Re: freebsd-update and archs
Matthew Seaman m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk wrote: On 21/01/2012 10:25, Christer Solskogen wrote: I've just finished installing FreeBSD on my new Mac mini G4 ... If that's not an Intel based Mac, then your definition of new is, well, contrary to all accepted usage. s/new/newly acquired/ (I suspect). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Clang - what is the story?
On 01/22/12 17:45, Chad Perrin wrote: On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 05:09:52PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: On 01/22/12 17:02, Chad Perrin wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 03:43:13PM +, RW wrote: I was just wondering what would have happened if Apple hadn't backed clang/LLVM as BSD licensed projects. Was there a plan B (other than gcc 4.2.1) or did Apple save the *BSD world? The backup plan was probably PCC. Whats actually surprising is that it wasn't used as plan A (I just looked it up); It then would have come full circle ;) A couple years ago, it looked like a race between PCC and TenDRA, but Clang seemed to just come out of nowhere and steal all the attention. All three of them had a lot to recommend them, but then the TenDRA modernization project evaporated and everybody jumped on the Clang wagon. At least, that's how it looked to me. Wow! I'm going to have to do some more research on compilers- I've never heard of these until now... I sound pretty stupid don't I? :P ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Horrible installer
Michael Sierchio schreef: I've been using FreeBSD since 2.2.1, and IMHO, the 9.0 installer SUX! It blow chunks. It's a POS. It's crap. It is a joke. I hope I made myself clear. ;-) - M ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org You made your self clear. I remember myself coming from anaconda ( The Red Hat installer.) before i used FreeBSD. I thought the installer of FreeBSD was very difficult to use, i could not understand how that in my eyes ancient installer could ever get a decent OS on my disk. But after trail and error i got used to it, and i can now almost blindly use it. Now there comes another installer, same story. I need to get used to it again, in about 6 months i do not remember the old installer anymore and things feel natural again. No big deal just adapt and go on. regards Johan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
kernel generic options
Hi! My system: FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE #0: Tue Jan 3 07:15:25 UTC 2012 r...@obrian.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386 Because pkg_libchk show that Opera 11.60 misses libz.so.5 I want to install /misc/compat8x as one user suggested me but generic kernel optins are: # $FreeBSD: release/9.0.0/sys/i386/conf/GENERIC 227305 2011-11-07 13:40:54Z marius $ ... ... options COMPAT_FREEBSD4 # Compatible with FreeBSD4 options COMPAT_FREEBSD5 # Compatible with FreeBSD5 options COMPAT_FREEBSD6 # Compatible with FreeBSD6 options COMPAT_FREEBSD7 # Compatible with FreeBSD7 ''' ''' O.K. I will rebuild a kernel but my question is why is not options for FreeBSD 8 as default, please? Thanks. Mitja http://jpgmag.com/people/lumiwa ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Clang - what is the story?
While on the subject of Clang, is this compiler only for C, C++ and Objective-C? What about Ada and Fortran? Does one need GCC for that? Dragonlace for Ada? I believe some of the ports require GCC. Many of these ports are developed primarily for Linux and subsequently ported to FreeBSD ports and NetBSD-based pkgsrc. Tom ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Clang - what is the story?
On 22/01/2012 11:50, Thomas Mueller wrote: While on the subject of Clang, is this compiler only for C, C++ and Objective-C? Correct. Clang is the LLVM front-end for that family of languages. What about Ada and Fortran? Does one need GCC for that? Dragonlace for Ada? There are other LLVM front-ends for different languages. Plus you can use GCC to compile to an intermediate representation and then let LLVM do the rest. I believe some of the ports require GCC. Many of these ports are developed primarily for Linux and subsequently ported to FreeBSD ports and NetBSD-based pkgsrc. Clang aims to be completely gcc compatible. It isn't quite there yet. Most of the ports that don't compile with clang are actually doing questionable things with their code that gcc should probably reject too. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: kernel generic options
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 05:36:29 -0600, ajtiM wrote: O.K. I will rebuild a kernel but my question is why is not options for FreeBSD 8 as default, please? All the kernel functions present in v8 are also present in v9, so there is no need to a compatibility option inside the kernel. The compat-8x _port_ delivers the compatibility for libraries (versions and their calls) that have changed from v8 to v9. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Clang - what is the story?
