> Now we can get back on the ipv6 option.
>
> so if we want to proceed further in removing the option to build with or
> without
> ipv6 for the ports side. Please speak up in reply to this email, if you are
> building without ipv6, why are you doing so, what are the real benefit for it.
> How
On Oct 10, 2019, at 10:01, Lars Liedtke wrote:
>
> Why not just make building in IPv6 support the default, and introduce a
> flag if someone really needs or wants to build without that support?
Because it adds to the load of testing. If you really need it, build from
source.
--
My main job
Robert Huff writes:
> Andrea Venturoli writes:
>
>> I'm building without IPv6, just because it's one (currently
>> useless) less thing to worry about (settings, security, etc...).
>
> Phrased differently: one less possible failure mode.
At the cost of one less possible success mode...
Andrea Venturoli writes:
> I'm building without IPv6, just because it's one (currently
> useless) less thing to worry about (settings, security, etc...).
Phrased differently: one less possible failure mode.
Respectfully,
Robert Huff
Adriaan de Groot writes:
> Basically, Qt is using internal headers that it shouldn't .. but
> that means we need to make Qt depend on evdev-proto. There is a fix
> in the works.
_Please_ announce this in UPDATING.
Respectfully,
Hello folks,
I know, I should have this fixed a long time ago, but I procrastinated.
Now that I have a couple of hours free, I try to make it work again.
Basically since upgrade from apache 22 to 24 Awstats insists for
downloading the page (perl source) instead of displaying it.
My
Hello,
While building java/openjdk12 with poudriere and 13-CURRENT jail, I
experienced strange build error, If I build it with 'poudriere
testport' then it is built successfully.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:40:55PM +0200, Lars Liedtke wrote:
>
> Am 10.10.19 um 17:17 schrieb LuKreme:
> > On Oct 9, 2019, at 00:15, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >> I agree I don't see the reason why we should keep that ipv6 option. When
> >> off
> >> this option does not bring much value to
Am 10.10.19 um 17:17 schrieb LuKreme:
> On Oct 9, 2019, at 00:15, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> I agree I don't see the reason why we should keep that ipv6 option. When off
>> this option does not bring much value to the users as the code for apps to
>> support ipv6 mostly reside in the libc.
On Oct 9, 2019, at 00:15, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>
> I agree I don't see the reason why we should keep that ipv6 option. When off
> this option does not bring much value to the users as the code for apps to
> support ipv6 mostly reside in the libc. Actually that was my intent in 2012 to
>
On 2019-Oct-09 16:30:48 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>so if we want to proceed further in removing the option to build with or
>without
>ipv6 for the ports side.
Last time I checked, XDMCP differs enough between IPv4 and IPv6 that xdm
used a compile-time option to pick which to support.
--
On Thursday, 10 October 2019 14:05:56 CEST freebsd-ports-requ...@freebsd.org
wrote:
> > I've run into the same error just yesterday. As a workaround, deinstall
> > the devel/evdev-proto port (it's not the libmtdev port which is the
> > problem) and it will use the base-system evdev includes.
> >
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241179
It does, however, build when the build is run the traditional way via ports -
i.e:
cd /usr/ports/graphics/rawtherapee && make && make install
--
J.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Kurt Jaeger writes:
> Hi!
>
>> FreeBSD 11.3 was released on 2019-07-09. After adding 3 months support
>> overlap it'd be 2019-10-09 (yesterday).
>
> https://www.freebsd.org/security/security.html#sup
>
> says that 11.2 is supported until 31.10.2019.
Indeed. A few weeks ago it didn't have the
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 07:44:55PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2019-Oct-09 16:30:48 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >so if we want to proceed further in removing the option to build with or
> >without
> >ipv6 for the ports side.
>
> Last time I checked, XDMCP differs enough between IPv4
On 2019-10-09 16:30, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
Hello.
Please speak up in reply to this email, if you are
building without ipv6, why are you doing so, what are the real benefit for it.
I'm building without IPv6, just because it's one (currently useless)
less thing to worry about (settings,
Hi!
> FreeBSD 11.3 was released on 2019-07-09. After adding 3 months support
> overlap it'd be 2019-10-09 (yesterday).
https://www.freebsd.org/security/security.html#sup
says that 11.2 is supported until 31.10.2019.
--
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372One year to go
René Ladan writes:
> Op do 10 okt. 2019 04:19 schreef Jan Beich :
>
>> FreeBSD 11.3 was released on 2019-07-09. After adding 3 months support
>> overlap it'd be 2019-10-09 (yesterday).
>
> Not so fast...
>
> The three month overlap period has indeed expiree, but is traditionally
> rounded up to
18 matches
Mail list logo
