Hi Simeo;
On 01/01/2020 09:42, Simeo Reig wrote:
Hi all,
Pedro´s question could make sense in a regular environment but this is
Java world!. Still nowadays there are not so few companies running
java 7/java EE7 despite we have java 13/Jakarta EE8.
Hmm ... that is reasonable and surely
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
The 2020Q1 branch has been created. It means that the next update on the
quarterly packages will be on the 2020Q1 branch.
A lot of things happened in the last three months:
- - pkg 1.12.0
- - Default version of Lazarus switched to 2.0.6
- -
Hi all,
Pedro´s question could make sense in a regular environment but this is
Java world!. Still nowadays there are not so few companies running java
7/java EE7 despite we have java 13/Jakarta EE8.
In official Wildfly page, https://wildfly.org/downloads , you can see there
is still available
Portmaser -L errors out with
make: "/usr/ports/Mk/Uses/ssl.mk" line 97: You are using an unsupported SSL
provider openssl
Make.conf:
DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=openssl apache=2.4 php=7.2 perl5=5.28 mysql=10.1m
Worked fine on Saturday, maybe Friday.
--
i wasn't born a programmer. i became one
For users of mail/junkfilter, it now will filter all emails claiming
a "Bad Date line". The following patch seems to fix the problem for
the next decade.
--- junkfilter.three.orig 2020-01-01 12:59:56.005681000 -0800
+++ junkfilter.three2020-01-01 13:00:26.254199000 -0800
@@ -56,7
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:51 PM @lbutlr wrote:
>
> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:46, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
> >>
> >> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> >>> security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has
On 01 Jan 2020, at 14:18, Adam Weinberger wrote
> This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere.
If FreeBSD is going to REQUIRE poudriere, then go ahead and do so. If not, then
the other packages managers and the ports tree itself have to work without
screwing the admin, failing to
On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> security/openssl111 has become security/openssl.
I have /usr/ports/security/openssl111 and no /usr/ports/security/openssl which
doesn’t sound like what you said.
--
'Pcharn'kov!' Footnote: 'Your feet shall be cut off and be buried
On 2020-01-01 16:23, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
>> On 1. Jan 2020, at 10:18 PM, Adam Weinberger wrote:
>> [...]
>> This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere.
>
> Let me stop you right here and say: ports Framework itself is
> suffering from this wishful attitude
PLUS
Hi!
> If FreeBSD is going to REQUIRE poudriere, then go ahead and do
> so. If not, then the other packages managers and the ports tree
> itself have to work without screwing the admin, failing to build
> for inexplicable reasons, inputting a dependency that breaks other
> packages, or my
> On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
>
> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>> security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become
>> security/openssl.
>
> Ugh.
>
>> A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees,
>> don't
On Jan 1, 2020, at 14:23, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
> Hi Adam,
>
>> On 1. Jan 2020, at 10:18 PM, Adam Weinberger wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:51 PM @lbutlr wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:46, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr
## @lbutlr (krem...@kreme.com):
> I have /usr/ports/security/openssl111 and no /usr/ports/security/openssl
> which doesn’t sound like what you said.
You're missing
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision=date=521745
By the way, base openssl is at 1.1.1d in FreeBSD 12.1.
Regards,
## George Mitchell (george+free...@m5p.com):
> Assuming you can get poudriere to work. Even by today's standards,
> a low-cost PC is not going to have the juice to support it. And to
> reiterate, the ports framework itself MUST work standalone.
The pain you'll experience (eventually) from the
security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become
security/openssl.
A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees, don't
we. ;)
Cheers,
Franco
> On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:37 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
>
> Portmaser -L errors out with
>
> make:
On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become
> security/openssl.
Ugh.
> A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private trees, don't
> we. ;)
This is going to go poorly, if previous attempts to
On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:46, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
>>
>> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>>> security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has become
>>> security/openssl.
>>
>> Ugh.
>>
>>> A bit too eager
Hi Adam,
> On 1. Jan 2020, at 10:18 PM, Adam Weinberger wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:51 PM @lbutlr wrote:
>>
>> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:46, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner wrote:
On 01 Jan 2020, at 15:28, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>> If FreeBSD is going to REQUIRE poudriere, then go ahead and do
>> so. If not, then the other packages managers and the ports tree
>> itself have to work without screwing the admin, failing to build
>> for inexplicable reasons, inputting a dependency
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,
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 5:25 AM wrote:
>
>
> Howdy!
>
> [CC'ing one of audacious developers whose email I was able to find, as
> this really is an upstream issue]
Hi there!
Thanks for the heads up. Would you mind opening a PR[1]? Also,
ideally, this would be fixed upstream :-)
[1]
On 01/01/2020 22:03, George Mitchell wrote:
> Assuming you can get poudriere to work. Even by today's standards,
> a low-cost PC is not going to have the juice to support it. And to
> reiterate, the ports framework itself MUST work standalone.
Rubbish. I maintain my own poudriere repo on a
On 01 Jan 2020, at 16:57, Adam Weinberger wrote:
> Ok, let’s stop there. Nobody is going to get fired, and insulting
What?
No, seriously, what?
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To
> On Jan 1, 2020, at 15:49, @lbutlr wrote:
>
You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major
mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and
security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch.
>>>
>>> Since openssl updated about a
> This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere. There seems to
> be a pervasive misconception that poudriere is "advanced" and
> portmaster is simple or straightforward. That notion is completely and
> totally backwards. Poudriere makes managing ports as simple and
> trouble-free as
On 2/01/2020 7:37 am, @lbutlr wrote:
Portmaser -L errors out with
make: "/usr/ports/Mk/Uses/ssl.mk" line 97: You are using an unsupported SSL
provider openssl
Make.conf:
DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=openssl apache=2.4 php=7.2 perl5=5.28 mysql=10.1m
Worked fine on Saturday, maybe Friday.
26 matches
Mail list logo
