Re: [QAT] r323742: 4x leftovers, 36x success
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Ports-QAT q...@redports.org wrote: - switch simple inline replacement from perl to sed and remove where is no need in this anymore. - trim Makefile header : Port:www/p5-AMF-Perl 0.15_1 Buildgroup: 9.1-QAT/amd64 Buildstatus: LEFTOVERS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~a...@freebsd.org/20130726180400-57669-165584/p5-AMF-Perl-0.15_1.log Buildgroup: 9.1-QAT/i386 Buildstatus: LEFTOVERS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~a...@freebsd.org/20130726180400-57669-165585/p5-AMF-Perl-0.15_1.log Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/amd64 Buildstatus: LEFTOVERS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~a...@freebsd.org/20130726180400-57669-165586/p5-AMF-Perl-0.15_1.log Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/i386 Buildstatus: LEFTOVERS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~a...@freebsd.org/20130726180400-57669-165587/p5-AMF-Perl-0.15_1.log The change to p5-AMF-Perl should be reverted as it is now creating a backup file for Perl.pm that is not in the PLIST and doesn't need to be installed. === Checking filesystem state list of extra files and directories in / (not present before this port was installed but present after it was deinstalled) 130528 drwxr-xr-x2 root wheel 40 Jul 26 18:16 usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.14/AMF 13077 32 -r--r--r--1 root wheel 13119 Sep 19 2004 usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.14/AMF/Perl.pm.bak -- DISCLAIMER: No electrons were maimed while sending this message. Only slightly bruised. ___ 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
FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date
Dear port maintainer, The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your ports appears to be out of date.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, you can safely ignore the entry. You will not be e-mailed again for any of the port/version combinations below. Full details can be found at the following URL: http://portscout.freebsd.org/po...@freebsd.org.html Port| Current version | New version +-+ www/xpi-pentadactyl | 20130407| 20130727 +-+ If any of the above results are invalid, please check the following page for details on how to improve portscout's detection and selection of distfiles on a per-port basis: http://portscout.freebsd.org/info/portscout-portconfig.txt If wish to stop receiving portscout reminders, please contact portsc...@freebsd.org Thanks. ___ 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: Freeocl build but doesn't work
Le Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:36:23 +0200, Tijl Coosemans t...@coosemans.org a écrit : On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:17:56 +0200 lbartoletti wrote: Hello, I try to work with opencl via Freeocl but it doesn't work. When i build a test, it's ok (except with gcc46), but when i run it, it doesn't work : : version GLIBCXX_3.4.11 required by /usr/local/lib/libOpenCL.so.1 not found here some logs and the source code for test. Thank your for your help Compiling C++ code with gcc ports is a little tricky because they insist on using their own runtime libraries (/usr/local/lib/gcc46/libstdc++.so.6) instead of the base system libraries (/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6). So try to compile your test with gcc46 -Wl,-rpath=/usr/local/lib/gcc46. Hello, It doesn't work. I tried it with FreeBSD amd64 9.1 and 10.0 and FreeOCL / OpenCL require GLIBCXX_3.4.11 into libstdc++... ___ 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
Would software for non-commercial use be acceptable as a port?
Hi gang, I've been professionally using FreeBSD for quite some time now (my company now uses 4 FreeBSD servers for web services) and during the implementation period I've become quite fascinated with the ports system. And this evening I suddenly had an idea, but I'm not too sure how feasible this idea is, so I'm hoping some of you guys would be willing to give me some suggestions or advice. I've been using a commercial software product for the past 4 years now; I started using it on Linux and nowadays I use it on Windows. The company behind this product provides several editions of their product, including a community edition which can be used free of charge but non-commercial use only. It does have some functional limitations which, in my opinion (but I am biased), aren't really intrusive. For example if you print some output you'll get a watermark too. Stuff like that. Even so; I strongly support this software. Like I said before I've been using it myself for the past 4 years (in all fairness: I got myself a commercial license too, which wasn't too expensive in my opinion) and even now I'm still quite passionate about this stuff. Now; I read that the ports collection provides a /truly/ free environment and doesn't shun entries which may not match the idea of free and/or open source software. So my question should be obvious: Would I be right to assume that the software product as I described it above could be a liable addition for the ports collection, or is there something I'm overlooking? Needless to say I'm obviously contacting the company behind it as well, I can say I'm in quite good terms with them, and nothing will be done without their explicit permission. But before I start on such an endeavor I'd really appreciate if you guys could confirm (or deny) if my plans are actually feasible? Am I right to conclude that the product, with the non-commercial clause I described above, could be a candidate for the ports collection or would the restriction be a huge obstacle? Thanks in advance for any comments, I'd really appreciate some advice and/or comments here. Kind regards, Peter -- .\\ S/MIME public key: http://www.catslair.org/pubkey.crt +- My semi-private Root CA: http://ssl.losoco.nl/losoco.crt ___ 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: Would software for non-commercial use be acceptable as a port?
