On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 07:07:06PM -0600, John Marino wrote:
> It's a natural reaction to stop attempting to contribute when previous
> contributions don't get "attention they deserve".
Which some people (including me) see as odds with:
> the impression that portmaster is officially recommended
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 01:04:22PM +0100, René Ladan wrote:
> Please join me in welcoming Adam and Mark.
Congratulations guys.
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send
As of 20170324 there are still 175 ports that are marked deprecated and
broken due to the Google Code site having gone away. These are due to
expire on 20170430. Please consider this a "last call" to find a current
mastersite for these ports before then. Thanks.
astro/gmapcatcher
or
http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portdependencytree.py?category=sysutils=hal
.
This runs a make(1) command on the latest version of the tree, so it's slow, but
accurate.
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> See https://bugs.freebsd.org/215977 for the full story.
I believe Michal Meloun is looking at a fix.
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 08:27:29PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
> I've seen material quoted from a exp-run that reported
> that about 54(?) ports were then blocked by lang/gcc6-aux
> not building.
Although the first is an older run (the last complete run IIUC), there
were 50 and 51 respectively as
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:37:05PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> (Right now, it's quite hard to resist the paranoid suspicion that
> maybe this crazy, anti-real-user behavior is a subtle way to kill
> freebsd altogether by driving away the non-hobbyists.)
That's one explanation.
The
I understand that having the quarterlies is not meeting your use case.
You've said that. We get it.
So you want some kind of running -quarterly branch.
But where are the N hours of work per week to QA all the patches to
the -quarterly branch, or a -stable branch, or whatever people seem
to
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 01:47:16PM -0500, Lars Eighner wrote:
> close to 50 ports fail to build because of patch errors
I'm sure you have already checked this, but ...
... when I get this on my powerpc64 machine it is inevitably that I have
run out of space somewhere, usually on /tmp.
mcl
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 03:00:23PM +, r...@gid.co.uk wrote:
> Let me rephrase that: the link http://purelang.bitbucket.org/
> quoted on https://wiki.freebsd.org/ObsoleteLLVMVersions doesn’t work,
That's the URL in lang/pure/Makefile.
> should be https://bitbucket.org/purelang/
Hmm. I
I've committed the fix. Thanks for reporting and testing.
fwiw, my goal in marking ports BROKEN on the various tier-2 archs is to
bring more attention to them. We still have a lot of work to do on the
arm archs in particular to bring things up to parity with amd64 (well,
as much as we can, in
If I marked it, it was as a result of it failing on FreeBSD's build cluster.
I don't have hardware set up here yet myself.
I'd go ahead and commit the fix but I have other distractions this week.
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
Please see https://wiki.freebsd.org/ObsoleteLLVMVersions .
mcl
___
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"
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:31:34PM +, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> May I ask what exactly makes you think that freebsd-ports-b...@freebsd.org
> is correct assignee in this case?
I'm away from my systems right now but I do know that this problem also
affects sparc64.
The original assignments of
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:01:39PM +, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> raising the possibility of building for other targets.
Which is very much not hardly even the same as "they are being resistant
to change". In fact, about as far away from it as is possible to get.
"techinically possible" !=
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 04:53:36PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> Since that's what I integrate for my dev use, I'd be happy to
> take a zero'th-order cut at defining it, if nobody else wants to.
Fine. See http://www.lonesome.com/FreeBSD/poudriere/subsets/ for what
I use. I'm not
I am running a powerpc64 machine diskless but only with some awful hacks.
I can make them available if need be, but I hope that someone else has a
better recommendation for you.
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing
> the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be
> a Really Good Thing for everyone.
I remember before we had the quarterly releases, and
You didn't read (or ignored) the last half of my post.
Whatever.
I'll go back to what I was doing before, e.g., cleaning up other people's
messes. Your first two guesses of "what type of commit bits made the
messes" don't count.
mcl
___
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:58:14AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> What we want is:
> A "recent" starting point for our next project/upgrade to start from
> and an ongoing version of that, which will get critical fixes only for
> at LEAST 2 years, probably 5.
> The key here is the *_*critical
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 01:36:26PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> The problem is that such a set of sponsored branches does not exist so
> knowing who'd sign up and who would't is just guesswork
And that's why neither myself or the other people who have in the past
considered such a business
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 01:09:26AM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
> I'll go back to what I was doing before
This was an unkind comment and I should not have made it. My
apologies to all.
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
ht
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:24:31AM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> The number of ports to build a server-of-all-work is not large.
Now the problem is getting people to agree on exactly what that
subset is.
If there is interest, I can provide the examples and code I use
whenever I start up a
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 07:37:22AM +, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> It seems NetBSD pkgsrc people are not catching on, preferring to stay
> with the clumsy pkgsrc tools: creatures of habit, reluctant to change.