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 07:06:04PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: On 01/22/12 17:45, Chad Perrin wrote: A couple years ago, it looked like a race between PCC and TenDRA, but Clang seemed to just come out of nowhere and steal all the attention. All three of them had a lot to recommend them, but then the TenDRA modernization project evaporated and everybody jumped on the Clang wagon. At least, that's how it looked to me. Wow! I'm going to have to do some more research on compilers- I've never heard of these until now... I sound pretty stupid don't I? :P Nah. TenDRA was pretty obscure except in certain circles related to DRA, I think -- and DRA (Defense Research Agency), something like a UK equivalent to the US DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), ceased to exist in the mid-1990s, making it and anything related to it even more obscure since then. I don't know whether DERA (which replaced DRA) did anything with TenDRA. I almost forgot that in addition to the TenDRA project, there was also the Ten15 project; TenDRA had forked somewhere along the way. As far as I'm aware, Ten15 was farther out of date and less actively developed at the time I was talking to TenDRA developers and offering a little bit of help with that project. I never really got involved with Ten15 at all, so my knowledge of it is *really* scant. PCC (Portable C Compiler), meanwhile, spent many years essentially unused except in some of the dustier corners of Unix user communities before being actively developed again as more and more people started wanting a copyfree C compiler alternative to the very copyleft GCC. PCC was a big deal for a while, and I think most C compilers were based on it to some extent in the early '80s, but its influenced waned enough that GCC replaced it pretty much everywhere by about the same time DRA went away. As things stand now, I don't think anyone is actively developing TenDRA (and in fact I wonder if all the more recent work on it has been lost), but the modern PCC project reached 1.0 release last year and is reputedly building OpenBSD kernels without a hitch. There has been some talk of it being the GCC replacement for OpenBSD and maybe even NetBSD, though I seem to recall Theo de Raadt doesn't consider replacing GCC a very urgent requirement right now (which might be part of the reason AerieBSD explicitly prioritizes rejecting copyfree software after it forked from OpenBSD, though that's just speculation by me, based in part on the fact it appears PCC is in the AerieBSD base system). Another option that hasn't been mentioned -- and I don't think it was ever really considered for FreeBSD as a GCC-replacement, but I don't actually know that for sure -- is The Amsterdam Compiler Kit, sometimes called TACK or ACK. It, too, uses a BSD license, as does PCC and as did TenDRA. TACK is the base system (I'm not sure they use that word, really) for MINIX3, I think. Beyond that, and the fact it was originally available only under commercial license, I don't really know anything about it. The reason I started writing this email was just to mention that this stuff has all been pretty obscure compared to the much higher profile Clang and GCC projects. That common thread should, I hope, be clear in my descriptions of the various projects I mentioned, so no -- I don't think you sound pretty stupid for not knowing about them. In fact, to reach the level of stupid, I think you'd have to be one of the dismaying number of people in the Linux world who kludge together C code and apparently aren't aware there are any C compilers available that don't come from the GNU Project or Microsoft, or the craptons of Visual Studio developers who have never realized C can be compiled without Visual Studio. (Clarification: I'm not saying all Linux-based C hackers are stupid, nor even that all coders who use Visual Studio are stupid. There are a lot of smart people in both groups. I just don't know of anyone who doesn't realize there's more than one or two C compilers currently maintained except for some members of the above-mentioned groups.) -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Clang - what is the story?
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 05:37:48AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: There has been some talk of it being the GCC replacement for OpenBSD and maybe even NetBSD, though I seem to recall Theo de Raadt doesn't consider replacing GCC a very urgent requirement right now (which might be part of the reason AerieBSD explicitly prioritizes rejecting copyfree software after it forked from OpenBSD, though that's just speculation by me, based in part on the fact it appears PCC is in the AerieBSD base system). Correction: s/copyfree/copyleft/ AerieBSD favors copyfree software and chooses to reject copyleft software as much as it reasonably can. It does *not* reject copyfree software. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Clang - what is the story?
On 01/22/12 22:37, Chad Perrin wrote: On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 07:06:04PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: On 01/22/12 17:45, Chad Perrin wrote: A couple years ago, it looked like a race between PCC and TenDRA, but Clang seemed to just come out of nowhere and steal all the attention. All three of them had a lot to recommend them, but then the TenDRA modernization project evaporated and everybody jumped on the Clang wagon. At least, that's how it looked to me. Wow! I'm going to have to do some more research on compilers- I've never heard of these until now... I sound pretty stupid don't I? :P Nah. TenDRA was pretty obscure except in certain circles related to DRA, I think -- and DRA (Defense Research Agency), something like a UK equivalent to the US DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), ceased to exist in the mid-1990s, making it and anything related to it even more obscure since then. I don't know whether DERA (which replaced DRA) did anything with TenDRA. I almost forgot that in addition to the TenDRA project, there was also the Ten15 project; TenDRA had forked somewhere along the way. As far as I'm aware, Ten15 was farther out of date and less actively developed at the time I was talking to TenDRA developers and offering a little bit of help with that project. I never really got involved with Ten15 at all, so my knowledge of it is *really* scant. Wikipedia was very helpful with this one. PCC (Portable C Compiler), meanwhile, spent many years essentially unused except in some of the dustier corners of Unix user communities before being actively developed again as more and more people started wanting a copyfree C compiler alternative to the very copyleft GCC. PCC was a big deal for a while, and I think most C compilers were based on it to some extent in the early '80s, but its influenced waned enough that GCC replaced it pretty much everywhere by about the same time DRA went away. According to wiki it was the compiler for unix- particularly bsd up to 4.4 (FreeBSD's parent prior to becoming opensource). As things stand now, I don't think anyone is actively developing TenDRA (and in fact I wonder if all the more recent work on it has been lost), According to wiki there was one person on the job and has grown to a team now- how many I don't know :) but the modern PCC project reached 1.0 release last year and is reputedly building OpenBSD kernels without a hitch. There has been some talk of it being the GCC replacement for OpenBSD and maybe even NetBSD, though I seem to recall Theo de Raadt doesn't consider replacing GCC a very urgent requirement right now (which might be part of the reason AerieBSD explicitly prioritizes rejecting copyfree software after it forked from OpenBSD, though that's just speculation by me, based in part on the fact it appears PCC is in the AerieBSD base system). Haven't heard of the new BSD, but I did find the comment from Raadt. Another option that hasn't been mentioned -- and I don't think it was ever really considered for FreeBSD as a GCC-replacement, but I don't actually know that for sure -- is The Amsterdam Compiler Kit, sometimes called TACK or ACK. It, too, uses a BSD license, as does PCC and as did TenDRA. TACK is the base system (I'm not sure they use that word, really) for MINIX3, I think. Beyond that, and the fact it was originally available only under commercial license, I don't really know anything about it. I'm pretty sure that was on the list of compilers mentioned at wikipedia. I was going to take a better look at the list when I get some time. Maybe even try them out... The reason I started writing this email was just to mention that this stuff has all been pretty obscure compared to the much higher profile Clang and GCC projects. That common thread should, I hope, be clear in my descriptions of the various projects I mentioned, so no -- I don't think you sound pretty stupid for not knowing about them. In fact, to reach the level of stupid, I think you'd have to be one of the dismaying number of people in the Linux world who kludge together C code and apparently aren't aware there are any C compilers available that don't come from the GNU Project or Microsoft, or the craptons of Visual Studio developers who have never realized C can be compiled without Visual Studio. I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were borland and gcc. The former for win32 crap and the latter for, well, everything else. Well. Consider me enlightened... ;) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Clang - what is the story?
