Simple update diff for qt 5.15.7.
Notable changes:
- Removed all patches
- Adjust LibreSSL patch (q_CRYPTO_free)
- Remove reference to github.com/gentoo/libressl
Comments, OKs?
Rafael
diff --git a/x11/qt5/Makefile.version b/x11/qt5/Makefile.version
index 9e84daf8706..856a1c69f09 100644
---
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 08:49:35AM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> Update Qt5 to the latest stable opensource version 5.15.5.
> I cleaned up some Makefile, removed non-used helper functions
> and create a new openbsd-g++/qmake.conf based on freebsd-g++.
>
> I have tested the update with a
Update Qt5 to the latest stable opensource version 5.15.5.
I cleaned up some Makefile, removed non-used helper functions
and create a new openbsd-g++/qmake.conf based on freebsd-g++.
I have tested the update with a lot of Qt5 application without finding
any issues. While here, add me as
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 05:16:12PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2020/03/20 17:41, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> > >> only rc[N], beta[N], pre[N], and pl[N]. Would it makes sense to add a
> > >> alpha[N]? We could of course also use EPOCH here.
> > >
> > > adding support for alpha[N]
On 2020/03/20 17:41, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> >> only rc[N], beta[N], pre[N], and pl[N]. Would it makes sense to add a
> >> alpha[N]? We could of course also use EPOCH here.
> >
> > adding support for alpha[N] would be in suffix_compare in PackageName.pm
> > (and from_string), but that
On 2020/03/20 17:37, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> +-- The following OPTIONAL packages have not been found:
I'd prefer to disable these when noticed in case the relevant port is added
later..
> + * Dwz (required version >= 0.13)
> +
> We have no dwz package so this looks rather safe. Your
On Fri, Mar 20 2020, Landry Breuil wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 07:31:52AM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
>> On Mon Mar 16, 2020 at 06:17:38AM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
>> > Simple update qtwebkit to the latest version 5.212.0 Alpha 4:
>> >
>> > Release log:
>> > -
On Fri, Mar 20 2020, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> On Mon Mar 16, 2020 at 06:17:38AM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
>> Simple update qtwebkit to the latest version 5.212.0 Alpha 4:
>>
>> Release log:
>> - https://github.com/qtwebkit/qtwebkit/releases/tag/qtwebkit-5.212.0-alpha4
>>
>> Port changes:
>>
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 07:31:52AM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> On Mon Mar 16, 2020 at 06:17:38AM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> > Simple update qtwebkit to the latest version 5.212.0 Alpha 4:
> >
> > Release log:
> > - https://github.com/qtwebkit/qtwebkit/releases/tag/qtwebkit-5.212.0-alpha4
On Mon Mar 16, 2020 at 06:17:38AM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> Simple update qtwebkit to the latest version 5.212.0 Alpha 4:
>
> Release log:
> - https://github.com/qtwebkit/qtwebkit/releases/tag/qtwebkit-5.212.0-alpha4
>
> Port changes:
> - Add missing python model after reading release
Simple update qtwebkit to the latest version 5.212.0 Alpha 4:
Release log:
- https://github.com/qtwebkit/qtwebkit/releases/tag/qtwebkit-5.212.0-alpha4
Port changes:
- Add missing python model after reading release notes "QtWebKit does
not require Python 2 anymore for building and can use
On Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 01:13:25PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13 2020, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13 2020, Charlene Wendling wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:26:30 +
> >> Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2020/02/12 10:57, Landry Breuil
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 01:26:30PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2020/02/12 10:57, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > One think we should make sure to check is arch coverage, ie check which
> > archs provide a 'working' (building, running ?) qtwebkit and try to
> > testbuild this update on those...
>
On Thu, Feb 13 2020, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13 2020, Charlene Wendling wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:26:30 +
>> Stuart Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> On 2020/02/12 10:57, Landry Breuil wrote:
>>> > One think we should make sure to check is arch coverage, ie check
>>> >
On Thu, Feb 13 2020, Charlene Wendling wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:26:30 +
> Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
>> On 2020/02/12 10:57, Landry Breuil wrote:
>> > One think we should make sure to check is arch coverage, ie check
>> > which archs provide a 'working' (building, running ?) qtwebkit
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:26:30 +
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2020/02/12 10:57, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > One think we should make sure to check is arch coverage, ie check
> > which archs provide a 'working' (building, running ?) qtwebkit and
> > try to testbuild this update on those...
>
>
On 2020/02/12 10:57, Landry Breuil wrote:
> One think we should make sure to check is arch coverage, ie check which
> archs provide a 'working' (building, running ?) qtwebkit and try to
> testbuild this update on those...
