Re: Portmaster failing

[Matthew Seaman]

On 01/01/2020 22:03, George Mitchell wrote:
> Assuming you can get poudriere to work.  Even by today's standards,
> a low-cost PC is not going to have the juice to support it.  And to
> reiterate, the ports framework itself MUST work standalone.

Rubbish.  I maintain my own poudriere repo on a machine that is over 6
years old and that cost less than £500 when I first built it.  A very
ordinary PC will be able to run poudriere perfectly well.

Cheers,

Matthew



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date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ports appears to be out of date.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-mgmt/nbtscan| 1.5.1   | 1.6
+-+


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

Reported by:portscout!
___
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: Portmaster failing

[@lbutlr]

On 01 Jan 2020, at 16:57, Adam Weinberger  wrote:
> Ok, let’s stop there. Nobody is going to get fired, and insulting

What?

No, seriously, what?


___
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: Portmaster failing

[Kubilay Kocak]

On 2/01/2020 7:37 am, @lbutlr wrote:

Portmaser -L errors out with

make: "/usr/ports/Mk/Uses/ssl.mk" line 97: You are using an unsupported SSL 
provider openssl

Make.conf:
DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=openssl apache=2.4 php=7.2 perl5=5.28 mysql=10.1m

Worked fine on Saturday, maybe Friday.





Tracked earlier and resolved here:

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243014
___
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: Portmaster failing

[Thomas Mueller]

> This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere. There seems to
> be a pervasive misconception that poudriere is "advanced" and
> portmaster is simple or straightforward. That notion is completely and
> totally backwards. Poudriere makes managing ports as simple and
> trouble-free as possible, and portmaster is specifically for people
> who can troubleshoot and fix problems like the one you're describing
> on their own. These problems WILL continue to happen very regularly
> for portmaster, because portmaster simply cannot do the right thing on
> its own. It will ALWAYS require manual intervention every time
> anything remotely significant changes.

> I've mentioned this to you before, lbutlr, because you post about
> encountering these snags quite regularly, and your (quite warranted)
> frustration is apparent. I really do think that your FreeBSD life will
> be simpler if you switch from portmaster to poudriere. If you choose
> to stay on portmaster, however, then you need to check the resentment
> about build failures. They are simply an inevitable consequence of
> using a very old and broken tool that should only be used by people
> with substantial port-handling experience.

> You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major
> mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and
> security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch.


> Adam Weinberger

I suppose what you say about portmaster applies equally to portupgrade?

I get the impression that synth and its dependency gcc6-aux are falling into 
desuetude if not actually officially deprecated.

gcc6-aux has not been updated while gcc is up tp 8.3 and 9.2.

I have never used poudriere, guess I will have to learn how if I stay with 
FreeBSD.

NetBSD pkgsrc also has its problems: has been ported to many other mostly 
(quasi-)Unix OSes including FreeBSD, but I never tried pkgsrcc outside NetBSD, 
don't think I really want to.

DragonFlyBSD switched from pkgsrc to dports, and Haiku switched from pkgsrc to 
Haikuports.

Upgrading a large number of ports with portmaster usually required many runs, 
correcting the errors after each run, waiting for updates for broken ports.

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: Portmaster failing

[Adam Weinberger]

> On Jan 1, 2020, at 15:49, @lbutlr  wrote:
> 
 You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major
 mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and
 security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch.
>>> 
>>> Since openssl updated about a week ago, this oversight falls into the class 
>>> that I would call ???inexcusable???. If I did this on a job I would 
>>> (rightly) be immediately fired.
>>> 
>>> I would fire me if I did something like this.
> 
>> If we fired every volunteer when some mishap has happened, we
>> would run of of volunteers very fast.
> 
> This was the responsibility of a single volunteer? Removing openssl without 
> warning wasn’t something that was discussed over the last six months?

Ok, let’s stop there. Nobody is going to get fired, and insulting our team of 
volunteers who worked incredibly hard to bring the openssl switch to fruition 
is unproductive and uncalled-for. I already acknowledged that we need to do it 
better next time, so let’s focus instead on solving problems rather than 
lashing out to people who are here simply to help.