Da Rock freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au wrote: I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were borland and gcc. The former for win32 crap and the latter for, well, everything else. Once upon a time, there were _many_ alternatives for C compilers. Commercial -- i.e. 'you pay for it', or bundled with a pay O/S -- offerings included (this is a _partial_ list, ones _I_ have personal knowledge of): PCC -- (the original one0 medium-lousy code but the code-generator was easily adapted to new/diferent hardwre Green Hills Softwaware (used by a number of unix hardare manufacturers) Sun Microsystems developed their own (acc) Silicon Graphics, Inc Hewlett-Packard Symantic (Think C -- notable for high-performance on early Apple Mac's, significantly better than Apple's own MPW) Manx Software (Aztec C -- a 'best of breed' for MS-DOS) Microsoft Intel CCS Watcom Borland Zortech Greenleaf Software Ellis Computing (specializing in 'budget' compilers, circa $30 pricetags) Small C tcc -- the 'tiny C compiler I'm sure others can name ones I've overlooked. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Clang - what is the story?
On 01/23/12 00:38, Robert Bonomi wrote: Da Rockfreebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au wrote: I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were borland and gcc. The former for win32 crap and the latter for, well, everything else. Once upon a time, there were _many_ alternatives for C compilers. Commercial -- i.e. 'you pay for it', or bundled with a pay O/S -- offerings included (this is a _partial_ list, ones _I_ have personal knowledge of): PCC -- (the original one0 medium-lousy code but the code-generator was easily adapted to new/diferent hardwre Green Hills Softwaware (used by a number of unix hardare manufacturers) Sun Microsystems developed their own (acc) Silicon Graphics, Inc Hewlett-Packard Symantic (Think C -- notable for high-performance on early Apple Mac's, significantly better than Apple's own MPW) Manx Software (Aztec C -- a 'best of breed' for MS-DOS) Microsoft Intel CCS Watcom Borland Zortech Greenleaf Software Ellis Computing (specializing in 'budget' compilers, circa $30 pricetags) Small C tcc -- the 'tiny C compiler Wow... I have some research to do... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
* Re: Clang - what is the story?
On Jan 22, 2012, at 6:38 AM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote: Da Rock freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au wrote: I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were borland and gcc. The former for win32 crap and the latter for, well, everything else. Once upon a time, there were _many_ alternatives for C compilers. Commercial -- i.e. 'you pay for it', or bundled with a pay O/S -- offerings included (this is a _partial_ list, ones _I_ have personal knowledge of): PCC -- (the original one0 medium-lousy code but the code-generator was easily adapted to new/diferent hardwre Green Hills Softwaware (used by a number of unix hardare manufacturers) Sun Microsystems developed their own (acc) Silicon Graphics, Inc Hewlett-Packard Symantic (Think C -- notable for high-performance on early Apple Mac's, significantly better than Apple's own MPW) Ah, MPW... I knew ye well. But don't forget Metrowerks CodeWarrior Though, I preferred the finicky-ways of MPW (requiring explicit headers) to the fast-and-loose ways of MCW. -- Devin Manx Software (Aztec C -- a 'best of breed' for MS-DOS) Microsoft Intel CCS Watcom Borland Zortech Greenleaf Software Ellis Computing (specializing in 'budget' compilers, circa $30 pricetags) Small C tcc -- the 'tiny C compiler I'm sure others can name ones I've overlooked. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Clang - what is the story?
