Re: FreeBSD Port: py27-qt5-core / Py36-qt5-core

[Rainer Hurling]

Hi D.-C. M., hi others,

Am 27.03.2018 um 23:49 schrieb Guido Falsi:

On 03/27/18 22:44, D.-C. M. wrote:

Hello,



Hi!

  


At this moment, it is impossible to build side by side py27-qt5-core and
py36-qt5-core.

  


There is a collison on /usr/local/bin/pyuic

  


This is annoying… Python 27 is still the default, but become quite old now.



I'm not a python expert, but I understand that python 2.7 and python 3
are two slightly different languages not fully compatible with each other.

I also understand(but have not gone into depth about this) that there is
some resistance to python 3, with many developers being reluctant to
move to version 3, for whatever reason(I imagine it's language design
choices, but I really don't know)

I'm stating this because it means such incompatibilities are not going
away easily. It's not just a ports system problem, but an actual python
ecosystem problem.

Too say it in other words, python 2.7 isn't really just "the old
version" and python 3 is not just "the new version". They have parallel
lifes.



deskutils/calibre

which requires py27-qt5-core

I have tried to modify Makefile to try to build calibre-ebook port
versus py36, but there seems to be a hard dependency to Python 27, as


calibre is programmed for python 2.7 and the original author has no plan
to update it to work with python 3:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/calibre/+bug/1456642

This is in relation to what I said above.



  


www/py-mechanize does not not exist in py36 flavor


It's not just a dependency problem. Calibre code depends on python 2.7
language peculiarities which are different in python 3 (again I don't
know the details)



  


I would guess that it could be possible to differentiate the name of binary

/usr/local/lib/pyuic


This would not suffice to fix the problem you're seeing.



  


According to Py27 / Py36 flavor, with some strap.

In fact, most of py27-xx/py36-xx can build side by side, but not py-qt5-core


There are some PRs about this[1][2]

[1] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219641
[2] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223764

In comment #33 of PR 219641 I suggested a possible change. This would be 
'double flavored' (QT[45] and py[45] at the same ports), which could be 
a problem with the design of flavors. Also, it is not tested very well.





And that's a problem since packages downstream from py-qt5-core strictly
require python 2.7 or 3 and can't switch from one to another, but as I
said, that's a python problem.



___
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: Committer needed for upgrade of port of Perl library List-Compare

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> > I filed this BZ ticket two months ago, but it has not been responded to::
> > 
> > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225469
> > misc/p5-List-Compare: update to 0.53
> > 
> > Could someone please investigate?
> 
> I'm looking into this. As the version step-up is several versions,
> did you investigate if dependent ports still build ?

Well, there are only two depends. Committed, thanks!

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 2 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: Committer needed for upgrade of port of Perl library List-Compare

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> I filed this BZ ticket two months ago, but it has not been responded to::
> 
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225469
> misc/p5-List-Compare: update to 0.53
> 
> Could someone please investigate?

I'm looking into this. As the version step-up is several versions,
did you investigate if dependent ports still build ?

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 2 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"

[CFT] Mesa 18.0.0 update (mesa-libs, mesa-dri, libosmesa, clover)

[Jan Beich]

Mesa provides OpenGL drivers for Intel and AMD cards on FreeBSD. Recently,
a new major version was released. So far it was only tested by drm-next-kmod.
Can someone test on FreeBSD < 11.2 for regressions? In case of issues attach
/var/log/Xorg.0.log, run with LIBGL_DEBUG=verbose and check if 17.3.7 is also
affected.

I'd like to land the update in 2 weeks: 18.0.0 on /latest, 17.3.7 on /quarterly.

# Apply
$ fetch -qo /tmp/mesa-17.3.7.diff 
'https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=191718'
$ fetch -qo /tmp/mesa-18.0.0.diff 
'https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=191881'
$ patch -Efsp1 -i /tmp/mesa-17.3.7.diff -d /usr/ports
$ patch -Efsp1 -i /tmp/mesa-18.0.0.diff -d /usr/ports
$ make all deinstall install clean -C /usr/ports/graphics/mesa-libs
$ make all deinstall install clean -C /usr/ports/graphics/mesa-dri