# Adam


—
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.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: Portmaster failing

[@lbutlr]

On 01 Jan 2020, at 15:28, Kurt Jaeger  wrote:
>> If FreeBSD is going to REQUIRE poudriere, then go ahead and do
>> so. If not, then the other packages managers and the ports tree
>> itself have to work without screwing the admin, failing to build
>> for inexplicable reasons, inputting a dependency that breaks other
>> packages, or my favorite, failing to update dependencies.
> 
> If we'd remove portmaster, we'd loose a relevant part of our
> user-base, that's why is has not been removed. This caused
> other issues, as you are well aware.

If you are concerned about losing users without postmaster then fix postmaster. 
Leaving a port manage that is “broken” is not going to do anything but hurt 
everyone.


> The open source community (and FreeBSD) really has problems with
> the velocity of the software involved -- and can barely keep up.
> 
> So it's not that easy.

Bit they are perfectly happy to drop support when the replacement packages are 
still not up to snuff.

>>> You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major
>>> mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and
>>> security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch.
>> 
>> Since openssl updated about a week ago, this oversight falls into the class 
>> that I would call ???inexcusable???. If I did this on a job I would 
>> (rightly) be immediately fired.
>> 
>> I would fire me if I did something like this.

> If we fired every volunteer when some mishap has happened, we
> would run of of volunteers very fast.

This was the responsibility of a single volunteer? Removing openssl without 
warning wasn’t something that was discussed over the last six months?




-- 
Lead me not into temptation, I can find the way.

___
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: Portmaster failing

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> If FreeBSD is going to REQUIRE poudriere, then go ahead and do
> so. If not, then the other packages managers and the ports tree
> itself have to work without screwing the admin, failing to build
> for inexplicable reasons, inputting a dependency that breaks other
> packages, or my favorite, failing to update dependencies.

If we'd remove portmaster, we'd loose a relevant part of our
user-base, that's why is has not been removed. This caused
other issues, as you are well aware.

But there's no easy solution given the amount of volunteer skills
and capacity available, see below.

> > I've mentioned this to you before, lbutlr, because you post about
> > encountering these snags quite regularly, and your (quite warranted)
> > frustration is apparent. I really do think that your FreeBSD life will
> > be simpler if you switch from portmaster to poudriere.
> 
> It is not that simple, of course. This will take quite a lot of work, and a 
> lot of time, for something that I deal with a handful of times a year. This 
> means that for the foreseeable future, I would be starting over basically 
> every time there is some issue.
> 
> > They are simply an inevitable consequence of using a very old and broken 
> > tool
> 
> If the tool is broken, remove it.

For example: FreeBSD uses mailman2 for lists.freebsd.org, which needs
python 2.7, which, as far as the python community is involved,
is no longer supported.

The open source community (and FreeBSD) really has problems with
the velocity of the software involved -- and can barely keep up.

So it's not that easy.

> > You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major
> > mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and
> > security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch.
> 
> Since openssl updated about a week ago, this oversight falls into the class 
> that I would call ???inexcusable???. If I did this on a job I would (rightly) 
> be immediately fired.
> 
> I would fire me if I did something like this.

If we fired every volunteer when some mishap has happened, we
would run of of volunteers very fast.

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372Now what ?
___
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: Portmaster failing

[@lbutlr]

On 01 Jan 2020, at 14:18, Adam Weinberger  wrote
> This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere. 

If FreeBSD is going to REQUIRE poudriere, then go ahead and do so. If not, then 
the other packages managers and the ports tree itself have to work without 
screwing the admin, failing to build for inexplicable reasons, inputting a 
dependency that breaks other packages, or my favorite, failing to update 
dependencies.

> I've mentioned this to you before, lbutlr, because you post about
> encountering these snags quite regularly, and your (quite warranted)
> frustration is apparent. I really do think that your FreeBSD life will
> be simpler if you switch from portmaster to poudriere.

It is not that simple, of course. This will take quite a lot of work, and a lot 
of time, for something that I deal with a handful of times a year. This means 
that for the foreseeable future, I would be starting over basically every time 
there is some issue.

> They are simply an inevitable consequence of using a very old and broken tool

If the tool is broken, remove it.

> You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major
> mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and
> security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch.

