From: Thomas Mueller mueller6...@bellsouth.net
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm
unsubscribing
There are many messages on this thread, and I don't know which or what to
quote, but I agree on send-pr being user-unfriendly.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:13:44AM +, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to summarize the feedback I've received from pkg users during
that event. I got many questions about ports and packages and I think
that questions are useful for the overall pkg development.
First thank you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19/12/13 11:19, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:13:44AM +, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote:
Hello,
Q: What if I have a package built from ports with some custom
options and a repository has newer package but with different set
Dear port maintainer,
The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your
ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check
each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate,
submit/commit an update. If any ports have already been updated,
On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote:
you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not marked
broken has to work.
I build the entire port tree several times a month. I can tell you from
experience that this assumption is not valid.
So, the fault is on our side. Why should
On 12/17/13 17:28, Aleksandr Rybalko wrote:
On 18.12.2013 01:27, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 12/17/13 15:32, Aleksandr Rybalko wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:12:05 -0600
Nathan Whitehorn nwhiteh...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 12/17/13 14:07, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 12:20:53PM
Hi,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
John Marino freebsd.cont...@marino.st wrote:
On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote:
you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not marked
broken has to work.
I build the entire port tree several times a month. I can tell you
On 12/19/2013 14:41, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
John Marino freebsd.cont...@marino.st wrote:
On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote:
you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not marked
broken has to work.
I build the entire port
On 19/12/13 21:41 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
John Marino freebsd.cont...@marino.st wrote:
On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote:
you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not marked
broken has to work.
I build the
Hi,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:46:41 +0100
Rodrigo Osorio rodr...@bebik.net wrote:
On 19/12/13 21:41 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
John Marino freebsd.cont...@marino.st wrote:
On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote:
you got the point. We
On 19/12/13 22:09 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:46:41 +0100
Rodrigo Osorio rodr...@bebik.net wrote:
On 19/12/13 21:41 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
John Marino freebsd.cont...@marino.st wrote:
On
Or so the Makefile says.
What's the canonical replacement?
Respectfully,
Robert Huff
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To
On 12/17/2013 4:33 PM, John Marino wrote:
Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
mail it to ports@, usually without even saying hello. I've tried to
discourage that behavior but other members of this mail list encourage
this method of bypassing writing PRs. One
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Bryan Drewery bdrew...@freebsd.org wrote:
I sincerely disagree and think it's quite rude to users to not accept
their reports however they send them to us. current@ constantly has
build failures on it, even automated. There's no reason ports@ shouldn't
either.
On 12/19/2013 20:07, Bryan Drewery wrote:
I sincerely disagree and think it's quite rude to users to not accept
their reports however they send them to us. current@ constantly has
build failures on it, even automated. There's no reason ports@ shouldn't
either. It tells everyone that yes
On 12/19/2013 1:21 PM, John Marino wrote:
On 12/19/2013 20:07, Bryan Drewery wrote:
I sincerely disagree and think it's quite rude to users to not accept
their reports however they send them to us. current@ constantly has
build failures on it, even automated. There's no reason ports@
On 12/19/2013 20:28, Bryan Drewery wrote:
I didn't say I spoke for portmgr. I just don't see the big deal and it's
odd that it's OK on 1 list but not another. It's anti-user to get mad at
them for trying to get help or report it for others. Of course we prefer
they use GNATS, but go look in
On 19/12/13 19:10, Bryan Drewery wrote:
On 12/17/2013 6:13 PM, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to summarize the feedback I've received from pkg users
during that event. I got many questions about ports and packages
and I think that questions are useful for the overall pkg
I am pleased to announce that portmgr@ now has a Google Community. We have
very slowly been building up membership through our Circles, and now it
it time to announce it to all!
You can find us at https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/108335846196454338383
Come join our Community and G+1 us :)
19.12.2013 23:35, John Marino пишет:
I don't find the status quo personally acceptable, but I only have
control of my actions, therefore my threats are the only recourse I
have and thus they are appropriate.
May be you just ignore those emails? I don't think that there are
plenty of them.
--
Bryan Drewery wrote:
If FreeBSD isn't going to enforce their own procedures and use of
infrastructure, I will limit my exposure to the continuing anarchy and
let customer service to those that agree that ports@ is a
free-for-all.
[snip]
ports@ is a community that more people read than
I wrote:
In short: if the way this list is being used (at least by some,
vis-a-vis the dump an error log without as much as a hello)
Was supposed to be followed by
bothers certain people here
I wouldn't mind if people were more encouraged to try the forums,
[snip]
Sorry for the omission,
On 12/19/13 17:25, Robert Huff wrote:
Or so the Makefile says.
What's the canonical replacement?
xf86-video-ati. The xf86-video-radeonhd hasn't seen any upstream
development since 2010.
Regards!
--
Niclas Zeising
___
Niclas Zeising writes:
Or so the Makefile says.
What's the canonical replacement?
xf86-video-ati. The xf86-video-radeonhd hasn't seen any upstream
development since 2010.
Thanks.
Robert Huff
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 01:44:57AM -0800, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
From: Thomas Mueller
There are many messages on this thread, and I don't know which or
what to quote, but I agree on send-pr being user-unfriendly.
I disagree.
I use only send-pr to send PRs.
I use sendmail.
I
Hi All!
The last week I started to get pkg-fallout@ emails about x11/fbpanel
error:
-
cc panel.o misc.o plugin.o gtkbar.o bg.o gtkbgbox.o ev.o run.o xconf.o
gconf.o gconf_panel.o gconf_plugins.o -o fbpanel -L/usr/local/lib
-lglib-2.0 -lintl -lgtk-x11-2.0 -lgdk-x11-2.0 -lpangocairo-1.0
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:42:38AM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
Hi All!
The last week I started to get pkg-fallout@ emails about x11/fbpanel
error:
-
cc panel.o misc.o plugin.o gtkbar.o bg.o gtkbgbox.o ev.o run.o xconf.o
gconf.o gconf_panel.o gconf_plugins.o -o fbpanel
On 20-12-2013 7:58, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:42:38AM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
Hi All!
The last week I started to get pkg-fallout@ emails about x11/fbpanel
error:
-
cc panel.o misc.o plugin.o gtkbar.o bg.o gtkbgbox.o ev.o run.o xconf.o
gconf.o gconf_panel.o
28 matches
Mail list logo
