Re: FreeBSD Port: sysutils/zrep / ksh93

[Konstantin Belousov]

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 04:29:40AM +0200, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > >>> can you please update port sysutils/zrep to current version?
> > >>> GitHup repo https://github.com/bolthole/zrep has version 1.7.1 with many
> > >>> fixes and improvements.
> > >>
> > >> Hm, it looks like zrep depends on shells/ksh93, which is missing
> > >> from all MASTER_SITES. Do you still have the ksh93 distfile at hand ?
> > >
> > > Ups, it is strange, I installed zrep and ksh93 about one week ago
> > > without problem.
> > >
> > > Sure, I have these files:
> > >
> > > # ll /vol0/poudriere/distfiles/ksh93/*
> > > -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel   383979 May 24  2013
> > > /vol0/poudriere/distfiles/ksh93/INIT.2013-05-24.tgz
> > > -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  2053532 Aug  7  2012
> > > /vol0/poudriere/distfiles/ksh93/ast-ksh.2012-08-01.tgz
> > >
> > > Should I post them somewhere?
> 
> Yes, please.
> 
> > Regarding to unavailable original sources... I found this discussion
> > https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/246338/is-the-shell-ksh93-dead
> > 
> > Maybe it's time to move to another version of ksh:
> > 1) OpenBSD maintained version
> > http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/bin/ksh/
> > 2) GitHub clone of AT version ksh93
> > https://github.com/att/ast/tree/master/src/cmd/ksh93
> 
> Patches to update the ksh93 port to use one of those so are very welcome!
pdksh (and its OpenBSD update) is quite different from the authentic ksh93.
I think that only the github' att/ast variant is feasible as a replacement.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

svn error: node conflict in /usr/ports/x11/xcb-proto/files

[Thomas Mueller]

On this computer, I can't get /usr/ports/x11/xcb-proto/files: 

Skipped 'files' -- Node remains in conflict 
At revision 439134. 
Summary of conflicts:   
  Skipped paths: 1  

On other computer, this directory downloads successfully with svn.

I even tried downloading with lynx and with w3m, but these text-mode browsers 
compress (gzip) the downloaded file, and I can't see how to avoid this.  I used 
to be able to download with lynx, and downloaded file was the same as on the 
server; lynx would never compress it gratuitously.

This is an old installation, needs to be updated when I can get to it after 
some other tasks.

svn --version shows
svn, version 1.8.8 (r1568071)   
   compiled Mar 24 2014, 09:58:59 on amd64-portbld-freebsd11.0 

uname -a shows

FreeBSD amelia2 11.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #1 r286653M: Wed Aug 12 
15:25:51 UTC 2015 root@amelia2:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SANDY11NC-NDIS  amd64

I wonder about the error message.  It recurs even if I rmdir the files 
directory and run "svn up ." again.

Could it be something going bad with this Western Digital 3 TB hard drive?

Old Xorg installation no longer works, crashes the computer immediately, so I 
can't use graphic browser unless I go to NetBSD installation that also sorely 
needs updating.  But maybe that subversion might work, onless it's something 
bad with the hard drive or some glitch with the server (but then why was it OK 
on the other computer?)

Tom

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: FreeBSD Port: sysutils/zrep / ksh93

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> >>> can you please update port sysutils/zrep to current version?
> >>> GitHup repo https://github.com/bolthole/zrep has version 1.7.1 with many
> >>> fixes and improvements.
> >>
> >> Hm, it looks like zrep depends on shells/ksh93, which is missing
> >> from all MASTER_SITES. Do you still have the ksh93 distfile at hand ?
> >
> > Ups, it is strange, I installed zrep and ksh93 about one week ago
> > without problem.
> >
> > Sure, I have these files:
> >
> > # ll /vol0/poudriere/distfiles/ksh93/*
> > -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel   383979 May 24  2013
> > /vol0/poudriere/distfiles/ksh93/INIT.2013-05-24.tgz
> > -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  2053532 Aug  7  2012
> > /vol0/poudriere/distfiles/ksh93/ast-ksh.2012-08-01.tgz
> >
> > Should I post them somewhere?

Yes, please.

> Regarding to unavailable original sources... I found this discussion
> https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/246338/is-the-shell-ksh93-dead
> 
> Maybe it's time to move to another version of ksh:
> 1) OpenBSD maintained version
>   http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/bin/ksh/
> 2) GitHub clone of AT version ksh93
>   https://github.com/att/ast/tree/master/src/cmd/ksh93

Patches to update the ksh93 port to use one of those so are very welcome!

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 3 years to go !
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: FreeBSD Port: sysutils/zrep / ksh93

[Miroslav Lachman]

Miroslav Lachman wrote on 2017/04/21 22:00:

Kurt Jaeger wrote on 2017/04/21 21:54:

Hi!


can you please update port sysutils/zrep to current version?
GitHup repo https://github.com/bolthole/zrep has version 1.7.1 with many
fixes and improvements.


Hm, it looks like zrep depends on shells/ksh93, which is missing
from all MASTER_SITES. Do you still have the ksh93 distfile at hand ?


