Re: chromium iconify-resurrect
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 06:02:53PM -0700, Russell L. Carter wrote: Greetings, I am curious if this is a problem that anyone else is seeing. chromium 37.0.2062.94, current r269700M Start up chromium, then immediately iconify it. Then try bringing it back again. All I get (after a delay of several seconds) is a white canvas in the correct size. Chromium does respond to window manager commands (fvwm close, no destroy needed, in my case). Yup, same on PC-BSD. pgpYwqmO1SHjE.pgp Description: PGP signature
[QAT] 366822: 4x leftovers
Update to 1.0.4. PR: 192030 Submitted by: m...@ozzmosis.com - Build ID: 20140831195001-42676 Job owner: f...@freebsd.org Buildtime: 34 hours Enddate: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 06:16:35 GMT Revision: 366822 Repository: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revisionrevision=366822 - Port:net/binkd 1.0.4 Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/amd64 Buildstatus: LEFTOVERS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~f...@freebsd.org/20140831195001-42676-407486/binkd-1.0.4.log Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/i386 Buildstatus: LEFTOVERS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~f...@freebsd.org/20140831195001-42676-407487/binkd-1.0.4.log Buildgroup: 9.2-QAT/amd64 Buildstatus: LEFTOVERS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~f...@freebsd.org/20140831195001-42676-407488/binkd-1.0.4.log Buildgroup: 9.2-QAT/i386 Buildstatus: LEFTOVERS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~f...@freebsd.org/20140831195001-42676-407489/binkd-1.0.4.log -- Buildarchive URL: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/20140831195001-42676 redports https://qat.redports.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: chromium iconify-resurrect
## Russell L. Carter (rcar...@pinyon.org): Start up chromium, then immediately iconify it. Then try bringing it back again. All I get (after a delay of several seconds) is a white canvas in the correct size. Chromium does respond to window manager commands (fvwm close, no destroy needed, in my case). Same here. Workaround: using (Un)stick from the windows commands brings back the window content (without having to exit chrome). Regards, Christoph -- Spare Space ___ 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
[QAT] 366827: 4x leftovers, 4x success, 4x depend (??? in print/texlive-docs)
Split print/texlive-texmf into two ports, texlive-texmf and texlive-texmf-source. PR: 193202 - Build ID: 20140831202401-3144 Job owner: h...@freebsd.org Buildtime: 36 hours Enddate: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:45:37 GMT Revision: 366827 Repository: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revisionrevision=366827 - Port:print/texlive-full 20140525_1 Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/amd64 Buildstatus: DEPEND (??? IN PRINT/TEXLIVE-DOCS) Log: https://qat.redports.org//~h...@freebsd.org/20140831202401-3144-407502/texlive-docs-20140525.log Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/i386 Buildstatus: DEPEND (??? IN PRINT/TEXLIVE-DOCS) Log: https://qat.redports.org//~h...@freebsd.org/20140831202401-3144-407503/texlive-docs-20140525.log Buildgroup: 9.2-QAT/amd64 Buildstatus: DEPEND (??? IN PRINT/TEXLIVE-DOCS) Log: https://qat.redports.org//~h...@freebsd.org/20140831202401-3144-407504/texlive-docs-20140525.log Buildgroup: 9.2-QAT/i386 Buildstatus: DEPEND (??? IN PRINT/TEXLIVE-DOCS) Log: https://qat.redports.org//~h...@freebsd.org/20140831202401-3144-407505/texlive-docs-20140525.log - Port:print/texlive-texmf 20140525_3 Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/amd64 Buildstatus: LEFTOVERS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~h...@freebsd.org/20140831202401-3144-407506/texlive-texmf-20140525_3.log Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/i386 Buildstatus: LEFTOVERS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~h...@freebsd.org/20140831202401-3144-407507/texlive-texmf-20140525_3.log Buildgroup: 9.2-QAT/amd64 Buildstatus: LEFTOVERS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~h...@freebsd.org/20140831202401-3144-407508/texlive-texmf-20140525_3.log Buildgroup: 9.2-QAT/i386 Buildstatus: LEFTOVERS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~h...@freebsd.org/20140831202401-3144-407509/texlive-texmf-20140525_3.log - Port:print/texlive-texmf-source 20140525 Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/amd64 Buildstatus: SUCCESS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~h...@freebsd.org/20140831202401-3144-407510/texlive-texmf-source-20140525.log Buildgroup: 8.4-QAT/i386 Buildstatus: SUCCESS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~h...@freebsd.org/20140831202401-3144-407511/texlive-texmf-source-20140525.log Buildgroup: 9.2-QAT/amd64 Buildstatus: SUCCESS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~h...@freebsd.org/20140831202401-3144-407512/texlive-texmf-source-20140525.log Buildgroup: 9.2-QAT/i386 Buildstatus: SUCCESS Log: https://qat.redports.org//~h...@freebsd.org/20140831202401-3144-407513/texlive-texmf-source-20140525.log -- Buildarchive URL: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/20140831202401-3144 redports https://qat.redports.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: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
On 9/1/14, 7:59 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: Julian Elischer wrote: You should try arguing with someone like Bank of Americas security and operations department You work for the same company as me? in a past life, they were a customer. some day about whether they want to suddenly upgrade 300 machines for no real reason (from their perspective). ___ 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: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