FWIW the list for the in-tree version is:
aarch64
amd64
i386
powerpc
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 09:36:59AM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> Here is a huge diff to update QtWebKit from 5.9.0 to 5.212.0. 5.212.0
> comes from a independent project: https://github.com/qtwebkit/qtwebkit
> It's a QtWebKit with a more modern WebKit code base which fix a lot of
> bugs and
Here is a huge diff to update QtWebKit from 5.9.0 to 5.212.0. 5.212.0
comes from a independent project: https://github.com/qtwebkit/qtwebkit
It's a QtWebKit with a more modern WebKit code base which fix a lot of
bugs and security holes.
I have already made a comparable update [1]. This one was
On Fri Oct 18, 2019 at 02:06:53PM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> Simple bugfix update Qt5 from 5.9.7 to 5.9.8.
>
> I don't see any danger to the ports tree. The SSL stuff works fine
> (tested with otter-browser) and all of my other qt applications are
> still happy. Qt is known for not breaking
Simple bugfix update Qt5 from 5.9.7 to 5.9.8.
I don't see any danger to the ports tree. The SSL stuff works fine
(tested with otter-browser) and all of my other qt applications are
still happy. Qt is known for not breaking the API/ABI.
To be on the safe side, can anyone push it into the next
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 05:53:43PM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> On Fri Oct 26, 2018 at 05:19:15PM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> > Update Qt to the latest 5.9 TLS. I removed almost all libressl patches
> > and the backports patches from upstream.
> >
> > Can any of the libressl fallas look
On Fri Oct 26, 2018 at 05:19:15PM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> Update Qt to the latest 5.9 TLS. I removed almost all libressl patches
> and the backports patches from upstream.
>
> Can any of the libressl fallas look over it? According to the tickets,
> everything's closed.
>
> I know it's
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 05:19:15PM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> Update Qt to the latest 5.9 TLS. I removed almost all libressl patches
> and the backports patches from upstream.
>
> Can any of the libressl fallas look over it? According to the tickets,
> everything's closed.
>
> I know it's
Update Qt to the latest 5.9 TLS. I removed almost all libressl patches
and the backports patches from upstream.
Can any of the libressl fallas look over it? According to the tickets,
everything's closed.
I know it's crazy these days. Maybe someone will find a free bulk build
slot for the diff
On 2018/08/27 21:57, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> +DISTNAME = qtwebkit-${QT5_WEBKIT_VERSION}
> +PKGNAME =qtwebkit-${QT5_WEBKIT_VERSION:S/-alpha2//}
alpha2 is part of the version number, it's an alpha release presumably
in a chain leading towards 5.212.0... I think stripping it
On Sun Aug 26, 2018 at 04:39:21PM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> Hi All!
>
> We all know QtWebkit is insecure and outdated. Unfortunately, there are
> many consumers, so let's try to make our ports tree a better and
> safer place.
>
> Long time ago gonzalo@ pointed out annulen/webkit[0].
>
>
Hi All!
We all know QtWebkit is insecure and outdated. Unfortunately, there are
many consumers, so let's try to make our ports tree a better and
safer place.
Long time ago gonzalo@ pointed out annulen/webkit[0].
A short all-round view shows us that FreeBSD[1] and ArchLinux[2] use
this version.
On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 12:22:02AM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> On Sat Jun 30, 2018 at 04:39:13PM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> > It's been a long time since the last update. We leap over one bugfix
> > release.
> >
> > Please find below a simple diff to the latest TLS 5.9 release. I really
On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 12:22:02AM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> On Sat Jun 30, 2018 at 04:39:13PM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> > It's been a long time since the last update. We leap over one bugfix
> > release.
> >
> > Please find below a simple diff to the latest TLS 5.9 release. I really
On Sat Jun 30, 2018 at 04:39:13PM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> It's been a long time since the last update. We leap over one bugfix
> release.
>
> Please find below a simple diff to the latest TLS 5.9 release. I really
> don't expect any problems but a i368/amd64 bulk would be helpful.
>
>
It's been a long time since the last update. We leap over one bugfix
release.
Please find below a simple diff to the latest TLS 5.9 release. I really
don't expect any problems but a i368/amd64 bulk would be helpful.
bulk oks wanted.
Index: Makefile.version
Hi
please find below a straightforward qt5 update. Don't forget this time
to remove REVISION in meta/qt5. No interesting changes expect:
Fix missing private includes https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-37417
Discussed here: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports=150978573322467=2a
Does anyone
Hi All
Qt update to 5.9.2 bugfix release, first shot. I bumped all shared libs
because in the Qt would "bugfix release" menas bugfixes+improvements.
More information (or not) you'll find here:
https://blog.qt.io/blog/2017/10/06/qt-5-9-2-released/
I build a lot of Qt ports with 5.9.2 without
34 matches
Mail list logo