# Undo
$ patch -REfsp1 -i /tmp/mesa-18.0.0.diff -d /usr/ports
$ patch -REfsp1 -i /tmp/mesa-17.3.7.diff -d /usr/ports
$ make all deinstall install clean -C /usr/ports/graphics/mesa-libs
$ make all deinstall install clean -C /usr/ports/graphics/mesa-dri

# Testing examples
- graphics/mesa-demos: glxgears, eglgears_x11
- multimedia/mpv: --hwdec=auto (VAAPI/VDPAU EGL interop)
- www/firefox: layers.acceleration.force-enabled=true (GPU compositing)
- https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/unreal-engine-4.65300/
___
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: Heads-up: linker (lld) changes for amd64 coming soon

[Ed Maste]

(Moved from -current to -ports)

On 27 March 2018 at 13:15, Ed Maste  wrote:
>
> Fair enough - this was the reason I sent the email. I've now gone
> through and submitted a PR for for each failure that did not already
> have one. I've also added LLD_UNSAFE to a few ports where where it was
> straightforward.

Via tobik's commit to lang/myrddin (r465725) I discovered
BINARY_ALIAS=ld=ld.bfd, which is a usable workaround for some ports
which don't honour $LD or -fuse-ld=bfd in CFLAGS.

As you point out in reply to my r465755 BINARY_ALIAS alone is not
sufficient, because arm64 does not provide ld.bfd by default and
LLD_UNSAFE automatically brings in ports binutils if /usr/bin/ld.bfd
does not exist. So we need both LLD_UNSAFE and BINARY_ALIAS.

Should we just have LLD_UNSAFE also set BINARY_ALIAS=ld=ld.bfd?
___
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: py27-qt5-core / Py36-qt5-core

[Pete Wright]

On 03/27/2018 15:06, Guido Falsi wrote:

On 03/28/18 00:00, Pete Wright wrote:

I'm not a python expert, but I understand that python 2.7 and python 3
are two slightly different languages not fully compatible with each
other.

I also understand(but have not gone into depth about this) that there is
some resistance to python 3, with many developers being reluctant to
move to version 3, for whatever reason(I imagine it's language design
choices, but I really don't know)

I'm stating this because it means such incompatibilities are not going
away easily. It's not just a ports system problem, but an actual python
ecosystem problem.

Too say it in other words, python 2.7 isn't really just "the old
version" and python 3 is not just "the new version". They have parallel
lifes.

I'm not %100 sure that's really an accurate assessment of the slow
uptake in Python3.

I'd like to make it clear I don't know the details, I just stated what I
heard. I know this could not be accurate.
sorry - that came out wrong - i wasn't trying to be combative!  i'm in 
the same boat as you here :)





Regardless, the clock is ticking on the 2.x codebase
as it is reaching EOL status in 2020:

https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/

Hopefully a solid deadline (which has already been pushed back) will
motivate developers to accelerate the task of migrating to py3 sooner
rather than later.

Speaking strictly as the maintainer of the calibre port and having
discovered just now about this deadline:

I don't know what the calibre developer plans to do about this, I'm
certainly unable to port calibre to python 3, so I will do the best to
keep it working for as long as python 2.7 is available in the ports, or
update the port to use python 3 once the upstream does port it to that
version.

this is a really tricky situation to be in no doubt, i wonder if 
surfacing concerns about the impending 2.x EOL with upstream maintainers 
would be a good way to nudge them into supporting py3? it's certainly 
possible that the deadline in pep-373 hasn't been widely disseminated to 
the developer community?


i'm not super active in the python community to be honest - but in my 
role as a systems engineer this is something i've highlighted with teams 
whose code i help support and have had mixed success with.  usually 
along the lines of "hey, so py2.7 is EOL'ing in 2020 do we have a 
document with our migration strategy?"


cheers,
-pete


--
Pete Wright
p...@nomadlogic.org
@nomadlogicLA

___
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: py27-qt5-core / Py36-qt5-core

[Guido Falsi]

On 03/28/18 00:00, Pete Wright wrote:
>> I'm not a python expert, but I understand that python 2.7 and python 3
>> are two slightly different languages not fully compatible with each
>> other.
>>
>> I also understand(but have not gone into depth about this) that there is
>> some resistance to python 3, with many developers being reluctant to
>> move to version 3, for whatever reason(I imagine it's language design
>> choices, but I really don't know)
>>
>> I'm stating this because it means such incompatibilities are not going
>> away easily. It's not just a ports system problem, but an actual python
>> ecosystem problem.
>>
>> Too say it in other words, python 2.7 isn't really just "the old
>> version" and python 3 is not just "the new version". They have parallel
>> lifes.
> 
> I'm not %100 sure that's really an accurate assessment of the slow
> uptake in Python3.

