eager wrote: > This port never did have LICENSE, and it had been updated recently with > no issues. However, I was told that "I don't see any mention of any > kind of license in the package or on the site, so it should be > LICENSE= NONE. Note that without clear licensing

Re: LICENSE documentation

Hi! > I recently had a minor patch (to one of the ports I maintain) bounced > because I hadn't specified a LICENSE. > > This port never did have LICENSE, and it had been updated recently with > no issues. However, I was told that "I don't see any mention of any > kind of license in the package

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,

LICENSE documentation

I recently had a minor patch (to one of the ports I maintain) bounced because I hadn't specified a LICENSE. This port never did have LICENSE, and it had been updated recently with no issues. However, I was told that "I don't see any mention of any kind of license in the package or on the site, so