Since openssl updated about a week ago, this oversight falls into the class 
that I would call “inexcusable”. If I did this on a job I would (rightly) be 
immediately fired.

I would fire me if I did something like this.



-- 
In the 60's, people took acid to make the world appear weird. Now the
world is weird and people take Prozac to make it appear normal.

___
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: Portmaster failing

[Christoph Moench-Tegeder]

## George Mitchell (george+free...@m5p.com):

> Assuming you can get poudriere to work.  Even by today's standards,
> a low-cost PC is not going to have the juice to support it.  And to
> reiterate, the ports framework itself MUST work standalone.

The pain you'll experience (eventually) from the breakage resulting
from just ol' plain "make install"s is much worse than running poudriere.
Most non-trivial software will not build predictably in an unclean
environment, and forget about keeping it working when your environment
changes (the time I've spent chasing shared library problems... that's
time I'll never get back). (Note that I'm not talking about reproducable
builds, which is yet another can of worms).
If you can't build with poudriere locally, you should look into renting
CPU time ("cloud" as they call it these days) or use packages.

Regards,
Christoph

-- 
Spare Space
___
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: Portmaster failing

[Christoph Moench-Tegeder]

## @lbutlr (krem...@kreme.com):

> I have /usr/ports/security/openssl111 and no /usr/ports/security/openssl 
> which doesn’t sound like what you said.

You're missing
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision=date=521745

By the way, base openssl is at 1.1.1d in FreeBSD 12.1.

Regards,
Christoph

-- 
Spare Space
___
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: Portmaster failing

[George Mitchell]

On 2020-01-01 16:23, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> Hi Adam,
> 
>> On 1. Jan 2020, at 10:18 PM, Adam Weinberger  wrote:
>> [...]
>> This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere.
> 
> Let me stop you right here and say: ports Framework itself is
> suffering from this wishful attitude

PLUS UMPTEEN*!!!

> and this has nothing to do
> with readily available poudriere "replacements" which are not
> as good as poudriere for sure.

Assuming you can get poudriere to work.  Even by today's standards,
a low-cost PC is not going to have the juice to support it.  And to
reiterate, the ports framework itself MUST work standalone.

> If the ports framework isn't seen as a stand alone infrastructure
> worth its own integrity the discussion is already dead and the
> quality will keep to decline for every casual FreeBSD user who
> doesn't really care for this or that tool, but wants to install
> software from the ports tree manually.
> [...]
-- George

* umpteen: an unspecified large number



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Portmaster failing

[Adam Weinberger]

On Jan 1, 2020, at 14:23, Franco Fichtner  wrote:
> 
> Hi Adam,
> 
>> On 1. Jan 2020, at 10:18 PM, Adam Weinberger  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:51 PM @lbutlr  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:46, Franco Fichtner  wrote:
 
 
 
> On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr  wrote:
> 
> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner  wrote:
>> security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become 
>> security/openssl.
> 
> Ugh.
> 
>> A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees, 
>> don't we.  ;)
> 
> This is going to go poorly, if previous attempts to update to 1.1 are any 
> indication.
 
 With PHP 5.6 axed prematurely a while back I am interested to see OpenSSL 
 1.0.2
 phased out now with a number of ports still not supporting 1.1.1 and 
 seeing them
 marked as broken sooner or later.
>>> 
>>> Well, at this point I cannot install openssl111 without deinstalling 
>>> openssl, which I cannot deinstall since it is gone from ports.
>>> 
>>> Looks like I have to remove openssl, which … I mean, seriously, this seems 
>>> pretty hostile.
>>> 
>>> Name   : openssl
>>> Version: 1.0.2u,1
>>> Installed on   : Sun Dec 22 08:13:27 2019 MST
>>> 
>>> There was nothing at all on the 22nd about “WARNING THIS WILL BREAK 
>>> EVERYTHING IN A WEEK” which to mean seems like it should have been made 
>>> super obvious.
>> 
>> This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere.
> 
> Let me stop you right here and say: ports Framework itself is
> suffering from this wishful attitude and this has nothing to do
> with readily available poudriere "replacements" which are not
> as good as poudriere for sure.
> 
> If the ports framework isn't seen as a stand alone infrastructure
> worth its own integrity the discussion is already dead and the
> quality will keep to decline for every casual FreeBSD user who
> doesn't really care for this or that tool, but wants to install
> software from the ports tree manually.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Franco

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. The ports tree has grown too 
complex for a simple “make install” to be a predictable process. What we have 
now is a major usability problem wherein we have a large handful of tools, all 
but one of which are essentially broken. We do need a new approach to this 
problem. 

