FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date
Dear port maintainer, The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your ports appears to be out of date.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, 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 +-+ security/gsasl | 1.8.0 | 1.8.1 +-+ 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
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 02:50:04PM +0100, Jan Beich wrote: > "Thomas Mueller" writes: > > >> 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. > > DragonFly has lang/gcc9-aux since > https://github.com/DragonFlyBSD/DeltaPorts/commit/bb774aced6d7 > Synth is still used to build binary packages on DragonFly e.g., > https://sting.dragonflybsd.org/dports/logs/lang___gcc9-aux.log And is phase to be replaced by dsynth in there (rewrite in C by dillon@) Best regards, Bapt signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Portmaster failing
> Unequally, actually. portmaster still has some developers putting in > the hard work to keep it running. portupgrade hasn't had much focused > development in many years and should probably be removed from the > tree. There are some problems with building on a live system that > portmaster can't ever truly alleviate, but it certainly works (when > used by people experienced in handling fallout). portupgrade is just a > system-mangling disaster waiting to happen. > Adam Weinberger I suppose what you say about portmaster applies equally to portupgrade? (from my previous post) I am strongly advised to heed your advice on portupgrade. It seemed to work fairly well, once upon a time, but even then it was necessary to run "pkgdb -F". I looked in the FreeBSD Handbook online, found poudriere. I even ran "make all-depends-list | more" from my FreeBSD installation, found surprisingly few dependencies, wish there were a good way to configure options without dialog4ports. Still, dialog4ports was an improvement over the old dialog, which always messed my screen when I kept a log file. Speaking of system-mangling disaster, NetBSD pkgsrc with pkg_rolling-replace can do that, I am typing this on such a system. from Jan Beich: > DragonFly has lang/gcc9-aux since > https://github.com/DragonFlyBSD/DeltaPorts/commit/bb774aced6d7 > Synth is still used to build binary packages on DragonFly e.g., > https://sting.dragonflybsd.org/dports/logs/lang___gcc9-aux.log I looked on gitweb.dragonflybsd.org, found gcc9-aux, but no gcc7-aux or gcc8-aux, and no gccn-aux on dragonlace.net where n > 6. DragonFly uses git for src and dports trees, in contrast to FreeBSD which uses svn, and NetBSD and OpenBSD which use cvs. Possibly I could try to create my own gcc(7 or 8)-aux on FreeBSD or NetBSD, or cross-compile for Linux. I would follow instructions on software.gnu.org or gcc.gnu.org . 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: replacement of security/ipsec-tools
Hi! > What would be a secure alternative if one is needed? > #) security/racoon2 > #) security/strongswan This is also ipsec based. > #) something else? openvpn or wireguard -- 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"
replacement of security/ipsec-tools
[X-posted, please chose the relevant ML for such a thread] Hi, I am running ipsec-tools to implement a VPN tunnel (esp) between two hosts for years now. But this statement on http://ipsec-tools.sourceforge.net makes me think about an alternative: The development of ipsec-tools has been ABANDONED. ipsec-tools has security issues, and you should not use it. Please switch to a secure alternative! Could you provide me with links where I could find more details about the above mentioned 'security issues'? I want to find out, if my specific setup has security issues at all. Thanks. What would be a secure alternative if one is needed? #) security/racoon2 #) security/strongswan #) something else? What do I need? #) a VPN tunnel between two hosts #) both local networks reachable from the remote host Thanks and regards, Michael ___ 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: [patch] security/ipsec-tools is broken
Kurt Jaeger wrote: >> the recent renaming of security/openssl111 to security/openssl breaks >> security/ipsec-tools. >> >> Have a look at https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232169 for >> details. > > Any reason you attach a patch to a closed/fix bug from Feb. 2019 ? I am not very familiar with bugzilla. I believed, that this would reopen the old bug with my old patch. > This is a sure way to loose track of it… Should I file a new bug report? Ups, just realised that you reopened bug 232169. Thanks and regards, Michael ___ 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: [patch] security/ipsec-tools is broken
Hi! > the recent renaming of security/openssl111 to security/openssl breaks > security/ipsec-tools. > > Have a look at https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232169 for > details. Any reason you attach a patch to a closed/fix bug from Feb. 2019 ? This is a sure way to loose track of it... -- 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"
[patch] security/ipsec-tools is broken
FYI, the recent renaming of security/openssl111 to security/openssl breaks security/ipsec-tools. Have a look at https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232169 for details. Regards, Michael ___ 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"
Mariadb101-server fails to build