Hi, Reference: From: Da Rock freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au Reply-to: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:13:49 +1000 Message-id: 4f1c27ad.9070...@herveybayaustralia.com.au Da Rock wrote: On 01/23/12 00:38, Robert Bonomi wrote: Da Rockfreebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au wrote: I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were borland and gcc. The former for win32 crap and the latter for, well, everything else. Once upon a time, there were _many_ alternatives for C compilers. Commercial -- i.e. 'you pay for it', or bundled with a pay O/S -- offerings included (this is a _partial_ list, ones _I_ have personal knowledge of): PCC -- (the original one0 medium-lousy code but the code-generator was easily adapted to new/diferent hardwre Green Hills Softwaware (used by a number of unix hardare manufacturers) Sun Microsystems developed their own (acc) Silicon Graphics, Inc Hewlett-Packard Symantic (Think C -- notable for high-performance on early Apple Mac's, significantly better than Apple's own MPW) Manx Software (Aztec C -- a 'best of breed' for MS-DOS) Microsoft Intel CCS Watcom Borland Zortech Greenleaf Software Ellis Computing (specializing in 'budget' compilers, circa $30 pricetags) Small C tcc -- the 'tiny C compiler Wow... I have some research to do... Memories :-) I recall the Portable C compiler was not the original, There was an earlier C native to PDP11, not portable; pcc was the rewrite to make it portable at the expense of inefficiency. Before C there was B http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_programming_language ( which had some relation to BCPL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCPL told me by Bob Eager, in Canterbury, Kent, England, decades back) Yet another C compiler (or 2 ?): Munich, Germany, 1985: Siemens was already licensing a C compiler from an American chap, (I can't remember his name). Siemens shipped it with their Sinix, a Unix that ran on i386 ns32000 series. Their Sinix had translations integrated in seven human languages (my job). A few years on, Terry Carroll in Munich was trying to sell his own C compiler [bits (not sure if he got to a whole compiler)]. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below not above, cumulative like a play script, indent with . Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Trouble upgrading packages after 9.0 upgrade
I upgraded to 9.0. But when i use pkg_upgrade -a, i get this: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-9-release/INDEX: File unavailable. Why? Also portupgrade -PP -a also fails spectacurly. Why. It seems like it is getting more and more difficult to use FreeBSD. To upgrade to the most recent packages should be a one step process of typing a simple upgrade command.it should work out of the box. It seems like the difficulties of getting FreeBSD to work make it unuseable for most people. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Portmanager Status Report Gone - Fixed.
--As of January 15, 2012 10:09:06 AM -0500, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org is alleged to have said: I was trying out portmaster to see if it worked better than my current tool of choice for keeping my ports up to date (portmanager) and when I went back to portmanager I can no longer get it to give me a 'Port Status Report', or to update anything. It just collects the installed port data, and stops. Any ideas on what I may have messed up? I'd like to upgrade my ports to the latest versions before upgrading to 9.0 (and I'd want portmanager working afterwards to help me fix any port-related problems that come up.) I'm on 8.2. --As for the rest, it is mine. Not really 'solved' in that I still don't know what the problem was, but running portupgrade once fixed it. (I let it upgrade a couple of ports, but not all of them.) Leaving this here for whomever has this problem next. Daniel T. Staal --- This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law. --- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Clang - what is the story?
kpn...@pobox.com writes: Hi, Lattice C - targeted MS-DOS, AmigaOS, probably others. Had a 32-bit int on the Amiga, where Manx had a 16-bit int. When Commodore ported BSD sockets to the Amiga they had to change all the ints to longs because of this. Was renamed SAS/C towards the end of the Amiga product. And those who did C development on Atari ST probably remember of DRI Alcyon C (a quick port of CPM/68K C Compiler) Pure C (a Turbo C like IDE compiler). Éric Masson -- Warning: file /home/emss/misc/fortune/En_sig.dat unreadable Warning: file /home/emss/misc/fortune/Fr_sig.dat unreadable Faut vraiment que je m'occupe de ce problème de signature :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Clang - what is the story?
On Jan 22, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Eric Masson wrote: kpn...@pobox.com writes: Hi, Lattice C - targeted MS-DOS, AmigaOS, probably others. Had a 32-bit int on the Amiga, where Manx had a 16-bit int. When Commodore ported BSD sockets to the Amiga they had to change all the ints to longs because of this. Was renamed SAS/C towards the end of the Amiga product. And those who did C development on Atari ST probably remember of DRI Alcyon C (a quick port of CPM/68K C Compiler) Pure C (a Turbo C like IDE compiler). Éric Masson Sadly I do. In fact I still have a Mega St in my basement... ;-S Regards, Mikel King BSD News Network http://bsdnews.net skype: mikel.king http://twitter.com/mikelking ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Clang - what is the story?
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:55:18PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: On 01/22/12 22:37, Chad Perrin wrote: PCC (Portable C Compiler), meanwhile, spent many years essentially unused except in some of the dustier corners of Unix user communities before being actively developed again as more and more people started wanting a copyfree C compiler alternative to the very copyleft GCC. PCC was a big deal for a while, and I think most C compilers were based on it to some extent in the early '80s, but its influenced waned enough that GCC replaced it pretty much everywhere by about the same time DRA went away. According to wiki it was the compiler for unix- particularly bsd up to 4.4 (FreeBSD's parent prior to becoming opensource). Yeah, that's pretty much the case. As things stand now, I don't think anyone is actively developing TenDRA (and in fact I wonder if all the more recent work on it has been lost), According to wiki there was one person on the job and has grown to a team now- how many I don't know :) As far as I'm aware, there was a team for a while, and a fork in the effort, and now both forks have basically died (see my above explanation). After a glance at the Wikipedia article about TenDRA, I think it was only referring to the pre-death period and not now for when there is/was a team. Well. Consider me enlightened... ;) I'm glad I could help. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Clang - what is the story?