# Adam


—
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.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: Portmaster failing

[Franco Fichtner]

Hi Adam,

> On 1. Jan 2020, at 10:18 PM, Adam Weinberger  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:51 PM @lbutlr  wrote:
>> 
>> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:46, Franco Fichtner  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr  wrote:
 
 On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner  wrote:
> security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become 
> security/openssl.
 
 Ugh.
 
> A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees, 
> don't we.  ;)
 
 This is going to go poorly, if previous attempts to update to 1.1 are any 
 indication.
>>> 
>>> With PHP 5.6 axed prematurely a while back I am interested to see OpenSSL 
>>> 1.0.2
>>> phased out now with a number of ports still not supporting 1.1.1 and seeing 
>>> them
>>> marked as broken sooner or later.
>> 
>> Well, at this point I cannot install openssl111 without deinstalling 
>> openssl, which I cannot deinstall since it is gone from ports.
>> 
>> Looks like I have to remove openssl, which … I mean, seriously, this seems 
>> pretty hostile.
>> 
>> Name   : openssl
>> Version: 1.0.2u,1
>> Installed on   : Sun Dec 22 08:13:27 2019 MST
>> 
>> There was nothing at all on the 22nd about “WARNING THIS WILL BREAK 
>> EVERYTHING IN A WEEK” which to mean seems like it should have been made 
>> super obvious.
> 
> This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere.

Let me stop you right here and say: ports Framework itself is
suffering from this wishful attitude and this has nothing to do
with readily available poudriere "replacements" which are not
as good as poudriere for sure.

If the ports framework isn't seen as a stand alone infrastructure
worth its own integrity the discussion is already dead and the
quality will keep to decline for every casual FreeBSD user who
doesn't really care for this or that tool, but wants to install
software from the ports tree manually.


Cheers,
Franco
___
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: Portmaster failing

[Adam Weinberger]

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:51 PM @lbutlr  wrote:
>
> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:46, Franco Fichtner  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr  wrote:
> >>
> >> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner  wrote:
> >>> security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become 
> >>> security/openssl.
> >>
> >> Ugh.
> >>
> >>> A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees, 
> >>> don't we.  ;)
> >>
> >> This is going to go poorly, if previous attempts to update to 1.1 are any 
> >> indication.
> >
> > With PHP 5.6 axed prematurely a while back I am interested to see OpenSSL 
> > 1.0.2
> > phased out now with a number of ports still not supporting 1.1.1 and seeing 
> > them
> > marked as broken sooner or later.
>
> Well, at this point I cannot install openssl111 without deinstalling openssl, 
> which I cannot deinstall since it is gone from ports.
>
> Looks like I have to remove openssl, which … I mean, seriously, this seems 
> pretty hostile.
>
> Name   : openssl
> Version: 1.0.2u,1
> Installed on   : Sun Dec 22 08:13:27 2019 MST
>
> There was nothing at all on the 22nd about “WARNING THIS WILL BREAK 
> EVERYTHING IN A WEEK” which to mean seems like it should have been made super 
> obvious.

This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere. There seems to
be a pervasive misconception that poudriere is "advanced" and
portmaster is simple or straightforward. That notion is completely and
totally backwards. Poudriere makes managing ports as simple and
trouble-free as possible, and portmaster is specifically for people
who can troubleshoot and fix problems like the one you're describing
on their own. These problems WILL continue to happen very regularly
for portmaster, because portmaster simply cannot do the right thing on
its own. It will ALWAYS require manual intervention every time
anything remotely significant changes.

I've mentioned this to you before, lbutlr, because you post about
encountering these snags quite regularly, and your (quite warranted)
frustration is apparent. I really do think that your FreeBSD life will
be simpler if you switch from portmaster to poudriere. If you choose
to stay on portmaster, however, then you need to check the resentment
about build failures. They are simply an inevitable consequence of
using a very old and broken tool that should only be used by people
with substantial port-handling experience.

