Re: Debian GNU/kFreeBSD
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:12:05AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote: What is it that this Debian GNU/kFreeBSD ships in those 7 DVDs? Please ask that on one of their mailing lists; it's out of scope for the two mailing lists you posted to. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Re: Debian GNU/kFreeBSD
Sunday 13 of February 2011 08:12:05 Odhiambo Washington napisał(a): My question is: WHY need 7 DVDs??? DVDs?? Even M$ does not do such a crazy thing with its bloat-ware!! FreeBSD ships 1 DVD. What is it that this Debian GNU/kFreeBSD ships in those 7 DVDs? I think the answer for your first question is on http://www.debian.org/CD/faq/index.en.html#which-cd And talking about GNU/kFreeBSD: http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/kfreebsd-amd64/ch04s01.html.en Although a full set of binary packages requires several CDs, it is unlikely you will need packages on the third CD and above. You may also consider using the DVD version, which saves a lot of space on your shelf and you avoid the CD shuffling marathon. They are writing about CD's but I think the same is about DVD's containing the most wanted packages on the first image(s). Of course that you don't need full set of DVD's. You can even use a small netinstall cd to get Debian. AFAIR on the last discs there were sources for the packages from the first several discs. So the release version of the Debian contains not only packages but the sources too and it's all included in these DVD's. It's like release of FreeBSD + all distfiles on the CD/DVD media. Maciej ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Debian GNU/kFreeBSD
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:12:05AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote: My question is: WHY need 7 DVDs??? DVDs?? Even M$ does not do such a crazy thing with its bloat-ware!! FreeBSD ships 1 DVD. What is it that this Debian GNU/kFreeBSD ships in those 7 DVDs? It's probably just that portion of the complete Debian APT archives that has been compiled for the kFreeBSD variant of Debian. Those who want the complete set of archives on hand, for some version or other, rather than having to connect to the Internet every now and then to get packages, might find it handy. I've never used Debian (or any other open source OS) that way, though. Keep in mind that Debian's package archives have more software in them than any other OS software management system archives -- though I think FreeBSD is a not-too-distant second place. Also . . . do you think that top-posting helped? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpRrXwmUMmX1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Ports with duplicate LATEST_LINKS
Dear port maintainers, The following list includes ports maintained by you that have duplicate LATEST_LINK values. They should either be modified to use a unique LATEST_LINK or suppressed using NO_LATEST_LINK, to avoid overwriting each other in the packages/Latest directory. If your ports conflict with ports maintained by another person, please coordinate your efforts with them. Thanks, Erwin Annoying Reminder Guy III Lansing LATEST_LINK PORTNAME MAINTAINER == ninjadevel/ninjama...@roorback.net ninjairc/ninja po...@freebsd.org typo3www/typo3 jumpe...@gmx.de typo3www/typo344jumpe...@gmx.de Total: 4 ports ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Makefile, ${VARIABLE}= vs. ${VARIABLE}?=
Hi, [helmut@BSDHelmut ~]$ grep -ir latest /usr/ports/www/apache2? /usr/ports/www/apache20/Makefile:LATEST_LINK= apache20 /usr/ports/www/apache22/Makefile:LATEST_LINK?= apache22 [helmut@BSDHelmut ~]$ So, what's the difference between e.g. LATEST_LINK= and LATEST_LINK?=? Thanks, Helmut ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Makefile, ${VARIABLE}= vs. ${VARIABLE}?=
On 13 February 2011 14:14, Helmut Schneider jumpe...@gmx.de wrote: Hi, [helmut@BSDHelmut ~]$ grep -ir latest /usr/ports/www/apache2? /usr/ports/www/apache20/Makefile:LATEST_LINK= apache20 /usr/ports/www/apache22/Makefile:LATEST_LINK?= apache22 [helmut@BSDHelmut ~]$ So, what's the difference between e.g. LATEST_LINK= and LATEST_LINK?=? Thanks, Helmut ?= can be overridden in make.conf or on the command line. = clobbers all previous definitions. Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Makefile, ${VARIABLE}= vs. ${VARIABLE}?=
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:14:17 + (UTC) Helmut Schneider jumpe...@gmx.de wrote: Hi, [helmut@BSDHelmut ~]$ grep -ir latest /usr/ports/www/apache2? /usr/ports/www/apache20/Makefile:LATEST_LINK= apache20 /usr/ports/www/apache22/Makefile:LATEST_LINK?= apache22 [helmut@BSDHelmut ~]$ So, what's the difference between e.g. LATEST_LINK= and LATEST_LINK?=? As it says in the man page... Assign the value to the variable if it is not already defined ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Makefile, ${VARIABLE}= vs. ${VARIABLE}?=
Chris Rees wrote: On 13 February 2011 14:14, Helmut Schneider jumpe...@gmx.de wrote: [helmut@BSDHelmut ~]$ grep -ir latest /usr/ports/www/apache2? /usr/ports/www/apache20/Makefile:LATEST_LINK= apache20 /usr/ports/www/apache22/Makefile:LATEST_LINK?= apache22 [helmut@BSDHelmut ~]$ So, what's the difference between e.g. LATEST_LINK= and LATEST_LINK?=? ?= can be overridden in make.conf or on the command line. Is it up to the maintainer to decide which variables shall be overwritable, or are there rules? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Makefile, ${VARIABLE}= vs. ${VARIABLE}?=
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:14:17 + (UTC) Helmut Schneider jumpe...@gmx.de wrote: [helmut@BSDHelmut ~]$ grep -ir latest /usr/ports/www/apache2? /usr/ports/www/apache20/Makefile:LATEST_LINK= apache20 /usr/ports/www/apache22/Makefile:LATEST_LINK?= apache22 [helmut@BSDHelmut ~]$ So, what's the difference between e.g. LATEST_LINK= and LATEST_LINK?=? from make(1) = Assign the value to the variable. Any previous value is overrid- den. ?= Assign the value to the variable if it is not already defined. -- Gary Jennejohn ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Makefile, ${VARIABLE}= vs. ${VARIABLE}?=