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 01:13:49AM +1000, Da Rock wrote: On 01/23/12 00:38, Robert Bonomi wrote: Da Rockfreebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au wrote: I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were borland and gcc. The former for win32 crap and the latter for, well, everything else. Once upon a time, there were _many_ alternatives for C compilers. Commercial -- i.e. 'you pay for it', or bundled with a pay O/S -- offerings included (this is a _partial_ list, ones _I_ have personal knowledge of): PCC -- (the original one0 medium-lousy code but the code-generator was easily adapted to new/diferent hardwre Green Hills Softwaware (used by a number of unix hardare manufacturers) Sun Microsystems developed their own (acc) Silicon Graphics, Inc Hewlett-Packard Symantic (Think C -- notable for high-performance on early Apple Mac's, significantly better than Apple's own MPW) Manx Software (Aztec C -- a 'best of breed' for MS-DOS) Microsoft Intel CCS Watcom Borland Zortech Greenleaf Software Ellis Computing (specializing in 'budget' compilers, circa $30 pricetags) Small C tcc -- the 'tiny C compiler Wow... I have some research to do... Maybe not. It depends on what you want to learn. PCC was already mentioned. Watcom C's license is overly complex and probably legally problematic. Small-C Compiler is a compiler for the Small-C language, which is only a subset of C. The Tiny C Compiler is copyleft licensed, so not as ideal a choice as Clang, PCC, and TenDRA have been at various points in time when choosing a new C compiler for a BSD Unix base system. If I'm not mistaken, everything else on that list is not even open source software. If you just want to know about C compilers, it's fun to read about all this stuff. If you specifically want to know about options that might be suitable for use as GCC-replacement in BSD Unix systems, there's far less to read. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Clang - what is the story?
Quoth Robert Bonomi on Sunday, 22 January 2012: Da Rock freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au wrote: I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were borland and gcc. The former for win32 crap and the latter for, well, everything else. Once upon a time, there were _many_ alternatives for C compilers. Commercial -- i.e. 'you pay for it', or bundled with a pay O/S -- offerings included (this is a _partial_ list, ones _I_ have personal knowledge of): PCC -- (the original one0 medium-lousy code but the code-generator was easily adapted to new/diferent hardwre Green Hills Softwaware (used by a number of unix hardare manufacturers) Sun Microsystems developed their own (acc) Silicon Graphics, Inc Hewlett-Packard Symantic (Think C -- notable for high-performance on early Apple Mac's, significantly better than Apple's own MPW) Manx Software (Aztec C -- a 'best of breed' for MS-DOS) Microsoft Intel CCS Watcom Borland Zortech Greenleaf Software Ellis Computing (specializing in 'budget' compilers, circa $30 pricetags) Small C tcc -- the 'tiny C compiler I'm sure others can name ones I've overlooked. I used a horrible C compiler on CP/M -- I guess I've blocked its name out of my memory. Anything you found in KR that sounded cool you had to go write a test program to see if this compiler actually supported it. Sometimes it did, but differently. -- .O. | Sterling (Chip) Camden | http://camdensoftware.com ..O | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | http://chipsquips.com OOO | 2048R/D6DBAF91 | http://chipstips.com pgpPyQUEALvSD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Clang - what is the story?
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 05:37:48AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: PCC (Portable C Compiler), meanwhile, spent many years essentially unused PCC is only a C compiler, and there is some C++ code (e.g. groff) in the base system. The FreeBSD port is marked as i386 and amd64 only, even though other architectures seem to be there in the PCC source. actually know that for sure -- is The Amsterdam Compiler Kit, sometimes According to [http://tack.sourceforge.net/about.html], the ACK doesn't support all architectures that FreeBSD does. Nor does it list FreeBSD as a supported platform. Personally I think it is a good thing to have different C compilers. In the past I've installed pcc just to see if my programs compiled OK. Now I tend to use clang for that. It does a great job of identifying programming errors. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgp2ycx6WWvCV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Clang - what is the story?
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 09:33:02PM +0100, Roland Smith wrote: PCC is only a C compiler, and there is some C++ code (e.g. groff) in the base system. The FreeBSD port is marked as i386 and amd64 only, even though other architectures seem to be there in the PCC source. I had somehow forgotten there was anything in the base system written in C++. That would probably account for the choice of Clang over PCC. Personally I think it is a good thing to have different C compilers. In the past I've installed pcc just to see if my programs compiled OK. Now I tend to use clang for that. It does a great job of identifying programming errors. I have found it rather disconcerting for quite some time now that the open source development community -- normally quite clued in to the benefits of diversity and friendly, competitive collaboration for maintaining a strong software ecosystem with lots of high quality options -- has been so singularly overrun by a single C compiler (GCC), especially given the central importance of C to the development of the major open source OSes. The problem was compounded by the increasingly byzantine design of GCC itself and the proliferation of ugly edge-cases that created. I was saddened as well to see that TenDRA had vanished, because I thought it brought some important perspective (somewhat unique to its development ideals) to the selection of available compilers, as do PCC, LLVM/Clang, and even the Small-C Compiler. I hope that even if nobody else makes it the official compiler of any language, AerieBSD remains an active project with PCC as part of its base system, and that MINIX3 establishes itself reasonably well with TACK, if only to ensure more than two viable C compiler options for members of major open source Unixy OS families. Four is probably a good number, with a few less-central implementations floating around as well to explore the fringes. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
php5 port seems broken
Hello list, I'm attempting to install php5 from my ports tree. I've attempted the latest version ( 5.3.9 located in /usr/ports/lang/php5) and the 'latest stable' (5.2.17 located in /usr/ports/lang/php52). The result is pretty much the same: [root@LBSD2:/usr/ports/lang/php5] #make install === Vulnerability check disabled, database not found === License check disabled, port has not defined LICENSE === Found saved configuration for php5-5.3.9 === Extracting for php5-5.3.9 = SHA256 Checksum mismatch for php-5.3.9.tar.bz2. = SHA256 Checksum OK for suhosin-patch-5.3.9-0.9.10.patch.gz. === Refetch for 1 more times files: php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 === Vulnerability check disabled, database not found === License check disabled, port has not defined LICENSE === Found saved configuration for php5-5.3.9 = php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 doesn't seem to exist in /usr/ports/distfiles/. = Attempting to fetch http://dk.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 fetch: http://dk.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2: Requested Range Not Satisfiable = Attempting to fetch http://de.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 fetch: http://de.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2: Requested Range Not Satisfiable = Attempting to fetch http://es.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 fetch: http://es.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2: Requested Range Not Satisfiable = Attempting to fetch http://fi.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 fetch: http://fi.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2: Requested Range Not Satisfiable = Attempting to fetch http://fr.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 === Vulnerability check disabled, database not found === License check disabled, port has not defined LICENSE === Found saved configuration for php5-5.3.9 = SHA256 Checksum mismatch for php-5.3.9.tar.bz2. = SHA256 Checksum OK for suhosin-patch-5.3.9-0.9.10.patch.gz. === Giving up on fetching files: php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 Make sure the Makefile and distinfo file (/usr/ports/lang/php5/distinfo) are up to date. If you are absolutely sure you want to override this check, type make NO_CHECKSUM=yes [other args]. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/lang/php5. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/lang/php5. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/lang/php5. I was just wondering if anyone might have a guess as to why this wasn't working? thanks tim ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Clang - what is the story?
