On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:42:00 +0400
Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
> Erwin Lansing wrote on 27.10.2011 14:21:
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:44:34PM +0300, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> > What, on the other hand, makes sense is to have the fix that
> > should include:
> > a) a KNOB (WITH_FBSD10
Erwin Lansing wrote on 27.10.2011 14:21:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:44:34PM +0300, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
What, on the other hand, makes sense is to have the fix that
should include:
a) a KNOB (WITH_FBSD10_FIX or similar),
b) that only is run from bsd.port.mk when OSVERSION>100
c) runs the l
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:44:34PM +0300, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> > > > What, on the other hand, makes sense is to have the fix that
> > > > should include:
> > > > a) a KNOB (WITH_FBSD10_FIX or similar),
> > > > b) that only is run from bsd.port.mk when OSVERSION>100
> > > > c) runs the late
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
Erwin is currently running a build on i386-10 with this and the
following patches:
- bsd.port.mk patch from beat (based on ed@, jilles@ and stas@ patches)
- python patch from beat
- python patch from linimon
- WITH_FBSD10_FIX in:
- textproc/expa
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:31:36 +0300
Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:04:20 -0700
> Stanislav Sedov wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:59:38 +0300
> > Ion-Mihai Tetcu mentioned:
> >
> > > Unfortunately we don't seem to have any other way to go, for the
>
> (and yes, I hate the
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:04:20 -0700
Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:59:38 +0300
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu mentioned:
>
> > Unfortunately we don't seem to have any other way to go, for the
(and yes, I hate the idea)
> > big majority of the ports. The fix is basically identical, so it
>
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:59:38 +0300
Ion-Mihai Tetcu mentioned:
> Unfortunately we don't seem to have any other way to go, for the
> big majority of the ports. The fix is basically identical, so it
> doesn't make sense to have a zillion of patch files in a zillion of
> ports.
> What, on the other h
[ slightly reordered ]
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:31:46 +1100
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> [trimming cc list]
>
> On 2011-Oct-17 13:51:30 -0700, Stanislav Sedov
> wrote:
> >ones (like GCC). So why not commit that patch as a KNOB to
> >bsd.port.mk like it was initially proposed and let people use it in
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:01:00 -0700
Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:50:48 +0300
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu mentioned:
>
> >
> > Did you do a full run with the patch? Can you provide the list of
> > ports that aren't fixed by the patch and the exact patch you used?
> > Thanks.
> >
>
> D
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:31:46 +1100
Peter Jeremy mentioned:
> [trimming cc list]
>
> On 2011-Oct-17 13:51:30 -0700, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> >ones (like GCC). So why not commit that patch as a KNOB to bsd.port.mk like
> >it was initially proposed and let people use it in individual ports makefi
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> Once hackish work-arounds get committed, it is extremely difficult to
> root them out. The last time the project included a temporary hack to
> assist with a similar problem (the aout to ELF migration in FreeBSD
> 3), it took more than a deca
[trimming cc list]
On 2011-Oct-17 13:51:30 -0700, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
>ones (like GCC). So why not commit that patch as a KNOB to bsd.port.mk like
>it was initially proposed and let people use it in individual ports makefiles
>to fix them (and portmgr@ can commit the initial bunch of these kn
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:50:48 +0300
Ion-Mihai Tetcu mentioned:
>
> Did you do a full run with the patch? Can you provide the list of ports
> that aren't fixed by the patch and the exact patch you used? Thanks.
>
Did you? I'm not the one sitting on the cluster...
Several people provided the pat
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:50:48 +0300
Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:52:54 +
> "Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote:
>
> > On 17. Oct 2011, at 20:51 , Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I shrinked that Cc: list dramatically.
>
> Thanks; I Cc'ed all maintainers of those high-pro
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:52:54 +
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote:
> On 17. Oct 2011, at 20:51 , Stanislav Sedov wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I shrinked that Cc: list dramatically.
Thanks; I Cc'ed all maintainers of those high-profile ports.
As a new update, we're now running an other -exp with jpeg fixed.
>
On 17. Oct 2011, at 20:51 , Stanislav Sedov wrote:
Hi,
I shrinked that Cc: list dramatically.
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:35:51 +0300
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu mentioned:
>
>>
>>
>> Here's a little status update:
>> We iterated through a few -exp runs (basically for ports/161404 --
>> committed and por
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:35:51 +0300
Ion-Mihai Tetcu mentioned:
>
>
> Here's a little status update:
> We iterated through a few -exp runs (basically for ports/161404 --
> committed and ports/161431 -- skv@ any problem with it?). With those two
> we can build around 7k packages. The majority of t
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:36:03 +0200
Erwin Lansing wrote:
> Since the release has been pushed back some more since the last mail,
> we do have some time to test a possible fix for the issues we're
> seeing with libtool on FreeBSD 10.0. However, fixing libtool is only
> part of the problem as hundr
18 matches
Mail list logo