On 9/1/14, 8:03 PM, Andrew Berg wrote: On 2014.09.01 21:39, Julian Elischer wrote: sigh.. when are we as a project, all going to learn that reality in business is that you often need to install stuff that is old. Its not always your choice. The custommers require it.. You should try arguing with someone like Bank of Americas security and operations department some day about whether they want to suddenly upgrade 300 machines for no real reason (from their perspective). FreeBSD minor version upgrades are meant to be non-disruptive. However, I will admit that I have not performed any such upgrades in a critical environment, so if you think they are disruptive, please enlighten me with the details. Also, there are options out there for getting support for extended periods if you need it. Some companies are built around providing support for things that the original developers have long abandoned because some businesses need it. It's not how disruptive they are technically. it's how many months of shakedown testing you have to go through before they allow you to put new software on any production system. ___ freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-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: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
On 2 September 2014 11:08, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote: On 9/1/14, 8:03 PM, Andrew Berg wrote: On 2014.09.01 21:39, Julian Elischer wrote: sigh.. when are we as a project, all going to learn that reality in business is that you often need to install stuff that is old. Its not always your choice. The custommers require it.. You should try arguing with someone like Bank of Americas security and operations department some day about whether they want to suddenly upgrade 300 machines for no real reason (from their perspective). FreeBSD minor version upgrades are meant to be non-disruptive. However, I will admit that I have not performed any such upgrades in a critical environment, so if you think they are disruptive, please enlighten me with the details. Also, there are options out there for getting support for extended periods if you need it. Some companies are built around providing support for things that the original developers have long abandoned because some businesses need it. It's not how disruptive they are technically. it's how many months of shakedown testing you have to go through before they allow you to put new software on any production system. Just adding here, in commercial environments things don't change quickly or easily. Whether this applies to the current issue with pkg is not for me to say. For example, certain commercial upstream software vendors require to go through a certification process before they even consider supporting the new software you intend to use with theirs. Admittedly we haven't run into this issue in relation to FreeBSD, but we certainly have with Firefox. As an example, the last version of Firefox that Information Builders' WebFOCUS 7.7 supports is 3.6.7 (currently available versions are 31 or 32!) and for Internet Explorer that's 7 (currently at 11). If you run into any kind of problem, the standard answer is to use a browser that they support. Good luck with that! Firefox 3.6.7 was released on July 20, 2010; over 4 years ago. In such cases you're more or less required to keep an old system around that still has such old packages, if only to see if you can reproduce any issues you encounter (with modern versions of your software) on those old versions. With the deprecation of the old pkg_* tools you run into a conflict; You can either update packages that are _not_ under certification for such a vendor and get security updates and fixes using the new pkg, or you have to stick with the certified software and _not_ get any security updates or fixes. It gets more interesting if you have to deal with manufacturing processes (something we're looking to use FreeBSD for to replace our current OpenVMS systems before they go out of support), as often automatons write data to external databases and such software resides in PLC's. Manufacturing equipment tends to age and the kind of external databases they support is limited to what was available when they were new and the capabilities of the PLC involved. I can totally understand that at some point it starts to get impossible to maintain two separate packaging systems and I understand that you think 2 years is enough time to shake things out, but software vendors aren't that quick. For many, 2 years is a short time. Just saying... -- If you can't see the forest for the trees, Cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest. ___ 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 +-+ japanese/skk-jisyo | 201302 | 201409 +-+ japanese/skk-jisyo-cdb | 201302 | 201409 +-+ 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 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: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
On 2 September 2014 13:30, Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net wrote: Andrew Berg wrote: On 2014.09.01 22:09, Michelle Sullivan wrote: That's my point - there was a patch waiting to submit that knowingly broke pkg_install at midnight on the day after the EOL... the EOL shouldn't be an EOL - because it was really a 'portsnap after this date before you upgrade and you're screwed it won't work any more at all...' As Peter outlined, this EOL was announced long ago, and it was mentioned at least once that it was to allow breaking changes. There really would be no reason to drop support for it in the ports tree if there were no plans to make changes. The point is the EOL was not an EOL, it was a deadline, either switch or you're screwed, and it was communicated as an EOL not as a here's a deadline, switch or you're screwed -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/ The point is the EOL was *actually* an EOL: a deadline, either switch or you're screwed, and it was communicated as an EOL: a here's a deadline, switch or you're screwed ___ 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: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