You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major
mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and
security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch.

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.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"

mail/junkfilter is several broken

[Steve Kargl]

For users of mail/junkfilter, it now will filter all emails claiming
a "Bad Date line".  The following patch seems to fix the problem for
the next decade.


--- junkfilter.three.orig   2020-01-01 12:59:56.005681000 -0800
+++ junkfilter.three2020-01-01 13:00:26.254199000 -0800
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@
 * ! $ ^Date:$JFWS((Sun|Mon|Tue|Wed|Thu|Fri|Sat),$JFWS)?\
 (0?[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])$JFWS\
 (Jan|Feb|Mar|Apr|May|Jun|Jul|Aug|Sep|Oct|Nov|Dec)$JFWS\
-((19)?[789][0-9]|(20)?[01][0-9])$JFWS\
+((19)?[789][0-9]|(20)?[012][0-9])$JFWS\
 (0?[0-9]|1[0-9]|2[0-3]):(0?|[1-5])[0-9](:(0?|[1-5])[0-9])?$JFWS\
 
(([+-][0-1][0-4]([03]0|45))|("?\(?(UT|GMT|EST|EDT|CST|CDT|MST|MDT|PST|PDT|[A-I]|[K-Z])\)?"?))?
 { JFMATCH="$JFSEC: Bad Date line" INCLUDERC=$JFDIR/junkfilter.match }


Suggest either installing the patch or marking the port as broken.

-- 
Steve
___
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: Portmaster failing

[@lbutlr]

On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:46, Franco Fichtner  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr  wrote:
>> 
>> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner  wrote:
>>> security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become 
>>> security/openssl.
>> 
>> Ugh.
>> 
>>> A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees, 
>>> don't we.  ;)
>> 
>> This is going to go poorly, if previous attempts to update to 1.1 are any 
>> indication.
> 
> With PHP 5.6 axed prematurely a while back I am interested to see OpenSSL 
> 1.0.2
> phased out now with a number of ports still not supporting 1.1.1 and seeing 
> them
> marked as broken sooner or later.

Well, at this point I cannot install openssl111 without deinstalling openssl, 
which I cannot deinstall since it is gone from ports.

Looks like I have to remove openssl, which … I mean, seriously, this seems 
pretty hostile.

Name   : openssl
Version: 1.0.2u,1
Installed on   : Sun Dec 22 08:13:27 2019 MST

There was nothing at all on the 22nd about “WARNING THIS WILL BREAK EVERYTHING 
IN A WEEK” which to mean seems like it should have been made super obvious.



-- 
There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand
binary and those who don’t.

___
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: Portmaster failing

[Franco Fichtner]

> On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr  wrote:
> 
> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner  wrote:
>> security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become 
>> security/openssl.
> 
> Ugh.
> 
>> A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees, 
>> don't we.  ;)
> 
> This is going to go poorly, if previous attempts to update to 1.1 are any 
> indication.

With PHP 5.6 axed prematurely a while back I am interested to see OpenSSL 1.0.2
phased out now with a number of ports still not supporting 1.1.1 and seeing them
marked as broken sooner or later.

With all this in mind, I'm surprised Python did not suffer the same fate
and was deprecate-extended to the end of 2020 in the ports tree which is an
unusual 180 regarding previous arguments that having expired ports still
supported is "too much work".


Happy new year,
Franco
___
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: Portmaster failing

[@lbutlr]

On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner  wrote:
> security/openssl111 has become security/openssl.

I have /usr/ports/security/openssl111 and no /usr/ports/security/openssl which 
doesn’t sound like what you said.



-- 
'Pcharn'kov!' Footnote: 'Your feet shall be cut off and be buried
several yards from your body so your ghost won't walk.'
--Interesting Times

___
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: Portmaster failing

[@lbutlr]

On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner  wrote:
> security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become 
> security/openssl.

Ugh.

> A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees, don't 
> we.  ;)

This is going to go poorly, if previous attempts to update to 1.1 are any 
indication.



