Hi!
Now, who's in charge to merge all your recommendations ? Michelle ?
I'll give it a try this evening to merge them.
--
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 6 years to go !
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
Hi!
matthew@ wrote:
There's a number of things wrong with this port, some inherited from the
pgpool-II port you copied, and some where you're using outmoded constructs.
[...]
- Use options helpers rather than if $(PORT_OPTIONS:MFoo). Eg.
instead of
.if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MSSL}
On 17/06/2014 20:09, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
matthew@ wrote:
There's a number of things wrong with this port, some inherited from the
pgpool-II port you copied, and some where you're using outmoded constructs.
[...]
- Use options helpers rather than if $(PORT_OPTIONS:MFoo). Eg.
Hi!
I tried this for PAM:
PAM_CONFIGURE_WITH+=pam
PAM_USE=PAM=yes
[...]
You don't need += there -- just plain =
That '+' does not make a difference, I tried both versions.
That should have resulted in configure being called with the argument
On 15/06/2014 22:49, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Personally I think:
databases/pgpool (3.1.x)
databases/pgpool-devel (3.3.x)
Given the lack of history in the ports, I'd say lets just skip
pgpool-II-3.2
Agreed. (effectively already done)
Except that pgpool-II-3.3.3 is a stable release
Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 15/06/2014 22:49, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Personally I think:
databases/pgpool (3.1.x)
databases/pgpool-devel (3.3.x)
Given the lack of history in the ports, I'd say lets just skip
pgpool-II-3.2
Agreed. (effectively already done)
Except
Hi!
Can someone take a look at 189880 please... been a few weeks now, still
not heard from the maintainer.
It took a while to get it building in poudriere without side effects.
Now prepared as new port databases/pgpool-II-33.
Please test and approve.
Second step: merging the diverse set of
Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
Can someone take a look at 189880 please... been a few weeks now, still
not heard from the maintainer.
It took a while to get it building in poudriere without side effects.
Now prepared as new port databases/pgpool-II-33.
Please test and approve.
Second
Hi!
Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool related ports into one ?
Maybe pg-pool-II and pg-pool-devel...? (3.1/2 in stable and 3.3 in
devel - until it changes?)
I assume that all the pgpool ports can be consolidated into one (3.3).
Maybe if we start by DEPRECATing the old ones to
Heh. I was just starting to look at writing a pgpool-II-33 port, but it
seems you have beaten me to it.
On 15/06/2014 15:29, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool related ports into one ?
Maybe pg-pool-II and pg-pool-devel...? (3.1/2 in stable and 3.3 in
Hello,
Heh. I was just starting to look at writing a pgpool-II-33 port, but it
seems you have beaten me to it.
Well, and you provided a thorough review, thanks for that!
Now, who's in charge to merge all your recommendations ? Michelle ?
Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool
On 15/06/2014 17:11, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hello,
Heh. I was just starting to look at writing a pgpool-II-33 port, but it
seems you have beaten me to it.
Well, and you provided a thorough review, thanks for that!
Now, who's in charge to merge all your recommendations ? Michelle ?
I'll
Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 15/06/2014 17:11, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hello,
Heh. I was just starting to look at writing a pgpool-II-33 port, but it
seems you have beaten me to it.
Well, and you provided a thorough review, thanks for that!
Now, who's in charge to merge all your
Can someone take a look at 189880 please... been a few weeks now, still
not heard from the maintainer.
Thanks
Michelle
freebsd-gnats-sub...@freebsd.org wrote:
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `ports/189880'.
The individual assigned to look at
14 matches
Mail list logo