Ups, it is strange, I installed zrep and ksh93 about one week ago
without problem.

Sure, I have these files:

# ll /vol0/poudriere/distfiles/ksh93/*
-rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel   383979 May 24  2013
/vol0/poudriere/distfiles/ksh93/INIT.2013-05-24.tgz
-rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  2053532 Aug  7  2012
/vol0/poudriere/distfiles/ksh93/ast-ksh.2012-08-01.tgz

Should I post them somewhere?



Regarding to unavailable original sources... I found this discussion
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/246338/is-the-shell-ksh93-dead

Maybe it's time to move to another version of ksh:
1) OpenBSD maintained version
http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/bin/ksh/
2) GitHub clone of AT version ksh93
https://github.com/att/ast/tree/master/src/cmd/ksh93

Miroslav Lachman
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: FreeBSD Port: sysutils/zrep

[Miroslav Lachman]

Kurt Jaeger wrote on 2017/04/21 21:54:

Hi!


can you please update port sysutils/zrep to current version?
GitHup repo https://github.com/bolthole/zrep has version 1.7.1 with many
fixes and improvements.


Hm, it looks like zrep depends on shells/ksh93, which is missing
from all MASTER_SITES. Do you still have the ksh93 distfile at hand ?


Ups, it is strange, I installed zrep and ksh93 about one week ago 
without problem.


Sure, I have these files:

# ll /vol0/poudriere/distfiles/ksh93/*
-rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel   383979 May 24  2013 
/vol0/poudriere/distfiles/ksh93/INIT.2013-05-24.tgz
-rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  2053532 Aug  7  2012 
/vol0/poudriere/distfiles/ksh93/ast-ksh.2012-08-01.tgz


Should I post them somewhere?

Miroslav Lachman
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: FreeBSD Port: sysutils/zrep

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> can you please update port sysutils/zrep to current version?
> GitHup repo https://github.com/bolthole/zrep has version 1.7.1 with many 
> fixes and improvements.

Hm, it looks like zrep depends on shells/ksh93, which is missing
from all MASTER_SITES. Do you still have the ksh93 distfile at hand ?

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 3 years to go !
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Is pkg quarterly really needed?

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> >> If the whole repository builds doesn't it mean by default that any
> >> subset also builds?

> > If we defined a repo build only as valid if everything builds,
> > the whole repo is never valid, because approx. 10% of
> > the ports tree breaks at any given time. More, if you add options.

> That's an interesting observation, I didn't know that. Does it mean that 
> the quarterly port tree is no better or worse than the main branch?

It's a little bit better, I guess. Oh, indeed, I erred with my numbers.

Here's the link I'm looking at right now:

http://beefy9.nyi.freebsd.org/jail.html?mastername=110amd64-default

It has stats on the full ports builds for 11.0-amd64.

Approx. 26000 ports, approx. 50 failed to build, 70 skipped, 300+ ignored.

So it looks much better than I thought, but not 100%.

> And is any tree ever build with non-default options?

I don't know. I build my own repos with these settings:

DEFAULT_VERSIONS= perl5=5.24 python=2.7 python3=3.6 ruby=2.3 pgsql=9.6 php=7.1 
mysql=10.1m gcc=6

And I use some non-default options, but not that many.

> >> My assumption was that only version
> >> upgrades are progressed from CURRENT to STABLE to RELEASE.

> > Leads to a stagnating tree downstream, if you find maintainers for it.
> > That's the model Debian is using, and it has other issues. [...]

> Well, they can't be as unhappy as, say, Centos, where packages are 
> really old. Also, I bet not all users are unhappy when the ports are not 
> updated quickly. Corporate users tend to prefer stable versions even if 
> they are getting a bit old, enthusiasts tend to prefer newest versions. 

Hmm, our company isn't big, but keeping up with the security
stuff needs to happen, anyway, so we mostly use recent pkg trees.
Like the saying goes: Update early, update often, automate updates.

Incremental learnings/breakings are easier to handle than huge
across-the-board upgrades.

That's my experience after almost 30 years in that field.
Believe me, I already tried other approaches 8-} I still
have a FreeBSD 4.11 box in my fleet to care about, where
I recently updated OpenSSH and bind 8-}

> FreeBSD can't cater for both groups a the same time.

Here I disagree! Right now, ports-HEAD surely *does* cater for
the upgrade-junkies 8-}, but this also allows very fast innovation
cycles.

The quarterly trees are a first step to test how stability can also
be provided. We're still learning.

> Which group has been chosen, if it has been chosen?

It's also an ecosystem thing. If the 'stable at a price' niche
is covered by Debian etc, FreeBSD in the past needed to find
another niche. But it's not exclusivly so, so the quarterly tree
was created. The first was 2014Q1, so we're 14 iterations into
this experiment. Still plenty of things to learn.

> Are we defaulting to enthusiasts?

I don't think so! We're doing what we can to cover all use-cases.