-- 
people didn't seem to be able to remember what it was like with the
elves around. Life was certainly more interesting then, but
usually because it was shorter. And it was more colourful, if you
liked the colour of blood. --Lords and Ladies

___
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: Portmaster failing

[Franco Fichtner]

security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become 
security/openssl.

A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees, don't 
we.  ;)


Cheers,
Franco

> On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:37 PM, @lbutlr  wrote:
> 
> Portmaser -L errors out with
> 
> make: "/usr/ports/Mk/Uses/ssl.mk" line 97: You are using an unsupported SSL 
> provider openssl
> 
> Make.conf:
> DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=openssl apache=2.4 php=7.2 perl5=5.28 mysql=10.1m
> 
> Worked fine on Saturday, maybe Friday.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> i wasn't born a programmer. i became one because i was impatient. -
>   Dave Winer
> 
> ___
> 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"

Portmaster failing

[@lbutlr]

Portmaser -L errors out with

make: "/usr/ports/Mk/Uses/ssl.mk" line 97: You are using an unsupported SSL 
provider openssl

Make.conf:
DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=openssl apache=2.4 php=7.2 perl5=5.28 mysql=10.1m

Worked fine on Saturday, maybe Friday.



-- 
i wasn't born a programmer. i became one because i was impatient. -
Dave Winer

___
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"

New 2020Q1 branch

[portmgr-secretary]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Hi,

The 2020Q1 branch has been created. It means that the next update on the
quarterly packages will be on the 2020Q1 branch.

A lot of things happened in the last three months:
- - pkg 1.12.0
- - Default version of Lazarus switched to 2.0.6
- - Default version of Python and Python3 switched to 3.7
- - Default version of Samba switched to 4.10
- - Firefox 72.0
- - Firefox-esr 68.4.0
- - Chromium 78.0.3904.108
- - Qt5 5.13.2
- - Linux CentOS 6 ports removed
- - Virtual category "ipv6" remvoved, this is now the norm
- - Physical category "palm" removed

Next quarterly package builds will start on Thursday 1:00 UTC and
should be available on your closest mirrors few days later.

For those stat nerds out there, here's what happened during the last 3 months 
on head:
Number of commits: 7907
Number of committers:  157
Most active committers:
1991  sunpoet 
 471  jbeich 
 462  yuri 
 340  tobik 
 289  amdmi3 
 240  pkubaj 
 234  tcberner 
 220  antoine 
 131  swills 
 118  dmgk 
Diffstat: 22449 files changed, 291733 insertions(+), 434760 deletions(-)

and on the 2019Q4 branch:
Number of commits: 358
Number of committers:   61
Most active committers:
  59  jbeich 
  31  mfechner 
  24  kai 
  20  antoine 
  15  koobs 
  13  riggs 
  13  rene 
  12  tz 
  11  zeising 
  11  linimon 
Diffstat: 1255 files changed, 18153 insertions(+), 9189 deletions(-)

Regards,
Ren??
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=pi4+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
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: svn commit: r521562 - in head/java: . wildfly17 wildfly17/files

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hi Simeo;

On 01/01/2020 09:42, Simeo Reig wrote:

Hi all,

Pedro´s question could make sense in a regular environment but this is 
Java world!. Still nowadays there are not so few companies running 
java 7/java EE7 despite we have java 13/Jakarta EE8.


Hmm ... that is reasonable and surely justifies having your versioning 
scheme.


Do note however, that we deprecated Java 7 and anything before that in 
the ports tree so those ports should be deprecated.


People can still install and use older versions manually, of course.

In official Wildfly page, https://wildfly.org/downloads , you can see 
there is still available from Wildfly 8 since the last Wildfly 18 
more, summing more  than twenty versions all maintained.



Why? some versions are javaEE7 certified, some javaEE8 and some others 
jakartaEE8. Some can use jdk7, some jdk8 and others can use last 
jdk11.  Some have microprofile included, some other no etcetera. Java 
EE has moved from oracle to eclipse fundation, there have been more 
changes in last two years than last twenty and therefore many 
companies are stilln adapting their code.



Very interesting indeed. C++ has also been changing a lot.

By the way, thanks for your comments Pedro and commit new version Kurt.



Thanks for the explanation,

Pedro.



