CVSROOT:/cvs
Module name:ports
Changes by: patr...@cvs.openbsd.org 2018/02/23 00:45:07
Modified files:
sysutils/firmware/intel: Makefile
sysutils/firmware/intel/pkg: PLIST
Log message:
Loading the microcode earlier has apparently fixed naddy@'s issues
on the
Here's the updated port.
Personally I didn't like the way the gh stuff looked at the top of the
Makefile, but I'm starting to get used to it.
At 80 cols the line wraps like this which I'm not crazy about either but
*shrug*.
"A Tcl extension that provides utilities for comparisons of strings,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 08:08:02PM -0500, Jiri B wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:05:00PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2018/02/22 04:59, Jiri B wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:21:54AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > > > As for the update itself, i have no opinion. You decided
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:05:00PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2018/02/22 04:59, Jiri B wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:21:54AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > > As for the update itself, i have no opinion. You decided to use 2.1 on
> > > your clients, you assume the choice...
> >
>
CVSROOT:/cvs
Module name:ports
Changes by: st...@cvs.openbsd.org 2018/02/22 16:03:12
Added files:
lang/python/2.7/patches: patch-Modules__ssl_c
lang/python/3.6/patches: patch-Modules__ssl_c
Log message:
unbreak following libressl additions - we have
CVSROOT:/cvs
Module name:ports
Changes by: st...@cvs.openbsd.org 2018/02/22 14:35:11
Modified files:
lang/ruby/2.4/patches: patch-ext_openssl_openssl_missing_h
lang/ruby/2.5/patches: patch-ext_openssl_openssl_missing_h
Added files:
CVSROOT:/cvs
Module name:ports
Changes by: st...@cvs.openbsd.org 2018/02/22 12:36:04
Modified files:
lang/ruby/2.4/patches: patch-ext_openssl_openssl_missing_h
lang/ruby/2.5/patches: patch-ext_openssl_openssl_missing_h
Log message:
unbreak, now we have
CVSROOT:/cvs
Module name:ports
Changes by: st...@cvs.openbsd.org 2018/02/22 11:49:16
Modified files:
security/py-cryptography/patches:
patch-src__cffi_src_openssl_x509_vfy_py
Log message:
const changes needed for
CVSROOT:/cvs
Module name:ports
Changes by: st...@cvs.openbsd.org 2018/02/22 11:31:11
Removed files:
security/xca/patches: patch-lib_openssl_compat_h
Log message:
remove patch, no longer needed
Please move GH_* up with DISTNAME like is done in other ports and
Makefile.template, and drop the explicit HOMEPAGE which is nearly
the same (except http instead of https) as the default for ports
using GH_*.
DESCR doesn't need -w 72. Please wrap the >80 column line at the
start but the rest is
Thanks for having a look!
Yes, the pkg/DESCR is a bit long on a few lines.
I ended up doing it like that on purpose in order to get nice descriptive lines
that aren't chopped in awkward places; I find it reads better.
Compare:
A Tcl extension that provides utilities for comparisons of strings,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 05:56:50PM -0500, Stuart Cassoff wrote:
> > > > > -- Original Message --
> > > > > From: Stuart Cassoff <3...@bell.net>
> > > > > Date: December 9, 2017 at 11:27 AM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Comment:
> > > > > diff functions for Tcl
> > > > >
> > > >
CVSROOT:/cvs
Module name:ports
Changes by: k...@cvs.openbsd.org2018/02/22 09:51:50
Modified files:
sysutils/ranger: Makefile distinfo
sysutils/ranger/patches: patch-doc_ranger_1
patch-ranger_ext_img_display_py
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 06:38:52PM +0100, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 04:07:21AM +0100, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:10:55PM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> > > On Tue Jan 23, 2018 at 12:43:36AM +0100, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > # libarchive
Bryan Linton:
> On 2018-02-19 16:13:00, George Rosamond wrote:
>> George Rosamond:
>>> portroach seems to have missed the jump from 0.7.8 to 1.001, which also
>>> simplifies the Makefile a bit. https only works for sourceforge.net but
>>> not subdomains.