Remember that NetBSD runs on dozens of targets*, of which only two support
Ada AFAIK.
So during my pass over recent powerpc64 package errorlogs, I found
a few ports that were actually broken across all archs on -current,
and made those commits.
I may not have enough cycles to investigate all these down by myself,
so I'm asking for help. Does anyone recognize any of these failure
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:00:14PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
> Kevin Oberman rkoberman at gmail.com wrote on Tue May 30 16:52:19 UTC 2017
>
> > I really suggest that you look at synth.
synth is currently only available for x86 and unless someone steps up
to do the work to make the Ada compilers
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:46:46PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
> Hello, I have not followed this thread before but just wanted to say
> that I use portmaster extensively, it works for us and I would miss
> it if it went. Are there actually plans to retire it?
To reiterate the status:
*
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 01:31:19PM +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote:
> If someone likes synth please support it.
This. Very much this.
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 05:58:24PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> Core has some proposals around planning for such changes that they will
> be talking about during the BSDCan devsummit next week. These should
> also be published internally fairly soon afterwards for the benefit of
> people not at
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:06:17AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> as it makes FreeBSD unusable for those of us with only "small"
> systems where the weight of poudriere simply can't be justified.
I'm confused. I have been using poudriere for several years
to build sparc64 packages. 2 * single
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:30:14PM -0700, Don Lewis wrote:
> it illustrates the problem of synth being the only real
> consumer of the ADA toolchain (which John also maintained)
> on FreeBSD.
It's only fair to point out that John did a great deal of work
on Ada on FreeBSD. However ...
> Another
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:06:17AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> It is unclear to me whether this was in regard to pots
> to the mailing lists or included private responses to
> the mail list discussions.
I know the former is true, not sure about the latter, but
he also used the bugs database in
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 01:29:23AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> can we just find out who runs the poudriere instances and
> ask them to just append the svn revision number somewhere?
> or maybe even the poudriere commands used..
http://www.freebsd.org/portmgr/ ; port...@freebsd.org
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 03:09:40AM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
> It appears that qemu-ppc64-static and qemu-ppc-static from
> emulators/qemu-user-static are broken.
Correct, and known for some time. (fwiw sparc64 hangs as well.)
mcl
___
Please understand that I'm not trying to be obstinate,
I'm trying to understand.
Background: years ago I managed the cluster of i386 blades
that we used in package building. 933MHz and 512MB IIRC.
So I am familiar with constraint problems.
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:22:25PM -0700, Steve Kargl
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:56:53PM +, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
> portmaster/portupgrade trade off doing less work with
> less resources in an attempt to produce less rigorously
> correct result
That was what I thought I said :-) or at least was trying
to say.
mcl
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 08:13:16PM +, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
> I was trying
> to compile with the system that was being updated at the
> same time - this can't possibly work (or can it?).
It works somewhere between "quite often" to "nearly all
the time". It can vary depending on the
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 04:39:25PM -0400, Ernie Luzar wrote:
> even the native ports system usage on personal machines
> wwill fade away.
I have seen this claim many times by users but AFAIR that
was never a goal. The feeling was that _most_ users would
migrate to using packages, once using
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 08:56:00PM +, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
> Maybe I am just too ambitious or maybe poudriere is more
> idiot-proof?
My possibly incorrect understanding is that poudriere
trades off doing a lot more work in an attempt to produce
more rigorously correct results.
mcl
I had not commented before because I am on a long road trip.
But I'm very glad you have taken on this work. I had always wanted to
do something very much like this but never made the time to do it.
My old thought was that we have conflated "User's Guide to Ports" and
"Ports Reference Handbook".
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:42:27AM -0800, Chris H wrote:
> IMHO it might be a good idea to make a legacy branch, in the ports
> tree before gutting the pre-NG stuff.
Good lord, people.
The pre-NG stuff has Left The Building. It is not coming back.
The last (even trivial) revision to the pkg_*
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 11:53:58AM +, Carmel NY wrote:
> Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
> "portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has
> done a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent.
That's one possible
Let me see if I can clear up some common misconceptions ...
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:56:45AM +, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> I believe portmaster and portupgrade work or worked on all supported
> versions and architectures of FreeBSD
In my experience I can only speak for amd64/i386, but AFAIK
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:25:13PM -0500, Baho Utot wrote:
> Thank you for taking a perfectly good system and breaking it as well as
> making it unusable, unstable.
You made your point 10 posts ago.
You are repeating yourself.
Why???
mcl
___
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 07:50:40AM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> Is it official FreeBSD policy to allow spammers free reign on this
> list, or is the list owner merely incompetent?
or is it 3) spam is a never-ending arms race, and the volunteers are
struggling to keep up?
...
Honestly, I do not
501 - 545 of 545 matches
Mail list logo