Simeó Reig

On Wed, 1 Jan 2020, 14:01 Simeo Reig, > wrote:


Hi all,

  Pedro´s question could make sense in a regular environment but
this is Java world!. Still nowadays there are not so few companies
running java 7/java EE7 despite we have java 13/Jakarta EE8.

In official Wildfly page, https://wildfly.org/downloads , you can
see there is still available from Wildfly 8 since the last
Wildfly 18 more, summing more  than twenty versions all maintained.


Why? some versions are javaEE7 certified, some javaEE8 and some
others jakartaEE8. Some can use jdk7, some jdk8 and others can use
last jdk11.  Some have microprofile included, some other no
etcetera. Java EE has moved from oracle to eclipse fundation,
there have been more changes in last two years than last twenty
and therefore many companies are stilln adapting their code.

By the way, thanks for comments Pedro and commit new version Kurt.

Simeó Reig



On Mon, 30 Dec 2019, 19:35 Pedro Giffuni, mailto:p...@freebsd.org>> wrote:


On 30/12/2019 13:28, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Author: pi
> Date: Mon Dec 30 18:28:24 2019
> New Revision: 521562
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/521562
>
> Log:
>    New port: java/wildfly17
>
>    WildFly is a flexible, lightweight, managed application
>    runtime that helps you build amazing applications.
>    WildFly - new name for JBoss Application Server
>
>    Fast Startup
>    Small Footprint
>    Modular Design
>    Unified Configuration and Management
>
>    And of course Java EE / Jakarta EE!
>
>    WWW: https://wildfly.org/
>
>    This is the first Wildfly with JAKARTA EE8 full support.
>
>    PR:                242962
>    Submitted by:      Simeo Reig mailto:reig.si...@gmail.com>>
>
> Added:
>    head/java/wildfly17/
>       - copied from r521432, head/java/wildfly16/
>    head/java/wildfly17/files/wildfly17.in 
>       - copied unchanged from r521432,
head/java/wildfly16/files/wildfly16.in 
> Deleted:
>    head/java/wildfly17/files/wildfly16.in 
> Modified:
>    head/java/Makefile
>    head/java/wildfly17/Makefile
>    head/java/wildfly17/distinfo
>    head/java/wildfly17/files/pkg-message.in

>    head/java/wildfly17/pkg-descr
>    head/java/wildfly17/pkg-plist
>
> Modified: head/java/Makefile
>

==
> --- head/java/Makefile        Mon Dec 30 18:16:59 2019     
  (r521561)
> +++ head/java/Makefile        Mon Dec 30 18:28:24 2019     
  (r521562)
> @@ -125,6 +125,7 @@
>       SUBDIR += wildfly14
>       SUBDIR += wildfly15
>       SUBDIR += wildfly16
> +    SUBDIR += wildfly17
>       SUBDIR += wildfly90
>       SUBDIR += xdoclet
>

Not complaining, but I wonder why we have so many versioned ports
instead of having just one wildfly and wildfly-devel. wildfly
18 is
available, BTW.

Pedro.



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

Re: svn commit: r521562 - in head/java: . wildfly17 wildfly17/files

[Simeo Reig]

Hi all,

  Pedro´s question could make sense in a regular environment but this is
Java world!. Still nowadays there are not so few companies running java
7/java EE7 despite we have java 13/Jakarta EE8.

In official Wildfly page, https://wildfly.org/downloads , you can see there
is still available from Wildfly 8 since the last Wildfly 18 more, summing
more  than twenty versions all maintained.


Why? some versions are javaEE7 certified, some javaEE8 and some others
jakartaEE8. Some can use jdk7, some jdk8 and others can use last jdk11.
Some have microprofile included, some other no etcetera. Java EE has moved
from oracle to eclipse fundation, there have been more changes in last two
years than last twenty and therefore many companies are stilln adapting
their code.

By the way, thanks for your comments Pedro and commit new version Kurt.