>>>
>>
>>
On 2018-02-19 16:13:00, George Rosamond wrote:
> George Rosamond:
> > portroach seems to have missed the jump from 0.7.8 to 1.001, which also
> > simplifies the Makefile a bit. https only works for sourceforge.net but
> > not subdomains.
> >
>
> ping.
>
patch(1)
CVSROOT:/cvs
Module name:ports
Changes by: ajacou...@cvs.openbsd.org 2018/02/22 06:59:09
Modified files:
x11/gnome : gnome.port.mk
Log message:
Better comment.
CVSROOT:/cvs
Module name:ports
Changes by: ajacou...@cvs.openbsd.org 2018/02/22 06:57:47
Modified files:
devel/meson: Makefile distinfo meson.port.mk
devel/meson/patches: patch-mesonbuild_backend_ninjabackend_py
CVSROOT:/cvs
Module name:ports
Changes by: ajacou...@cvs.openbsd.org 2018/02/22 05:53:31
Modified files:
x11/gnome/libgepub: Makefile
x11/gnome/devhelp: Makefile
Log message:
Fix comment.
On 2018/02/22 04:59, Jiri B wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:21:54AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > As for the update itself, i have no opinion. You decided to use 2.1 on
> > your clients, you assume the choice...
>
> Do you want to keep old stable? Should I create new 'branch'
> for 2.1.x or
CVSROOT:/cvs
Module name:ports
Changes by: ajacou...@cvs.openbsd.org 2018/02/22 04:05:38
Modified files:
www/owncloud : Tag: OPENBSD_6_2 Makefile distinfo
www/owncloud/patches: Tag: OPENBSD_6_2 patch-version_php
Log message:
Update to owncloud-10.0.7.
CVSROOT:/cvs
Module name:ports
Changes by: ajacou...@cvs.openbsd.org 2018/02/22 04:03:30
Modified files:
www/owncloud : Makefile distinfo
www/owncloud/patches: patch-version_php
Log message:
Update to owncloud-10.0.7.
Enclosed a diff for bringing net/qsyncthingtray to 0.5.8, which fixes
some bugs. Passed diff (+ diff for net/syncthing) to edd@ (MAINTAINER)
who replied with "They are good to be committed. And are OK awolk@.
Please go ahead."
OK?
Index: Makefile
Please find enclosed a diff for bringing net/syncthing to the latest
version. Passed diff to edd@ (MAINTAINER) whoe replied with "They are
good to be committed. And are OK awolk@. Please go ahead."
OK?
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:21:54AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote:
> As for the update itself, i have no opinion. You decided to use 2.1 on
> your clients, you assume the choice...
Do you want to keep old stable? Should I create new 'branch'
for 2.1.x or just update current port?
Jiri
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 04:07:37AM -0500, Jiri B wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 08:20:15AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > The 2.1 branch was only declared stable recently, and this discussion
> > already happened in https://marc.info/?t=15181794432=1=2
> >
> > Landry
>
> I'll send my diff
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 08:20:15AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote:
> The 2.1 branch was only declared stable recently, and this discussion
> already happened in https://marc.info/?t=15181794432=1=2
>
> Landry
I'll send my diff for update the port because of this issue:
CVSROOT:/cvs
Module name:ports
Changes by: ki...@cvs.openbsd.org 2018/02/22 01:49:54
Modified files:
misc/rpm : Makefile
Log message:
fix MASTER_SITES
CVSROOT:/cvs
Module name:ports
Changes by: gonz...@cvs.openbsd.org 2018/02/22 01:12:20
Modified files:
sysutils/logstalgia: Makefile distinfo
sysutils/logstalgia/patches: patch-src_logstalgia_cpp
Log message:
Update for Logstalgia to 1.1.1
OK benoit@
29 matches
Mail list logo