I'd like to make it clear I don't know the details, I just stated what I
heard. I know this could not be accurate.


> Regardless, the clock is ticking on the 2.x codebase
> as it is reaching EOL status in 2020:
> 
> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/
> 
> Hopefully a solid deadline (which has already been pushed back) will
> motivate developers to accelerate the task of migrating to py3 sooner
> rather than later.

Speaking strictly as the maintainer of the calibre port and having
discovered just now about this deadline:

I don't know what the calibre developer plans to do about this, I'm
certainly unable to port calibre to python 3, so I will do the best to
keep it working for as long as python 2.7 is available in the ports, or
update the port to use python 3 once the upstream does port it to that
version.

-- 
Guido Falsi 
___
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: py27-qt5-core / Py36-qt5-core

[Pete Wright]

On 03/27/2018 14:49, Guido Falsi wrote:

On 03/27/18 22:44, D.-C. M. wrote:

Hello,


Hi!

  


At this moment, it is impossible to build side by side py27-qt5-core and
py36-qt5-core.

  


There is a collison on /usr/local/bin/pyuic

  


This is annoying… Python 27 is still the default, but become quite old now.


I'm not a python expert, but I understand that python 2.7 and python 3
are two slightly different languages not fully compatible with each other.

I also understand(but have not gone into depth about this) that there is
some resistance to python 3, with many developers being reluctant to
move to version 3, for whatever reason(I imagine it's language design
choices, but I really don't know)

I'm stating this because it means such incompatibilities are not going
away easily. It's not just a ports system problem, but an actual python
ecosystem problem.

Too say it in other words, python 2.7 isn't really just "the old
version" and python 3 is not just "the new version". They have parallel
lifes.


I'm not %100 sure that's really an accurate assessment of the slow 
uptake in Python3.  Regardless, the clock is ticking on the 2.x codebase 
as it is reaching EOL status in 2020:


https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/

Hopefully a solid deadline (which has already been pushed back) will 
motivate developers to accelerate the task of migrating to py3 sooner 
rather than later.


-pete

--
Pete Wright
p...@nomadlogic.org
@nomadlogicLA

___
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: py27-qt5-core / Py36-qt5-core

[Guido Falsi]

On 03/27/18 22:44, D.-C. M. wrote:
> Hello,
> 

Hi!

>  
> 
> At this moment, it is impossible to build side by side py27-qt5-core and
> py36-qt5-core.
> 
>  
> 
> There is a collison on /usr/local/bin/pyuic
> 
>  
> 
> This is annoying… Python 27 is still the default, but become quite old now.
> 

I'm not a python expert, but I understand that python 2.7 and python 3
are two slightly different languages not fully compatible with each other.

I also understand(but have not gone into depth about this) that there is
some resistance to python 3, with many developers being reluctant to
move to version 3, for whatever reason(I imagine it's language design
choices, but I really don't know)

I'm stating this because it means such incompatibilities are not going
away easily. It's not just a ports system problem, but an actual python
ecosystem problem.

Too say it in other words, python 2.7 isn't really just "the old
version" and python 3 is not just "the new version". They have parallel
lifes.


> deskutils/calibre
> 
> which requires py27-qt5-core
> 
> I have tried to modify Makefile to try to build calibre-ebook port
> versus py36, but there seems to be a hard dependency to Python 27, as

calibre is programmed for python 2.7 and the original author has no plan
to update it to work with python 3:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/calibre/+bug/1456642

This is in relation to what I said above.

> 
>  
> 
> www/py-mechanize does not not exist in py36 flavor

It's not just a dependency problem. Calibre code depends on python 2.7
language peculiarities which are different in python 3 (again I don't
know the details)

> 
>  
> 
> I would guess that it could be possible to differentiate the name of binary
> 
> /usr/local/lib/pyuic

This would not suffice to fix the problem you're seeing.

> 
>  
> 
> According to Py27 / Py36 flavor, with some strap.
> 
> In fact, most of py27-xx/py36-xx can build side by side, but not py-qt5-core

And that's a problem since packages downstream from py-qt5-core strictly
require python 2.7 or 3 and can't switch from one to another, but as I
said, that's a python problem.