Is it up to the maintainer to decide which variables shall be overwritable, or are there rules? Generally one wants to respect as much of the user's wishes as they can. So things like CC, CFLAGS, CPP, CXX, etc should have a question mark. MAINTAINER and other internal port variable are generally safe without the question mark. If the event your port has a slave than even these variables need to have question marks. -- Eitan Adler ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Makefile, ${VARIABLE}= vs. ${VARIABLE}?=
Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com writes: On 13 February 2011 14:14, Helmut Schneider jumpe...@gmx.de wrote: Hi, [helmut@BSDHelmut ~]$ grep -ir latest /usr/ports/www/apache2? /usr/ports/www/apache20/Makefile:LATEST_LINK= apache20 /usr/ports/www/apache22/Makefile:LATEST_LINK?= apache22 [helmut@BSDHelmut ~]$ So, what's the difference between e.g. LATEST_LINK= and LATEST_LINK?=? Slave ports use different LATEST_LINK, e.g. www/apache22-worker-mpm. ?= can be overridden in make.conf or on the command line. `=' and `:=' can be overriden via command line, too. = clobbers all previous definitions. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Ports with duplicate LATEST_LINKS
On 13 February 2011 13:00, Erwin Lansing er...@freebsd.org wrote: Dear port maintainers, The following list includes ports maintained by you that have duplicate LATEST_LINK values. They should either be modified to use a unique LATEST_LINK or suppressed using NO_LATEST_LINK, to avoid overwriting each other in the packages/Latest directory. If your ports conflict with ports maintained by another person, please coordinate your efforts with them. Thanks, Erwin Annoying Reminder Guy III Lansing LATEST_LINK PORTNAME MAINTAINER == ninja devel/ninja ma...@roorback.net ninja irc/ninja po...@freebsd.org This conflict will be fixed if someone commits http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=154741 Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
fixing the vulnerability in linux-f10-pango-1.22.3_1
is there any point in trying to update linux-f10-pango to address this vulnerability? Affected package: linux-f10-pango-1.22.3_1 Type of problem: pango -- integer overflow. Reference: http://portaudit.FreeBSD.org/4b172278-3f46-11de-becb-001cc0377035.html I realize that I can install it w/ DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES. but I hate having known exploits on my system not installing it breaks flashplugin and acroread (among others). I've never tried to create or modify a linux emulation port before; so I'm wondering just how annoying tedious it's going to be? it looks like there are no Fedora 10 RPMs of pango 1.24 so it would probably involve finding an F10 box and building one from source. But would updating just Pango be possible? Or would it start the RPM Hell avalanche and require me to re-roll all of my linux ports? Is it time for a complete upgrade of our Linux ports to Fedora 14? or some other distro that is easier to track update? tom ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: fixing the vulnerability in linux-f10-pango-1.22.3_1
Am 13.02.2011 22:53, schrieb Tom Uffner: is there any point in trying to update linux-f10-pango to address this vulnerability? Affected package: linux-f10-pango-1.22.3_1 Type of problem: pango -- integer overflow. Reference: http://portaudit.FreeBSD.org/4b172278-3f46-11de-becb-001cc0377035.html I realize that I can install it w/ DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES. but I hate having known exploits on my system not installing it breaks flashplugin and acroread (among others). I've never tried to create or modify a linux emulation port before; so I'm wondering just how annoying tedious it's going to be? it looks like there are no Fedora 10 RPMs of pango 1.24 so it would probably involve finding an F10 box and building one from source. Fedora 10 hasn't been supported for over a year now (EOL Mid December 2009), chances are, however, that newer versions of the system can build an RPM that would fit F10. There are online build services (for instance by/for openSUSE, starts with Fedora 12 however), if you find a release that is close enough in other shared library versions, that might help. Backporting just a security fix, if a reliable and reasonable patch exists, might be an easier option because you can take F10's 1.22.3 *source* RPM, add the security patch, and rebuild (see below). But would updating just Pango be possible? Or would it start the RPM Hell avalanche and require me to re-roll all of my linux ports? If you build an updated port of a compatible pango version on F10, that would likely be painless *unless* the new pango version has changed requirements; building on a newer Fedora release might warrant checking dependencies though, with rpm -qp --requires or similar, and paying attention to library versions. Sometimes, it's possible to (un)define C preprocessor macros to avoid newer features; I used to build bogofilter RPMs for older glibc releases that way a couple of years ago, but there's no guarantee this works, and it's a tedious read the source Tom task. Is it time for a complete upgrade of our Linux ports to Fedora 14? or some other distro that is easier to track update? It would be time, but new distros always raise the question is the kernel part of the linuxulator up to the job? If [e]glibc or other libraries require newer Linux kernel features not provided by the FreeBSD linuxulator, that is a hard dependency to be fixed before. Personally I'd prefer some other distro that is easier to track update, particularly something with long-term support by the respective vendor, so candidates are CentOS (closer to Fedora, also RPM-based, lags a bit behind but is more or less a free spin of Red Hat Enterprise Linux), Ubuntu LTS (3 years for desktop stuff), or possibly Debian. The latter two use .dpkg as the packaging format, which is apparently ar based. I don't have the time to get involved here though, beyond answering an occasional Linux question. HTH -- Matthias Andree ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
