Excerpt from Jan Beich:
> Why did portupgrade skip rebuilding print/harfbuzz-icu before building
> editors/libreoffice? The dependency trees of most desktop applications
> are so complex that the build falls apart if the upgrade tools aren't
> robust enough e.g., ignore MOVED or PORTREVISION
Dear port maintainer,
The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your
ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check
each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate,
submit/commit an update. If any ports have already been updated,
> What is the current status of portupgrade and portmaster?
>
> I haven't used portupgrade in some time, but what about portmaster?
>
> What is one officially supposed to use to build and upgrade packages from
> source?
In the interests of having some numbers other than email list replies I
[Looks like gcc7 might be causing its own problem
via a vec_step macro name in its altivec.h .]
On 2017-Sep-29, at 1:14 AM, Mark Millard wrote:
> I attempted a poudriere based build of some
> ports and the gcc7 build involved failed
> with the following sorts of notices:
>
>
>
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:00:02 +, Thomas Mueller stated:
>Excerpt from Jan Beich:
>
>> Why did portupgrade skip rebuilding print/harfbuzz-icu before building
>> editors/libreoffice? The dependency trees of most desktop applications
>> are so complex that the build falls apart if the upgrade
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Russell Haley wrote:
Thanks! I'll play with this on the weekend.
Please create a review at https://reviews.freebsd.org/ and add me as a
reviewer.
Thanks!
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:38:36 + Carmel NY wrote
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:00:02 +, Thomas Mueller stated:
>
> >Excerpt from Jan Beich:
> >
> >> Why did portupgrade skip rebuilding print/harfbuzz-icu before building
> >> editors/libreoffice? The dependency trees of
Hi!
> What is one officially supposed to use to build and upgrade
> packages from source?
I doubt that we already have a 'official' consensus, but
buildung using poudriere, while expensive from the
hardware resource point of view, looks to me as the most stable
way to do it.
--
p...@opsec.eu
Hi,
It seems very useful. I ended up in an environment using it. (Yeah, CentOS...
but) It's really quite amazing.
Most of the requisite software is already ported with the exception of the
OpenPKI system known as 'Dogtag'.
Between SSSD and FreeIPA, it seems like something truly useful has
On Sep 29 20:23, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
What is one officially supposed to use to build and upgrade
packages from source?
I doubt that we already have a 'official' consensus, but
buildung using poudriere, while expensive from the
hardware resource point of view, looks to me as the most
I attempted a poudriere based build of some
ports and the qt5-gui build involved failed
with the following sorts of notices. But
the context is using the same sources as
I've been testing various proposed armv6
related build fixes with (fixes taken from
bugzilla activity, not my own). I doubt
that
Summary of later additions:
devel/powerpc64-gcc has the same problem as gcc7
in this clang-based powerpc64.
My note about using gcc 4.2.1 for the kernel
build was wrong. (My 32-bit powerpc builds
are that way, not the powerpc64 ones.)
On 2017-Sep-29, at 1:51 AM, Mark Millard wrote:
> [Looks
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, the wise Thomas Mueller wrote:
What is the current status of portupgrade and portmaster?
I haven't used portupgrade in some time, but what about portmaster?
Using portupgrade every day and still works great. Tried portmaster once
but liked portupgrade more. I use
13 matches
Mail list logo