-- 
Guido Falsi 
___
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"

Committer needed for upgrade of port of Perl library List-Compare

[James E Keenan]

I filed this BZ ticket two months ago, but it has not been responded to::

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225469
misc/p5-List-Compare: update to 0.53

Could someone please investigate?

Thank you very much.
Jim Keenan
___
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"

Committer needed for updates of two ports

[Andreas Andersson]

www/carbonapi: Update to 0.11.0
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226935

databases/go-carbon: Improve rc.d script.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226937

Thank you!
___
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"

perl5.24 build failing on a new 11.1-STABLE install

[Bob Willcox]

Hi,

I have just recently installed 11.1-STABLE on one of me laptops (Lenovo T470s)
and when I attempt to build the perl5.24 port it errors out with this:

--- perl ---
cc -o perl -lpthread -Wl,-E  -fstack-protector-strong -L/usr/local/lib 
-Wl,-R/usr/local/lib/perl5/5.24/mach/CORE maindtrace/perlmain.o dtrace_main.o  
libperl.so.5.24.3 `cat ext.libs` -lpthread -lm -lcrypt -lutil
maindtrace/perlmain.o: In function `main':
perlmain.c:(.text+0xa4): undefined reference to `perl_parse'
perlmain.c:(.text+0xb4): undefined reference to `perl_run'
perlmain.c:(.text+0x128): undefined reference to `perl_destruct'
cc: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation)
*** [perl] Error code 1

The system 'uname -a' is:

FreeBSD exar.immure.com 11.1-STABLE FreeBSD 11.1-STABLE #0 r331606: Tue Mar 27 
07:27:39 CDT 2018 b...@exar.immure.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/EXAR  amd64

It looks like (some) functions within perl.c are undefined. I have a number
of other systems where this isn't a problem. Indeed, this is the only one
with this failure.

Anyone have any idea as to what may be wrong with or missing on this system?

Thanks,
Bob

-- 
Bob Willcox| The amount of flak received on any subject is inversely
b...@immure.com | proportional to the subject's true value.
Austin, TX |
___
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: Removal of www/apache22

[Philip M. Gollucci]

I support removal

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:11 AM Vincent Hoffman-Kazlauskas <
vi...@unsane.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On 27/03/2018 13:52, Bernard Spil wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Just noticed that the Apache project has removed the patches they had
> > for 2.2.34.
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/apply_to_2.2.34/
> >
> > Combined with the security update of 2.4 branch to 2.4.33 leads me to
> > believe that Apache 2.2 is now vulnerable and no patches will be
> provided.
> >
> > If someone wishes to step up and get patches for 2.2 from e.g. RedHat,
> > we may be able to keep the port alive for a bit longer. If no one steps
> > up, I see no other way forward than to delete the port as indicated by
> > the DEPRECATED variable and expiration date 2017-07-01 since July 2016.
> >
>
> While I agree that apache 2.2 is now firmly dead, they moved the patches
> for 2.2.34 to
> https://archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/apply_to_2.2.34/ , however
> no new patches for the recent CVEs were added.
>
>
> Vince
>
>
>
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bernard.
> > ___
> > 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-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
>
-- 
-
4096R/D21D2752
 ECDF B597
B54B 7F92 753E  E0EA F699 A450 D21D 2752
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollu...@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
Member,   Apache Software Foundation
Committer,FreeBSD Foundation
Consultant,   P6M7G8 Inc.
Director Cloud Technology,Capital One

What doesn't kill us can only make us stronger;
Except it almost kills you.
___
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: Removal of www/apache22

[Vincent Hoffman-Kazlauskas]

On 27/03/2018 13:52, Bernard Spil wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Just noticed that the Apache project has removed the patches they had
> for 2.2.34.
> 
>     http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/apply_to_2.2.34/
> 
> Combined with the security update of 2.4 branch to 2.4.33 leads me to
> believe that Apache 2.2 is now vulnerable and no patches will be provided.
> 
> If someone wishes to step up and get patches for 2.2 from e.g. RedHat,
> we may be able to keep the port alive for a bit longer. If no one steps
> up, I see no other way forward than to delete the port as indicated by
> the DEPRECATED variable and expiration date 2017-07-01 since July 2016.
> 

While I agree that apache 2.2 is now firmly dead, they moved the patches
for 2.2.34 to
https://archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/apply_to_2.2.34/ , however
no new patches for the recent CVEs were added.


