Report problems here or elsewhere?

[Margaret]

Hello all.

I was directed to this list as a place to report problems with ports.
But the general information at
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports makes me
wonder whether I was misdirected and should be reporting them
elsewhere.  Could someone advise?  Thanks.

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

xfce4 build fails in 10.2 RELEASE: FNF

[Margaret]

Since as yet xfce4 doesn't exist as a package, I tried to build
xfce4 under 10.2 RELEASE using only defaults.  

But the build fails in x11-toolkits because printbackend-cups.so
is not found.  -files.so and -lpr.so exist, but -cups.so does not
That happened AFTER it spent 4.5 hours downloading a whole
gigabyte of tex rubbish that gtk3 apparently wants.  Since all I
wanted at that point was graphics mode and xterm so I could debug
samba more conveniently, I kept deselecting things and
re-starting, trying to avoid having to waste those 4.5 hours. But
nothing worked, and eventually I threw up my hands and let it do
what it wanted -- which was to waste the 4.5 hours and then fail
to build!

I'm absolutely not trying to have a go at Olivier, the
maintainer.  He does yeoman work!  

I'm complaining about the kitchen-sink model that needlessly
prevents coherent subsetting, needlessly steepens every learning
curve, and needlessly makes maintenance harder.  It's perverse
and a violation of Unix principles.
___
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: xfce4 build fails in 10.2 RELEASE: FNF

[Margaret]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:36:16 -0400, I  wrote:

>Since as yet xfce4 doesn't exist as a package

I was wrong - it does, and works very nicely too.  I'm just too
used to version numbers on pkgs, so I looked for xfce4.

(But there is a missing file in the port, and the kitchen-sink
model really is a 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: Checking port option descriptions

[Margaret]

[Default] On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 09:47:10 +0100, Mike Clarke
 wrote:

>For cases where one line comments won't suffice how about providing the 
>facility 
>to include an extra text file in a port (perhaps "pkg-options") containing 
>notes about why some particular options would be chosen?
>
>In its simplest form a user would be able to refer to the file before 
>selecting 
>an option, A further enhancement could be to modify the way that configure 
>works so that the user can select an option and press "?" to see the section 
>of text, if any, from pkg-options explaining that option.

I like that idea!

The nice thing about good, useful comments is that, like the
software itself, they generally only have to be written from
scratch ONCE.

It shouldn't be too hard to agree a template for the file you
propose.
___
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: Pkg doesn't care about conflict

[Margaret]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:02:46 +0200, Mathieu Arnold
 wrote:

>Le 26/09/2016 à 21:42, scratch65...@att.net a écrit :
>> I have the PHP 7.0 package installed under 10.2.  Wanting to
>> install the pecl-imagick port, I called pkg search, which
>> returned a ref.  I only caught the fact that it was going to
>> install PHP 5.6 despite my having 7.0 installed  when it started
>> downloading 5.6.  
>>
>> Given that PHP is one of the pillars of a FAMP setup, I'd think
>> that pkg should be aware of conflicts like that and return a
>> notice ("No version for PHP 7.0.  Install PHP 5.6?") rather than
>> blythely assume it'd be okay to install an older version of PHP
>> (or Apache, or MariaDB/MySQL, mutatis mutandis) despite an
>> already-installed later version.
>
>Right now, the default php version is php 5.6, which is used for the
>official package builds.  If you want to use another PHP version as the
>default, you have to build your ports locally.

Both 5.* and 7.* are current tracks at PHP, so it's not
surprising that a package is built with 5.6.  What surprised me,
apart from pkg's apparent willingness to ignore an existing
install of 7.0, was that there are no pkgs built against 7.0,
even though 7.0 provides a jump in performance that's so large
it's visible to the naked eye.  
___
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: Pkg doesn't care about conflict

[Margaret]

[Default] On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:40:33 +0200, Miroslav Lachman
<000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:

>scratch65...@att.net wrote on 09/26/2016 21:42:
>> I have the PHP 7.0 package installed under 10.2.  Wanting to
>> install the pecl-imagick port, I called pkg search, which
>> returned a ref.  I only caught the fact that it was going to
>> install PHP 5.6 despite my having 7.0 installed  when it started
>> downloading 5.6.
>>
>> Given that PHP is one of the pillars of a FAMP setup, I'd think
>> that pkg should be aware of conflicts like that and return a
>> notice ("No version for PHP 7.0.  Install PHP 5.6?") rather than
>> blythely assume it'd be okay to install an older version of PHP
>> (or Apache, or MariaDB/MySQL, mutatis mutandis) despite an
>> already-installed later version.
>
>Did you stop pkg in the middle or did you let it go? I think it will 
>show you conflict message and ask you if you would like to deinstall PHP 
>7.0 and install 5.6 instead.
>
>Miroslav Lachman

I stopped it immediately.  

If you're right about it showing a conflct message (my memory
says you are), I'd think it would be friendlier to print the
message first, before anything is downloaded.  It routinely
checks versions, so putting out the conflict message immediately,
even before showing the proposed downloads, shouldn't be hard.
___
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"