On 01/23/12 07:26, Chad Perrin wrote: On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 09:33:02PM +0100, Roland Smith wrote: PCC is only a C compiler, and there is some C++ code (e.g. groff) in the base system. The FreeBSD port is marked as i386 and amd64 only, even though other architectures seem to be there in the PCC source. I had somehow forgotten there was anything in the base system written in C++. That would probably account for the choice of Clang over PCC. What part is that? I thought it had to be all c... Personally I think it is a good thing to have different C compilers. In the past I've installed pcc just to see if my programs compiled OK. Now I tend to use clang for that. It does a great job of identifying programming errors. I have found it rather disconcerting for quite some time now that the open source development community -- normally quite clued in to the benefits of diversity and friendly, competitive collaboration for maintaining a strong software ecosystem with lots of high quality options -- has been so singularly overrun by a single C compiler (GCC), especially given the central importance of C to the development of the major open source OSes. The problem was compounded by the increasingly byzantine design of GCC itself and the proliferation of ugly edge-cases that created. I was saddened as well to see that TenDRA had vanished, because I thought it brought some important perspective (somewhat unique to its development ideals) to the selection of available compilers, as do PCC, LLVM/Clang, and even the Small-C Compiler. I hope that even if nobody else makes it the official compiler of any language, AerieBSD remains an active project with PCC as part of its base system, and that MINIX3 establishes itself reasonably well with TACK, if only to ensure more than two viable C compiler options for members of major open source Unixy OS families. Four is probably a good number, with a few less-central implementations floating around as well to explore the fringes. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: php5 port seems broken
On 1/22/12 5:35 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote: Hello list, I'm attempting to install php5 from my ports tree. I've attempted the latest version ( 5.3.9 located in /usr/ports/lang/php5) and the 'latest stable' (5.2.17 located in /usr/ports/lang/php52). The result is pretty much the same: [root@LBSD2:/usr/ports/lang/php5] #make install === Vulnerability check disabled, database not found === License check disabled, port has not defined LICENSE === Found saved configuration for php5-5.3.9 === Extracting for php5-5.3.9 = SHA256 Checksum mismatch for php-5.3.9.tar.bz2. = SHA256 Checksum OK for suhosin-patch-5.3.9-0.9.10.patch.gz. === Refetch for 1 more times files: php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 === Vulnerability check disabled, database not found === License check disabled, port has not defined LICENSE === Found saved configuration for php5-5.3.9 = php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 doesn't seem to exist in /usr/ports/distfiles/. = Attempting to fetch http://dk.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 fetch: http://dk.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2: Requested Range Not Satisfiable = Attempting to fetch http://de.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 fetch: http://de.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2: Requested Range Not Satisfiable = Attempting to fetch http://es.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 fetch: http://es.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2: Requested Range Not Satisfiable = Attempting to fetch http://fi.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 fetch: http://fi.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2: Requested Range Not Satisfiable = Attempting to fetch http://fr.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 === Vulnerability check disabled, database not found === License check disabled, port has not defined LICENSE === Found saved configuration for php5-5.3.9 = SHA256 Checksum mismatch for php-5.3.9.tar.bz2. = SHA256 Checksum OK for suhosin-patch-5.3.9-0.9.10.patch.gz. === Giving up on fetching files: php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 Make sure the Makefile and distinfo file (/usr/ports/lang/php5/distinfo) are up to date. If you are absolutely sure you want to override this check, type make NO_CHECKSUM=yes [other args]. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/lang/php5. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/lang/php5. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/lang/php5. I was just wondering if anyone might have a guess as to why this wasn't working? thanks tim I just portupgraded my php5 this morning and I was able to fetch the distfile without trouble. It might just be a partially dled file and a checksum mismatch. You can try (as root) rm -rf /usr/ports/distfiles/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 and cd /usr/ports/lang/php5 make clean make install clean If that gets you past the checksum error, you should be able to build it successfully. Tim Kellers ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: php5 port seems broken