Vince



> Cheers,
> 
> Bernard.
> ___
> 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-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: Two pkg(8) repo configs pointing to same repo

[Matthew Seaman]

On 27/03/2018 13:56, Anthony Jenkins via freebsd-ports wrote:

Is there a way to configure a pkg(8) repo such that it has multiple ways
to refer to the same physical repository?  I'm picturing the "url:"
parameter being either a string or a list of strings:



That isn't possible with pkg(8) at the moment.  However, you don't need 
to change pkg(8) to achieve the effect you want.  You can have multiple 
repo.conf files enabled at the same time, so long as you make sure the 
tag is different between the two files.  pkg(8) will complain about 
being unable to contact one or other of the two, but I believe it should 
be capable of using just the server it can contact.


Failing that, you will need to take control of the DNS inside your home 
network, so you can make your server name resolve to whatever is correct 
depending on where you are.  Possibly you could just create an A record 
that resolves to the two different IPs, but I'm not sure how well pkg(8) 
handles that if one of the IPs is unreachable.


Cheers,

Matthew

___
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"

Two pkg(8) repo configs pointing to same repo

[Anthony Jenkins via freebsd-ports]

I've set up a poudriere package server on my home FreeBSD desktop.  My
laptop has two ways to access this server, depending on whether it's
inside or outside my home LAN (thanks to my stupid ISP router).  When
I'm on my home network, I have to use its local IP address (e.g.
192.168.1.5, or the locally-resolvable name my router gives it).  When
I'm on the Internet, I use my publicly resolvable name (e.g.
myserver.mydomain.com).  I can resolve myserver.mydomain.com on my LAN,
but that's the public IP address of my router and it will not route
packets to my poudriere server using that address (I used to have an ISP
router that /would/ send my internal packets back through the NAT).

Because of these two mutually-exclusive ways of referring to my
poudriere web server, and unless there's a better solution (e.g. fix the
underlying routing or name resolution problem), I have to maintain two
pkg repo configuration files - /usr/local/etc/pkg/repos/poudriere.conf
and .../poudriere-local.conf.  They're identical except for the URL and
I only have one enabled at a time.

Is there a way to configure a pkg(8) repo such that it has multiple ways
to refer to the same physical repository?  I'm picturing the "url:"
parameter being either a string or a list of strings:

my-repo: {
    url: {
        "http://192.168.1.5/poudriere/packages/freebsd_12-1-amd64-HEAD;,
       
"http://myserver.mydomain.com/poudriere/packages/freebsd_12-1-amd64-HEAD;
    },
    mirror_type: "http",
    signature_type: "pubkey",
    enabled: yes,
    priority: 1
}

but I don't think that's in the pkg(8) specification.  I can try to
implement this and submit patches if it's worthwhile, or is there a
better way to fix/workaround my inside/outside LAN addressing problem?

Thanks,
Anthony
___
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"

Removal of www/apache22

[Bernard Spil]

Hi all,

Just noticed that the Apache project has removed the patches they had 
for 2.2.34.


http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/apply_to_2.2.34/

Combined with the security update of 2.4 branch to 2.4.33 leads me to 
believe that Apache 2.2 is now vulnerable and no patches will be 
provided.


If someone wishes to step up and get patches for 2.2 from e.g. RedHat, 
we may be able to keep the port alive for a bit longer. If no one steps 
up, I see no other way forward than to delete the port as indicated by 
the DEPRECATED variable and expiration date 2017-07-01 since July 2016.


Cheers,

Bernard.
___
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 ports you maintain which are out of date

[portscout]

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, you can
safely ignore the entry.

You will not be e-mailed again for any of the port/version combinations
below.

Full details can be found at the following URL:
http://portscout.freebsd.org/po...@freebsd.org.html


Port| Current version | New version
+-+
net-im/mastodon | 2.3.2   | v2.3.3
+-+


If any of the above results are invalid, please check the following page
for details on how to improve portscout's detection and selection of
distfiles on a per-port basis:

http://portscout.freebsd.org/info/portscout-portconfig.txt

Thanks.
___
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"