> attached fixed version, thanks for catching this!
I added m to WANTLIB (which I forgot to mention) and imported it. Thanks!
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 23:54:20 +0200,
Theo Buehler wrote:
>
>
> The port needs LDEPS on archivers/libarchive and archivers/xz and
>
> WANTLIB += archive lzma
>
> With this, ok tb
attached fixed version, thanks for catching this!
--
wbr, Kirill
pixz-1.0.7.tgz
Description: Binary data
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 10:19:47PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2024/04/01 12:55, Kirill A. Korinsky wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > Despite of current security issue with xz/lzma the algortihm itself provides
> > great compression, and the existing XZ Utils provide great compression in
> > the .
On 2024/04/23 23:36, Kirill A. Korinsky wrote:
> Thanks for review,
>
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 23:19:47 +0200,
> Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >
> > Small tweaks, mostly to fix things so the tests run properly (symlink
> > gstat -> WRKDIR/bin/stat, and BDEP on cppcheck). The cppcheck still
> > fails but
Thanks for review,
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 23:19:47 +0200,
Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> Small tweaks, mostly to fix things so the tests run properly (symlink
> gstat -> WRKDIR/bin/stat, and BDEP on cppcheck). The cppcheck still
> fails but due to a detected error rather than because it can't run.
>
>
On 2024/04/01 12:55, Kirill A. Korinsky wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Despite of current security issue with xz/lzma the algortihm itself provides
> great compression, and the existing XZ Utils provide great compression in
> the .xz file format, but they produce just one big block of compressed data.
>
> H
Greetings,
This is reminder about this new port.
--
wbr, Kirill
Greetings,
This is reminder about this new port.
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 12:55:56 +0200,
Kirill A. Korinsky wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Despite of current security issue with xz/lzma the algortihm itself provides
> great compression, and the existing XZ Utils provide great compression in
> the .xz file f
Thomas Dettbarn wrote:
> I know sir.
> My apologies.
>
> What I actually meant to say was
>
> "Please, Sirs, somebody check the port! I am not qualified enough to
> do so myself."
That is why it was mailed out. So that people could review it.
The peanut gallery who isn't going to review, has
I know sir.
My apologies.
What I actually meant to say was
"Please, Sirs, somebody check the port! I am not qualified enough to do
so myself."
Thomas
On 4/1/24 13:47, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Thomas Dettbarn wrote:
Hello.
Yeah... You know how the social engineering part of this xz
backhol
Thomas Dettbarn wrote:
> Hello.
>
>
> Yeah... You know how the social engineering part of this xz
> backhole was done?
>
> Somebody pressured the Maintainer, that he needs to add new
> features.
>
> Afterwards, the maintainers of distributions were pressured to
> update, because there were so
Hello.
Yeah... You know how the social engineering part of this xz
backhole was done?
Somebody pressured the Maintainer, that he needs to add new
features.
Afterwards, the maintainers of distributions were pressured to
update, because there were some "NEW FEATURES" available.
Your post sounde
Folks,
Despite of current security issue with xz/lzma the algortihm itself provides
great compression, and the existing XZ Utils provide great compression in
the .xz file format, but they produce just one big block of compressed data.
Here, a new port which is called archivers/pixz which produces
13 matches
Mail list logo