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:01:29 -0500 Tim Kellers wrote: On 1/22/12 5:35 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote: Hello list, I'm attempting to install php5 from my ports tree. I've attempted the latest version ( 5.3.9 located in /usr/ports/lang/php5) and the 'latest stable' (5.2.17 located in /usr/ports/lang/php52). The result is pretty much the same: suhosin-patch-5.3.9-0.9.10.patch.gz. === Giving up on fetching files: php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 Make sure the Makefile and distinfo file (/usr/ports/lang/php5/distinfo) are up to date. If you are absolutely sure you want to override this check, type make NO_CHECKSUM=yes [other args]. *** Error code 1 I just portupgraded my php5 this morning and I was able to fetch the distfile without trouble. It might just be a partially dled file and a checksum mismatch. if you do a make checksum it will download the file or resume a partial download before checking the hash. You can try (as root) rm -rf /usr/ports/distfiles/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 and cd /usr/ports/lang/php5 make clean make install clean or make distclean If that gets you past the checksum error, you should be able to build it successfully. Probably the ports tree needs to be updated to pick-up an updated hash value. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: buildworld
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012, Samuel Wallace wrote: uname -a FreeBSD sampc.att.com 8.2-STABLE #4: Sun Jan 15 13:21:40 EST 2012 s...@sampc.att.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386 [buildworld: don't know how to make iterator.cc] There's a thread about this on stable@. The net outcome seems to be, that the source of this problem are out-of-sync mirrors. So the cure probably is to upate sources, and retry. MfG CoCo ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: php5 port seems broken
Hello again, Thanks for your input. Before attempting to install php on this machine I updated my ports tree with csvsup. But following the steps in this article helped me to get past this point. http://icesquare.com/wordpress/freebsdproblem-to-update-php-port/ Which was basically: #sudo rm -Rf /var/db/portsnap/* #sudo portsnap fetch extract #sudo portsnap fetch update #cd /usr/ports/distfiles/ #sudo wget http://fi.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 #cd /usr/ports/lang/php5 #sudo make That was all I had to do. :) However I'm onto a new stumbling block, so if you're still tuned in I hope you don't mind if I bounce this off the list. It seems that Apache 2.2 is not recognizing PHP now that it's installed. If I go to a php test page in a web browser this is all I see: ?php // Show all information, defaults to INFO_ALL phpinfo(); // Show just the module information. // phpinfo(8) yields identical results. phpinfo(INFO_MODULES); ? These are the contents of the file I am hitting: ?php // Show all information, defaults to INFO_ALL phpinfo(); // Show just the module information. // phpinfo(8) yields identical results. phpinfo(INFO_MODULES); ? I checked to see that in my main apache config file (httpd.conf) I have this line: LoadModule php5_modulelibexec/apache22/libphp5.so And of course I've restarted apache after installing the php5 port. :) And since apache isn't even recognizing php at this point hitting the test page does not generate any errors in the error logs. Any thoughts/hits/suggestions from here? thanks tim - Original Message - From: RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 7:07:21 PM Subject: Re: php5 port seems broken On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:01:29 -0500 Tim Kellers wrote: On 1/22/12 5:35 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote: Hello list, I'm attempting to install php5 from my ports tree. I've attempted the latest version ( 5.3.9 located in /usr/ports/lang/php5) and the 'latest stable' (5.2.17 located in /usr/ports/lang/php52). The result is pretty much the same: suhosin-patch-5.3.9-0.9.10.patch.gz. === Giving up on fetching files: php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 Make sure the Makefile and distinfo file (/usr/ports/lang/php5/distinfo) are up to date. If you are absolutely sure you want to override this check, type make NO_CHECKSUM=yes [other args]. *** Error code 1 I just portupgraded my php5 this morning and I was able to fetch the distfile without trouble. It might just be a partially dled file and a checksum mismatch. if you do a make checksum it will download the file or resume a partial download before checking the hash. You can try (as root) rm -rf /usr/ports/distfiles/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 and cd /usr/ports/lang/php5 make clean make install clean or make distclean If that gets you past the checksum error, you should be able to build it successfully. Probably the ports tree needs to be updated to pick-up an updated hash value. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: php5 port seems broken
On 01/23/12 10:50, Tim Dunphy wrote: Hello again, Thanks for your input. Before attempting to install php on this machine I updated my ports tree with csvsup. But following the steps in this article helped me to get past this point. http://icesquare.com/wordpress/freebsdproblem-to-update-php-port/ Which was basically: #sudo rm -Rf /var/db/portsnap/* #sudo portsnap fetch extract #sudo portsnap fetch update #cd /usr/ports/distfiles/ #sudo wget http://fi.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 #cd /usr/ports/lang/php5 #sudo make That was all I had to do. :) However I'm onto a new stumbling block, so if you're still tuned in I hope you don't mind if I bounce this off the list. It seems that Apache 2.2 is not recognizing PHP now that it's installed. If I go to a php test page in a web browser this is all I see: ?php // Show all information, defaults to INFO_ALL phpinfo(); // Show just the module information. // phpinfo(8) yields identical results. phpinfo(INFO_MODULES); ? These are the contents of the file I am hitting: ?php // Show all information, defaults to INFO_ALL phpinfo(); // Show just the module information. // phpinfo(8) yields identical results. phpinfo(INFO_MODULES); ? I checked to see that in my main apache config file (httpd.conf) I have this line: LoadModule php5_modulelibexec/apache22/libphp5.so And of course I've restarted apache after installing the php5 port. :) And since apache isn't even recognizing php at this point hitting the test page does not generate any errors in the error logs. Check your mimetypes definition for application/x-httpd-php and application/x-httpd-php-source (I think. cat ports/lang/php5/pkg-message for details)? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: php5 port seems broken