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 3 years to go !
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

FreeBSD Port: sysutils/zrep

[Miroslav Lachman]

Hi,

can you please update port sysutils/zrep to current version?
GitHup repo https://github.com/bolthole/zrep has version 1.7.1 with many 
fixes and improvements.


Miroslav Lachman
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: how to get older FreeBSD port

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> i need virtualbox-ose 5.0.26 and virtualbox-ose-kmod-5.0.26

- First, go to:
 
  http://www.freshports.org/xyz/abc
 
  and search for the timestamp when it was updated (-MM-DD).
 
- Then checkout the ports tree around that time:
  mkdir ~/tst
  cd tst
  svn co 'svn+ssh://svn.freebsd.org/ports/head/xyz/abc/@{2016-08-31}' .
 
- That's it.

If you want to build from the tree at that time, checkout the whole
tree instead of only that port.

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 3 years to go !
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: how to get older FreeBSD port

[Miroslav Lachman]

Wojciech Puchar wrote on 2017/04/21 19:58:

i need virtualbox-ose 5.0.26 and virtualbox-ose-kmod-5.0.26


You need to checkout old version of ports tree from SVN and then build 
your ports.


If you want just this older port but everything other newer, then you 
are calling for troubles. There can be some incompatible changes in 
libraries or ports framework.
But you can try portdowngrade anyway: 
http://www.freshports.org/ports-mgmt/portdowngrade/


Miroslav Lachman

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

how to get older FreeBSD port

[Wojciech Puchar]

i need virtualbox-ose 5.0.26 and virtualbox-ose-kmod-5.0.26


___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Is pkg quarterly really needed?

[Grzegorz Junka]

On 21/04/2017 02:51, Kurt Jaeger wrote:



If the whole repository builds doesn't it mean by default that any
subset also builds?

If we defined a repo build only as valid if everything builds,
the whole repo is never valid, because approx. 10% of
the ports tree breaks at any given time. More, if you add options.


That's an interesting observation, I didn't know that. Does it mean that 
the quarterly port tree is no better or worse than the main branch? And 
is any tree ever build with non-default options? If no, how do you know 
how many are failing in that case?



My assumption was that only version
upgrades are progressed from CURRENT to STABLE to RELEASE.

Leads to a stagnating tree downstream, if you find maintainers for it.
That's the model Debian is using, and it has other issues. Especially
the load for the maintainers is huge, and users are unhappy
that the packages are getting old. Debian has approx. 6 times
more committers than we have, when I last looked, and more maintainers.

If we take from that that we have to grow our committer base, yes.
Can we reason that unless we have that base, we can't follow that
model ? Maybe.


Well, they can't be as unhappy as, say, Centos, where packages are 
really old. Also, I bet not all users are unhappy when the ports are not 
updated quickly. Corporate users tend to prefer stable versions even if 
they are getting a bit old, enthusiasts tend to prefer newest versions. 
FreeBSD can't cater for both groups a the same time. Which group has 
been chosen, if it has been chosen? Are we defaulting to enthusiasts?


Grzegorz
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: manpath change for ports ?

[Tijl Coosemans]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:18:53 +0200 Mathieu Arnold  wrote:
> Le 21/04/2017 à 00:16, Baptiste Daroussin a écrit:
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:13:52AM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>>> I am waiting on an exp-run to fix this once and for all.
>>>
>>> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218067
>>>
>>> When that is committed, anything can be added to the path pkgconfig
>>> searches, ports will always install it in the right place.
>>
>> Sorry but why? why not moving libdata/pkgconfig to lib/pkgconfig? what
>> is the rationale?
>
> Because a lot of build software know that on FreeBSD, the .pc file go
> in libdata/pkgconfig. If we move to some other place, we'll have a
> USES=pathfixmore for the next 25 years until everyone understands we
> moved it some place else.

1. It's not a lot.  Certainly the amount of software that does not know
   about libdata is way bigger.
2. You don't need USES=pathfixmore, you just change the fixup target
   in your patch to move files in the other direction.  This fixup can
   then be removed in 25 years (less if you let it print a warning)
   while your fixup will have to be kept forever.
3. Proper porting of emulators/wine to amd64 requires building 32 bit
   versions of dependencies.  Their pkgconfig files would go to
   lib32/pkgconfig when configured with --libdir=${PREFIX}/lib32 while
   something like libdata/pkgconfig32 would require yet more patches
   and fixups.

Any difference from Linux makes porting work harder, so there should be
good reasons and there are none whatsoever to use libdata/pkgconfig over
lib/pkgconfig.  I really don't get why portmgr keeps blocking this
change every time it comes up in the past few years.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: How to use cached packages

[Mike Clarke]

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:17:35 -0700
Freddie Cash  wrote:

> ​If you have the .txz/.tbz package file, then it's a simple:
> 
> # pkg install /path/to/firefox-versions-blahblah.txz

But the version in the cache could be earlier than the version that was
previously installed, in which case you might have dependency problems
if it requires earlier versions of dependencies than those already
installed on your system.

-- 
Mike Clarke
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"