This is how DansGuardian works, and it's a part of the ports tree (www/dansguardian). The install points the user to the licensing page on the web. It's up to the user to decide if they're eligible for the non-com license. On 2013-07-27 5:37 PM, Peter Looyenga p...@catslair.org wrote: Hi gang, I've been professionally using FreeBSD for quite some time now (my company now uses 4 FreeBSD servers for web services) and during the implementation period I've become quite fascinated with the ports system. And this evening I suddenly had an idea, but I'm not too sure how feasible this idea is, so I'm hoping some of you guys would be willing to give me some suggestions or advice. I've been using a commercial software product for the past 4 years now; I started using it on Linux and nowadays I use it on Windows. The company behind this product provides several editions of their product, including a community edition which can be used free of charge but non-commercial use only. It does have some functional limitations which, in my opinion (but I am biased), aren't really intrusive. For example if you print some output you'll get a watermark too. Stuff like that. Even so; I strongly support this software. Like I said before I've been using it myself for the past 4 years (in all fairness: I got myself a commercial license too, which wasn't too expensive in my opinion) and even now I'm still quite passionate about this stuff. Now; I read that the ports collection provides a /truly/ free environment and doesn't shun entries which may not match the idea of free and/or open source software. So my question should be obvious: Would I be right to assume that the software product as I described it above could be a liable addition for the ports collection, or is there something I'm overlooking? Needless to say I'm obviously contacting the company behind it as well, I can say I'm in quite good terms with them, and nothing will be done without their explicit permission. But before I start on such an endeavor I'd really appreciate if you guys could confirm (or deny) if my plans are actually feasible? Am I right to conclude that the product, with the non-commercial clause I described above, could be a candidate for the ports collection or would the restriction be a huge obstacle? Thanks in advance for any comments, I'd really appreciate some advice and/or comments here. Kind regards, Peter -- .\\ S/MIME public key: http://www.catslair.org/pubkey.crt +- My semi-private Root CA: http://ssl.losoco.nl/losoco.crt ___ 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 ___ 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: Would software for non-commercial use be acceptable as a port?
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 02:28:31AM +0200 I heard the voice of Peter Looyenga, and lo! it spake thus: Am I right to conclude that the product, with the non-commercial clause I described above, could be a candidate for the ports collection or would the restriction be a huge obstacle? There are a number of entries in ports/LEGAL along the lines of no commercial use, often with RESTRICTED or NO_CDROM or the like also set in the ports' Makefile's. Lots of examples to extrapolate from there. See also http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/porting-restrictions.html -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fulle...@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream. ___ 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: Would software for non-commercial use be acceptable as a port?
On 07/27/13 19:28, Peter Looyenga wrote: Hi gang, I've been professionally using FreeBSD for quite some time now (my company now uses 4 FreeBSD servers for web services) and during the implementation period I've become quite fascinated with the ports system. And this evening I suddenly had an idea, but I'm not too sure how feasible this idea is, so I'm hoping some of you guys would be willing to give me some suggestions or advice. I've been using a commercial software product for the past 4 years now; I started using it on Linux and nowadays I use it on Windows. The company behind this product provides several editions of their product, including a community edition which can be used free of charge but non-commercial use only. It does have some functional limitations which, in my opinion (but I am biased), aren't really intrusive. For example if you print some output you'll get a watermark too. Stuff like that. Even so; I strongly support this software. Like I said before I've been using it myself for the past 4 years (in all fairness: I got myself a commercial license too, which wasn't too expensive in my opinion) and even now I'm still quite passionate about this stuff. Now; I read that the ports collection provides a /truly/ free environment and doesn't shun entries which may not match the idea of free and/or open source software. So my question should be obvious: Would I be right to assume that the software product as I described it above could be a liable addition for the ports collection, or is there something I'm overlooking? Needless to say I'm obviously contacting the company behind it as well, I can say I'm in quite good terms with them, and nothing will be done without their explicit permission. But before I start on such an endeavor I'd really appreciate if you guys could confirm (or deny) if my plans are actually feasible? Am I right to conclude that the product, with the non-commercial clause I described above, could be a candidate for the ports collection or would the restriction be a huge obstacle? We already have a lot of non-commercial-use software in ports (usually marked RESTRICTED in the Makefile), so there certainly shouldn't be any intrinsic difficulty there. -Nathan ___ 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: Ardour 3.x
What else needs to be tested? On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Super Bisquit superbisq...@gmail.comwrote: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/180171 Late reply. Apologies. On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Mark Felder f...@feld.me wrote: On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:43:50 -0500, Super Bisquit superbisq...@gmail.com wrote: Has it been accepted into the ports tree as of yet along with the dependencies? Do you have a list of PRs? ___ 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