Alban Hertroys haram...@gmail.com: On 2 September 2014 11:08, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote: On 9/1/14, 8:03 PM, Andrew Berg wrote: On 2014.09.01 21:39, Julian Elischer wrote: sigh.. when are we as a project, all going to learn that reality in business is that you often need to install stuff that is old. Its not always your choice. The custommers require it.. You should try arguing with someone like Bank of Americas security and operations department some day about whether they want to suddenly upgrade 300 machines for no real reason (from their perspective). FreeBSD minor version upgrades are meant to be non-disruptive. However, I will admit that I have not performed any such upgrades in a critical environment, so if you think they are disruptive, please enlighten me with the details. Also, there are options out there for getting support for extended periods if you need it. Some companies are built around providing support for things that the original developers have long abandoned because some businesses need it. It's not how disruptive they are technically. it's how many months of shakedown testing you have to go through before they allow you to put new software on any production system. Just adding here, in commercial environments things don't change quickly or easily. Whether this applies to the current issue with pkg is not for me to say. For example, certain commercial upstream software vendors require to go through a certification process before they even consider supporting the new software you intend to use with theirs. Admittedly we haven't run into this issue in relation to FreeBSD, but we certainly have with Firefox. As an example, the last version of Firefox that Information Builders' WebFOCUS 7.7 supports is 3.6.7 (currently available versions are 31 or 32!) and for Internet Explorer that's 7 (currently at 11). If you run into any kind of problem, the standard answer is to use a browser that they support. Good luck with that! Firefox 3.6.7 was released on July 20, 2010; over 4 years ago. In such cases you're more or less required to keep an old system around that still has such old packages, if only to see if you can reproduce any issues you encounter (with modern versions of your software) on those old versions. With the deprecation of the old pkg_* tools you run into a conflict; You can either update packages that are _not_ under certification for such a vendor and get security updates and fixes using the new pkg, or you have to stick with the certified software and _not_ get any security updates or fixes. It gets more interesting if you have to deal with manufacturing processes (something we're looking to use FreeBSD for to replace our current OpenVMS systems before they go out of support), as often automatons write data to external databases and such software resides in PLC's. Manufacturing equipment tends to age and the kind of external databases they support is limited to what was available when they were new and the capabilities of the PLC involved. I can totally understand that at some point it starts to get impossible to maintain two separate packaging systems and I understand that you think 2 years is enough time to shake things out, but software vendors aren't that quick. For many, 2 years is a short time. It also should be noted that everyone had enough time to raise those issues in the time between tthe announcement and now. No one did. Now that it is gone, they are brought up, while they should have been long time ago instead. It can't work that way. My 2 cents in this discussion :-). Cheers Marcus ___ 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: poudriere and DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES
Russell L. Carter ha scritto: However, what I would like to learn is if poudriere is able to understand DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=YES, and if so, how to enable it. I'm not asking a political question here, just a technical one. If this is possible, how do I do it? NO_IGNORE= yes -- Alex Dupre ___ 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: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
Marcus von Appen wrote: Alban Hertroys haram...@gmail.com: I can totally understand that at some point it starts to get impossible to maintain two separate packaging systems and I understand that you think 2 years is enough time to shake things out, but software vendors aren't that quick. For many, 2 years is a short time. It also should be noted that everyone had enough time to raise those issues in the time between tthe announcement and now. No one did. Now that it is gone, they are brought up, while they should have been long time ago instead. It can't work that way. My 2 cents in this discussion :-). Actually I brought it up as soon as I found the EOL was a deadline for breaking pkg_* tools, was told, too late now - that was more than 2 weeks ago, less than 2 months ago (forget the date) ... I'm happy with an EOL and working to upgrade everything, I'm not happy that the EOL was not actually an EOL and it was actually a deadline. -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.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: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