Simeó Reig

On Wed, 1 Jan 2020, 14:01 Simeo Reig,  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>   Pedro´s question could make sense in a regular environment but this is
> Java world!. Still nowadays there are not so few companies running java
> 7/java EE7 despite we have java 13/Jakarta EE8.
>
> In official Wildfly page, https://wildfly.org/downloads , you can see
> there is still available from Wildfly 8 since the last Wildfly 18 more,
> summing more  than twenty versions all maintained.
>
>
> Why? some versions are javaEE7 certified, some javaEE8 and some others
> jakartaEE8. Some can use jdk7, some jdk8 and others can use last jdk11.
> Some have microprofile included, some other no etcetera. Java EE has moved
> from oracle to eclipse fundation, there have been more changes in last two
> years than last twenty and therefore many companies are stilln adapting
> their code.
>
> By the way, thanks for comments Pedro and commit new version Kurt.
>
> Simeó Reig
>
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2019, 19:35 Pedro Giffuni,  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 30/12/2019 13:28, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>> > Author: pi
>> > Date: Mon Dec 30 18:28:24 2019
>> > New Revision: 521562
>> > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/521562
>> >
>> > Log:
>> >New port: java/wildfly17
>> >
>> >WildFly is a flexible, lightweight, managed application
>> >runtime that helps you build amazing applications.
>> >WildFly - new name for JBoss Application Server
>> >
>> >Fast Startup
>> >Small Footprint
>> >Modular Design
>> >Unified Configuration and Management
>> >
>> >And of course Java EE / Jakarta EE!
>> >
>> >WWW: https://wildfly.org/
>> >
>> >This is the first Wildfly with JAKARTA EE8 full support.
>> >
>> >PR:242962
>> >Submitted by:  Simeo Reig 
>> >
>> > Added:
>> >head/java/wildfly17/
>> >   - copied from r521432, head/java/wildfly16/
>> >head/java/wildfly17/files/wildfly17.in
>> >   - copied unchanged from r521432, head/java/wildfly16/files/
>> wildfly16.in
>> > Deleted:
>> >head/java/wildfly17/files/wildfly16.in
>> > Modified:
>> >head/java/Makefile
>> >head/java/wildfly17/Makefile
>> >head/java/wildfly17/distinfo
>> >head/java/wildfly17/files/pkg-message.in
>> >head/java/wildfly17/pkg-descr
>> >head/java/wildfly17/pkg-plist
>> >
>> > Modified: head/java/Makefile
>> >
>> ==
>> > --- head/java/MakefileMon Dec 30 18:16:59 2019(r521561)
>> > +++ head/java/MakefileMon Dec 30 18:28:24 2019(r521562)
>> > @@ -125,6 +125,7 @@
>> >   SUBDIR += wildfly14
>> >   SUBDIR += wildfly15
>> >   SUBDIR += wildfly16
>> > +SUBDIR += wildfly17
>> >   SUBDIR += wildfly90
>> >   SUBDIR += xdoclet
>> >
>>
>> Not complaining, but I wonder why we have so many versioned ports
>> instead of having just one wildfly and wildfly-devel. wildfly 18 is
>> available, BTW.
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>>
>>
___
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: [multimedia/audacious-plugins] Fix playback at wrong tonality

[Fernando Apesteguía]

On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 5:25 AM  wrote:
>
>
> Howdy!
>
>  [CC'ing one of audacious developers whose email I was able to find, as
>   this really is an upstream issue]

Hi there!

Thanks for the heads up. Would you mind opening a PR[1]? Also,
ideally, this would be fixed upstream :-)

[1] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/

>
>  I noticed that on a certain USB audio device that I have, audacious would
>  play songs too fast when the sound device is in BITPERFECT mode, while
>  mpv, for example, plays them at correct speed.
>
>  Turns out that this device supports only one samplerate (48.0 ksps), but
>  audacious fails to detect that, and plays the 44.1 ksps song anyway,
>  resulting in playback that is almost 9% too fast.
>
>  The attached patch for OSS4 plugin fixes that. Please review.
>  The 3% figure was chosen more or less arbitrarily, based on a random
>  Internet article [0].
>
>  Also, I would like to request the port maintainer to add a DBUS option,
>  enabling to compile the player and its plugins without Linux's dbus
>  dependency ("--disable-dbus" configure option does the trick, though
>  stops `audtool` from building as well).
>
> [0] https://cecm.sitehost.iu.edu/etext/acoustics/chapter1_pitch.shtml
>
> --
> [SorAlx]  ridin' VN2000 Classic LT
___
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"