On 1/22/12 7:50 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote: Hello again, Thanks for your input. Before attempting to install php on this machine I updated my ports tree with csvsup. But following the steps in this article helped me to get past this point. http://icesquare.com/wordpress/freebsdproblem-to-update-php-port/ Which was basically: #sudo rm -Rf /var/db/portsnap/* #sudo portsnap fetch extract #sudo portsnap fetch update #cd /usr/ports/distfiles/ #sudo wget http://fi.php.net/distributions/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 #cd /usr/ports/lang/php5 #sudo make That was all I had to do. :) However I'm onto a new stumbling block, so if you're still tuned in I hope you don't mind if I bounce this off the list. It seems that Apache 2.2 is not recognizing PHP now that it's installed. If I go to a php test page in a web browser this is all I see: ?php // Show all information, defaults to INFO_ALL phpinfo(); // Show just the module information. // phpinfo(8) yields identical results. phpinfo(INFO_MODULES); ? These are the contents of the file I am hitting: ?php // Show all information, defaults to INFO_ALL phpinfo(); // Show just the module information. // phpinfo(8) yields identical results. phpinfo(INFO_MODULES); ? I checked to see that in my main apache config file (httpd.conf) I have this line: LoadModule php5_modulelibexec/apache22/libphp5.so And of course I've restarted apache after installing the php5 port. :) And since apache isn't even recognizing php at this point hitting the test page does not generate any errors in the error logs. Any thoughts/hits/suggestions from here? thanks tim - Original Message - From: RWrwmailli...@googlemail.com To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 7:07:21 PM Subject: Re: php5 port seems broken On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:01:29 -0500 Tim Kellers wrote: On 1/22/12 5:35 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote: Hello list, I'm attempting to install php5 from my ports tree. I've attempted the latest version ( 5.3.9 located in /usr/ports/lang/php5) and the 'latest stable' (5.2.17 located in /usr/ports/lang/php52). The result is pretty much the same: suhosin-patch-5.3.9-0.9.10.patch.gz. ===Giving up on fetching files: php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 Make sure the Makefile and distinfo file (/usr/ports/lang/php5/distinfo) are up to date. If you are absolutely sure you want to override this check, type make NO_CHECKSUM=yes [other args]. *** Error code 1 I just portupgraded my php5 this morning and I was able to fetch the distfile without trouble. It might just be a partially dled file and a checksum mismatch. if you do a make checksum it will download the file or resume a partial download before checking the hash. You can try (as root) rm -rf /usr/ports/distfiles/php-5.3.9.tar.bz2 and cd /usr/ports/lang/php5 make clean make install clean or make distclean If that gets you past the checksum error, you should be able to build it successfully. Probably the ports tree needs to be updated to pick-up an updated hash value. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org Did you out this in httpd.conf? from pkg-message.mod: *** Make sure index.php is part of your DirectoryIndex. You should add the following to your Apache configuration file: AddType application/x-httpd-php .php AddType application/x-httpd-php-source .phps *** Tim Kellers ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: kgzip(8) regression in RELENG_9 GENERIC
On Jan 21, 2012, at 1:41 AM, CyberLeo Kitsana wrote: On 01/20/2012 09:02 PM, Devin Teske wrote: Taking a GENERIC 9.0-RELEASE kernel and running kgzip(8) on it produces an unusable kernel which causes immediate BTX halt in loader(8). ... 4. Say: kgzip kernel Curious, it doesn't even look like that binary is hooked into the build process at all on 9.0-RELEASE. Can you clarify what you mean by the above? It's manpage indicates that it is unsuitable for loader(8) use, Likewise, can you clarify the above? and that just running gzip(1) on the kernel file is sufficient; I'm getting an error when loading a gzip(1)'d kernel... don't know how to load module '/kernels/GENERIC-i386-9.0.gz' So I figure, maybe it doesn't like the '.gz' suffix. No go, same error. Or maybe there's a special syntax to loading a gzip'd kernel? If so, that's unfortunate as no special syntax is required to execute kgzip'd kernels. Also, kgzip produces smaller binaries than gzip when used on kernel. I'd like to see kgzip(1) functionality restored (again, it worked fine in RELENG_8). -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: non-responsive FreeBSD-9.0 after dump command
Le Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:42:10 -0700, Dale Scott dalesc...@shaw.ca a écrit : # mount /dev/ada0p2 on / (ufs, local, journaled soft-updates) devfs on /dev (devfs, local, multilabel) /dev/ad1as1d on /backup (ufs, local, soft-updates) # # cd /backup # dump -0aLf 20120118.dump / There is no output after hitting enter, and afterwards the system is generally unresponsive. A command (e.g., whoami) typed into the VirtualBox server console and an ssh terminal is echo'd, but that's all. I had started top in a seperate ssh terminal before issuing the dump command, and it shows mksnap_ffs running with 98%-100% WCPU for about 55 minutes, at which point top stops updating. I gave up after 70 minutes and yanked the virtual power cord. There are several reports that snapshots are broken on ufs+SUJ and dump takes a snapshot. Regards. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