Not sure if the top part of this is relevant: -- => REST support is ON CMake Warning at storage/connect/CMakeLists.txt:326 (FIND_PACKAGE): By not providing "Findcpprestsdk.cmake" in CMAKE_MODULE_PATH this project has asked CMake to find a package configuration file provided by "cpprestsdk", but CMake did not find one. Could not find a package configuration file provided by "cpprestsdk" with any of the following names: cpprestsdkConfig.cmake cpprestsdk-config.cmake Add the installation prefix of "cpprestsdk" to CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH or set "cpprestsdk_DIR" to a directory containing one of the above files. If "cpprestsdk" provides a separate development package or SDK, be sure it has been installed. -- => cpprestsdk package not found -- Looking for include file lz4.h -- Looking for include file lz4.h - found -- Looking for LZ4_compress_limitedOutput in lz4 -- Looking for LZ4_compress_limitedOutput in lz4 - not found -- Looking for LZ4_compress_default in lz4 -- Looking for LZ4_compress_default in lz4 - not found CMake Error at cmake/lz4.cmake:31 (MESSAGE): Required lz4 library is not found Call Stack (most recent call first): storage/innobase/CMakeLists.txt:28 (MYSQL_CHECK_LZ4) -- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred! See also "/usr/ports/databases/mariadb101-server/work/mariadb-10.1.43/CMakeFiles/CMakeOutput.log". See also "/usr/ports/databases/mariadb101-server/work/mariadb-10.1.43/CMakeFiles/CMakeError.log". *** Error code 1 # portmaster -l | grep -i lz4 ===>>> liblz4-1.9.2,1 ===>>> p5-Compress-LZ4-0.25 I’ve rebuilt cmake, though it was already built today. LZ3 always was rebuilt. I can build MariaDB if I disable lz4 AND lzo. The error log above (“See also”) was overwritten when I rebuilt without lz4, so I don’t have it. -- Women like silent men, they think they're listening. ___ 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: mail/junkfilter is several broken
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 12:22:20PM +0100, Stefan Eßer wrote: > Am 01.01.20 um 22:04 schrieb 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. > > Hi Steve, > > thank you for providing a patch. Since the maintainer (gsutter) has > not been active in FreeBSD for a long time (AFAICT) and due to the > difference in time zones, I have taken liberty to apply the fix to > the port. > > I have sent mail to Gregory who probably will want to apply the fix > to the sourceforge repo and to remove the patch, but the fixed port > will allow to keep junkfilter working, meanwhile. > Thanks for the quick response. I could not tell from the SF page whether junkfilter was still being maintained or not. I find junkfilter to be a handy way to deal with email, but having everything flagged as spam was a little too much. -- 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
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 7:56 PM Thomas Mueller wrote: > > > > 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. Unequally, actually. portmaster still has some developers putting in the hard work to keep it running. portupgrade hasn't had much focused development in many years and should probably be removed from the tree. There are some problems with building on a live system that portmaster can't ever truly alleviate, but it certainly works (when used by people experienced in handling fallout). portupgrade is just a system-mangling disaster waiting to happen. # 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
"Thomas Mueller" writes: >> 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. DragonFly has lang/gcc9-aux since https://github.com/DragonFlyBSD/DeltaPorts/commit/bb774aced6d7 Synth is still used to build binary packages on DragonFly e.g., https://sting.dragonflybsd.org/dports/logs/lang___gcc9-aux.log ___ 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: mail/junkfilter is several broken
Am 01.01.20 um 22:04 schrieb 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.
Hi Steve,
thank you for providing a patch. Since the maintainer (gsutter) has
not been active in FreeBSD for a long time (AFAICT) and due to the
difference in time zones, I have taken liberty to apply the fix to
the port.
I have sent mail to Gregory who probably will want to apply the fix
to the sourceforge repo and to remove the patch, but the fixed port
will allow to keep junkfilter working, meanwhile.
Regards, STefan
> --- junkfilter.three.orig 2020-01-01 12:59:56.005681000 -0800
> +++ junkfilter.three 2020-01-01 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.
___
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
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 23:28:30 +0100 Kurt Jaeger wrote: > > 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. > py27-backports-1 py27-backports.functools_lru_cache-1.5 py27-backports_abc-0.5 py27-cairo-1.18.1_1 py27-cython-0.29.13_1 py27-dateutil-2.8.0 py27-futures-3.2.0 py27-gobject-2.28.6_8 py27-gtk2-2.24.0_5 py27-html5lib-1.0.1 py27-isodate-0.6.0 py27-kiwisolver-1.1.0 py27-lxml-4.4.2 py27-matplotlib-2.2.4_1 py27-numpy-1.16.5_2,1 py27-pygments-2.4.1 py27-pyparsing-2.4.6 py27-pytz-2019.3,1 py27-scour-0.37 py27-setuptools-41.4.0_1 py27-setuptools_scm-3.3.3 py27-singledispatch-3.4.0.3_1 py27-sip-4.19.19_1,1 py27-six-1.12.0 py27-tkinter-2.7.17_6 py27-tornado-5.1.1 py27-webencodings-0.5.1 For example: pkg info -r py27-numpy py27-numpy-1.16.5_2,1: py27-matplotlib-2.2.4_1 inkscape-0.92.4_12 root@lumiwa:~# pkg info -d py27-numpy py27-numpy-1.16.5_2,1: suitesparse-5.4.0_4 lapack-3.5.0_8 cblas-1.0_12 blas-3.5.0_6 python27-2.7.17_1 gcc9-9.2.0 py27-setuptools-41.4.0_1 pkg info -r py37-numpy py37-numpy-1.16.5_2,1: blender-2.80_6 py37-spyder-3.2.7_7 py37-pandas-0.24.2_1,1 py37-scipy-1.2.2_1 py37-numexpr-2.7.0 py37-bottleneck-1.3.1 py37-matplotlib-2.2.4_1 root@lumiwa:~# pkg info -d py37-numpy py37-numpy-1.16.5_2,1: suitesparse-5.4.0_4 lapack-3.5.0_8 cblas-1.0_12 blas-3.5.0_6 python37-3.7.6 gcc9-9.2.0 py37-setuptools-41.4.0_1 And how long is python 27 deprecated? I am portmaster user too because I have a single FreeBSD machine and I do not want to destroying hard drive with poudriere. -- “good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws” Plato ___ 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"
