Hi...
As usual, please test, report and commit ^^
Tested under amd64.
qRFCView is a viewer for IETF RFCs. Advantages are:
* automatic table of content, with direct opening of section;
* handling of RFC internal cross-references;
* automatic downloading of a referenced RFC from the IETF web
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 08:09:20AM -0700, Mathieu Sauve-Frankel wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 04:39:22PM +0200, Aleksander Piotrowski wrote:
danz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please test and comment.
DBIx::Class description from CPAN:
I would just like to note that I have already been
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 10:10:04AM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
qRFCView is a viewer for IETF RFCs. Advantages are:
* automatic table of content, with direct opening of section;
* handling of RFC internal cross-references;
* automatic downloading of a referenced RFC from the IETF web site
We need some sort of policy how to deal with software written in
Java. We have a number of ports that are basically just wrappers
that install pre-compiled Java byte code. Additional ports in this
style have been proposed. Actual Java source may or may not be
available, but it is certainly not
On Jul 20, 2006, at 10:12 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
Some preliminary discussion at the last hackathon produced the
opinion that even Java ports should be built from source by all
means. However, that discussion didn't include any of our porters
who are interested in Java... The source
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Will Maier wrote:
Works great; cute program.
Thanks!
Is is indeed is nice little software, I just discovered it and I knew I
had to make a port for it ;)
--
Antoine
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 06:12:54PM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
We need some sort of policy how to deal with software written in
Java. We have a number of ports that are basically just wrappers
that install pre-compiled Java byte code. Additional ports in this
style have been proposed.
How about using the source if it's available and using the binary
when it's not?
Right. And in 5 years, how much source will you have?
Don't forget, having the source also means being able to patch it
as well.
Duh.
The point of Christian's mail was is that we all understand how these
Installing from source also needs a jdk, while installing binaries
only needs the runtime environment.
Leave installing the source as an option to the user, and install
binaries as a default.
Best
Martin
* Christian Weisgerber [2006-07-20]:
We need some sort of policy how to deal with software written in Java.
We have a number of ports that are basically just wrappers that
install pre-compiled Java byte code. Additional ports in this style
have been proposed. Actual Java source may or may
Leave installing the source as an option to the user, and install
binaries as a default.
And in 5 years noone will make source available.
2006/7/20, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Leave installing the source as an option to the user, and install
binaries as a default.
And in 5 years noone will make source available.
Better: Install the source where possible (and warn if there is no
source) but don't install from source as a
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 06:50:11PM +0200, Martin Schr?der wrote:
Installing from source also needs a jdk, while installing binaries
only needs the runtime environment.
Leave installing the source as an option to the user, and install
binaries as a default.
RUN_DEPENDS = jre
BUILD_DEPENDS =
+--
| On Thursday, Jul 20, 2006 at 06:12:54PM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
|
| To: ports@openbsd.org
| From: Christian Weisgerber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:12:54 +0200
| Subject: Java ports:
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
We need some sort of policy how to deal with software written in
Java. We have a number of ports that are basically just wrappers
that install pre-compiled Java byte code. Additional ports in this
style have been proposed. Actual Java source may or may not be
Wow, that is totally off-topic.
Yes, it was. It's about open source.
P.S. Good time to re-read Ken's paper Reflections on Trusting
Trust (online at http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/), before you decide
where to put your foot down.
Wow, that is totally off-topic.
The discussion is about how we can use some of our clout to encourage
source availability in the
On Thursday 20 July 2006 12:12 pm, you wrote:
We need some sort of policy how to deal with software written in
Java. We have a number of ports that are basically just wrappers
that install pre-compiled Java byte code. Additional ports in this
style have been proposed. Actual Java source may
Wow, that is totally off-topic.
Yes, it was. It's about open source.
In case anybody mis-read my hasty wording, that was meant to be an
agreement that it was off-topic, and assent that yes, the discussion is
about open source. It was NOT a suggestion that Ken's article was on topic.
I sent this diff to the maintainer more than one month ago (6/6/2006),
he said he was still interested in maintaining the port. However it
seems he totally forgot about it.
I have not forgot about this but my current job left no time for a
deeper look on you diff. Hopefully I will be able
Hi,
is anybody working on an updated port of rrdtool? There is still
rrdtool-1.0.49 in ports, so I tried to compile rrdtool-1.2.15 from
source. However, configure complains about missing ftheader.h from
freetype2.
xbase39.tgz is installed and ft2build.h is in /usr/X11R6/include.
Any hints how
It was already commited. However, as pointed by Bruno Bigras 2.32 is
already out...
Regards,
Rui Reis
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:54:46 +0100
Jonathan Weiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I sent this diff to the maintainer more than one month ago (6/6/2006),
he said he was still interested in
It's pervert to have a STOP BLOB release theme and then importing
exactly BLOBS in the ports tree. There is absolutely no need to do so,
nothing suffers from going throught the source, besides, maybe these
ports are a little bit harder to do.
Please do not misuse the term BLOB like this.
Holger Mauermann [2006-07-20, 20:36:22]:
Hi,
is anybody working on an updated port of rrdtool? There is still
rrdtool-1.0.49 in ports, so I tried to compile rrdtool-1.2.15 from
source. However, configure complains about missing ftheader.h from
freetype2.
xbase39.tgz is installed and
It seems like there are a number of questions to answer in this discussion.
I can find (or think of myself) at least the following ones:
1. Shall each port be able to fetch the source for all its bytecode?
(given that this is both legal and technically possible to implement)
2. Shall each
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 06:50:11PM +0200, Martin Schröder wrote:
Installing from source also needs a jdk, while installing binaries
only needs the runtime environment.
This only means that those who build from ports also need a complete
jdk. Ordinary users can (and should) just install packages
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 12:14:23AM +0200, Jon Olsson wrote:
Here's the latest diff.
# make lib-depends-check
/usr/ports/packages/i386/all/darcs-1.0.8.tgz:
Extra: readline.3
Extra: ncurses.10
Extra: pthread.6
After removing the extra libs, it compiles and passes regress on
Hi Pedro,
On 7/18/06, Pedro Martelletto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if we should still keep the PWM port now that Ion has
incorporated all of its functionalities, builds and installs a PWM
binary, and is officially considered its successor?
I think it still makes sense for people that
That wasn't really meant to be inline, apologies. Also the URL for
GIMPShop is http://www.gimpshop.net/
James Wright wrote:
This is a patch for gimp 2.2.11 and 2.2.12 which modifies it to
have the GIMPShop menus and dialogs instead of the traditional
Gimp ones. A port could be made quite
On Friday 21 July 2006 02:36, Holger Mauermann wrote:
Hi,
is anybody working on an updated port of rrdtool?
Yes, I am. It is pretty much working and I was waiting for a response from the
maintainer (danh@). However, I sent my patches to him weeks ago and I haven't
heard anything back so I
Please test.
From the port's HOMEPAGE:
All known vulnerabilities are fixed in Zip 2.32
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/archivers/zip/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.33
diff -p -u -u -r1.33 Makefile
--- Makefile4 Dec
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:22:13 +0200, Martin Schröder
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
2006/7/20, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Leave installing the source as an option to the user, and install
binaries as a default.
And in 5 years noone will make source available.
Better: Install the source
32 matches
Mail list logo
