Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 04:31:08PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
You bring up a very good point here that someone in #bsdports also
mentioned, that having UPDATING in xml would allow us to easily produce
an HTML version of the file for use on the web site.
Yes, third-party that may use the
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:59:04AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/27/2010 23:07, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
I had shown the simple shell script that will parse the UPDATING and
present the entries for the given port if the fall into the last N
days category. If you had missed it -- ping me,
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Lars Engels lars.eng...@0x20.net wrote:
Picking a random mail from this thread...
Is anyone aware of pkg_updating(1)? It's in base for 2 years.
Thanks, this is very useful!
--
Regards,
Torfinn Ingolfsen
___
Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 01:00:47PM +0100, Lars Engels wrote:
Is anyone aware of pkg_updating(1)? It's in base for 2 years.
No, thanks for the hint.
--
Eygene Ryabinkin,,,^..^,,,
[ Life's unfair - but root password helps! | codelabs.ru ]
[ 82FE 06BC
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:07:18AM +0300, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 05:57:53PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
The Real AnswerTM is that we need a tool with striking similarities to
portaudit. The basic idea would be that UPDATING entries would be done
in xml, and then the user
Peter, good day.
Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:27:55AM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
- I personally would prefer a human-readable file (and yes, I *can*
read XML; that doesn't mean it's easy or I *want* to :)
...so how about a JSON representation? Human-readable, human-editable,
but still
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/27/2010 20:57, Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/25/2010 03:16, David Demelier wrote:
| Hi,
|
| A lot of people always forget to read UPDATING (that's normal we'll are
| humans).
|
| Each entry in UPDATING is like AFFECTS: users of net-mgmt/flowd
Eygene, Peter, jhell,
Do either of you actually have any familiarity at all with how portaudit
works, and/or how it is integrated into the ports infrastructure? Based
on what you've written today my guess is no. When I wrote, we need a
tool with striking similarities to
portaudit without
On 12/27/2010 23:07, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
I had shown the simple shell script that will parse the UPDATING and
present the entries for the given port if the fall into the last N
days category. If you had missed it -- ping me, I'll show it to you
once again.
Did you even read my post? I
Doug, good day.
Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:55:04AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
Do either of you actually have any familiarity at all with how portaudit
works, and/or how it is integrated into the ports infrastructure? Based
on what you've written today my guess is no.
I am sorry, but you're
Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:31:13PM +0300, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
But in order to move this activity any further, I'll need for a
constructive feedback. I think that I'll try to summarize the current
thoughts at the FreeBSD Wiki, will post the link once I'll do that.
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:55:04 -0800
Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
When I wrote, we need a tool with striking similarities to
portaudit without providing the details I was assuming that people
are already familiar with it, how it works, etc.
I don't think it's quite as simple as dealing
On 12/28/2010 12:31, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
Doug, good day.
Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:55:04AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
Do either of you actually have any familiarity at all with how portaudit
works, and/or how it is integrated into the ports infrastructure? Based
on what you've written today
On 12/28/2010 15:10, RW wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:55:04 -0800
Doug Bartondo...@freebsd.org wrote:
When I wrote, we need a tool with striking similarities to
portaudit without providing the details I was assuming that people
are already familiar with it, how it works, etc.
I don't think
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 16:38:57 -0800
Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 12/28/2010 15:10, RW wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:55:04 -0800
Doug Bartondo...@freebsd.org wrote:
on perl). At the moment, I read it once, make a mental note, and
come back to it when I need it. I don't think a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/25/2010 03:16, David Demelier wrote:
| Hi,
|
| A lot of people always forget to read UPDATING (that's normal we'll are
| humans).
|
| Each entry in UPDATING is like AFFECTS: users of net-mgmt/flowd so if
| an update of net-mgmt/flowd is
Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 05:57:53PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
The Real AnswerTM is that we need a tool with striking similarities to
portaudit. The basic idea would be that UPDATING entries would be done
in xml, and then the user can either run portupdating (or whatever the
name ends up being,
Hi,
A lot of people always forget to read UPDATING (that's normal we'll are
humans).
Each entry in UPDATING is like AFFECTS: users of net-mgmt/flowd so if
an update of net-mgmt/flowd is available and a *recent* entry in
UPDATING talks about then print the message.
This can prevent a lot
On Sat, 2010-12-25 at 12:16 +0100, David Demelier wrote:
Hi,
A lot of people always forget to read UPDATING (that's normal we'll are
humans).
Each entry in UPDATING is like AFFECTS: users of net-mgmt/flowd so if
an update of net-mgmt/flowd is available and a *recent* entry in
UPDATING
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 12:16:05PM +0100, David Demelier wrote:
A lot of people always forget to read UPDATING (that's normal we'll are
humans).
Each entry in UPDATING is like AFFECTS: users of net-mgmt/flowd so if
an update of net-mgmt/flowd is available and a *recent* entry in
UPDATING
David, good day.
Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 12:16:05PM +0100, David Demelier wrote:
Each entry in UPDATING is like AFFECTS: users of net-mgmt/flowd so if
an update of net-mgmt/flowd is available and a *recent* entry in
UPDATING talks about then print the message.
This can prevent a lot of
On Dec 25, 2010, at 10:25 , Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
And, for sure, it will be good to enforce the AFFECTS line
to contain the full port origin (or shell glob of it).
Just be prepared for infrastructural changes, for which working out a specific
AFFECTS line would take longer than the patch
Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 07:38:14PM -0600, Ade Lovett wrote:
Just be prepared for infrastructural changes, for which working out a
specific AFFECTS line would take longer than the patch itself, to
simply say:
AFFECTS: *
The point is taken, thanks! Updated script is attached. It
- adds
23 matches
Mail list logo