On 2 Sep 2014, at 12:47, Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net wrote: I'm not happy that the EOL was not actually an EOL and it was actually a deadline. I'm not sure what you think the difference is. The EOL says 'the FreeBSD project no longer supports this configuration'. If you are not relying on us for support (i.e. using an old or forked ports tree, or building your own packages), then things will continue to work. If you are expecting (unpaid, volunteer) support from the project in the form of packages and a useable ports tree, then you need to use a supported configuration. If being able to use the ports tree without installing pkg(8) is sufficiently valuable to you, then I can put you in touch with some companies that will backport things to a copy of the ports tree for your use (although the price tag will scale with the number of ports that you want to support). If, however, your complaint is that it's hard to get new software certified for your system *then this change has absolutely no effect on you!* If you're not worried about upgrading ports at all, then you can just stick with the ports tree version from the time of your release. If you're able to upgrade ports, then upgrading the pkg port should not be an issue. David ___ 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
Design Development
Hi, We are one of the reputed Web-solutions Firms with the core skills in website design/development and would like to collaborate with you. We have earned 5000+ hours working experience in developing the professional design with attractive approach in the latest technologies like Joomla, Magento, Zencart, WordPress, Code Igniter (CI), Core PHP, OS Commerce etc. We do have feasible and customized prices for our designing/development based on the requirements. Therefore, I would highly appreciate if you could share your design/development needs with references. Do let us know if you are interested in designing/developing the sites and I can share you the detail information for proceeding further. I would be happy to share our Work Portfolio, Client testimonials and Methodologies. We have vast experience in dealing with the clients across the globe; most of our clients are from USA, UK, Australia, Canada, Singapore and Netherlands. We have a strong, highly experienced and dedicated team with relative experience in developing the websites. Our creative team is competent enough to convert your ideas into the real working websites. Thanks for your time and assistance. Waiting for your response. Regards, Abha Barman ___ 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: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Marcus von Appen m...@freebsd.org wrote: It also should be noted that everyone had enough time to raise those issues in the time between tthe announcement and now If this is an issue that needed to be brought up, then FreeBSD has apparently never before been used in an enterprise??? -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allber...@gmail.com ballb...@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonadhttp://sinenomine.net ___ 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: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
On 9/1/2014 9:27 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: oh and what was it, 1.3.6 - 1.3.7? broke shit... (badly) ... What broke? I am not aware of any new regressions in 1.3.7. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: chromium iconify-resurrect
On 09/02/14 01:15, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote: ## Russell L. Carter (rcar...@pinyon.org): Start up chromium, then immediately iconify it. Then try bringing it back again. All I get (after a delay of several seconds) is a white canvas in the correct size. Chromium does respond to window manager commands (fvwm close, no destroy needed, in my case). Same here. Workaround: using (Un)stick from the windows commands brings back the window content (without having to exit chrome). Huh. That works. Twenty years of fvwm and I never used that before... Thanks, Russell Regards, Christoph ___ 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: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com: On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Marcus von Appen m...@freebsd.org wrote: It also should be noted that everyone had enough time to raise those issues in the time between tthe announcement and now If this is an issue that needed to be brought up, then FreeBSD has apparently never before been used in an enterprise??? I'm tempted to ask, if the enterprise has SLAs to ensure continuity, even after the official support has ended? ;-) Cheers Marcus ___ 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: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
On Sep 2, 2014, at 4:47, Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net wrote: Marcus von Appen wrote: Alban Hertroys haram...@gmail.com: I can totally understand that at some point it starts to get impossible to maintain two separate packaging systems and I understand that you think 2 years is enough time to shake things out, but software vendors aren't that quick. For many, 2 years is a short time. It also should be noted that everyone had enough time to raise those issues in the time between tthe announcement and now. No one did. Now that it is gone, they are brought up, while they should have been long time ago instead. It can't work that way. My 2 cents in this discussion :-). Actually I brought it up as soon as I found the EOL was a deadline for breaking pkg_* tools, was told, too late now - that was more than 2 weeks ago, less than 2 months ago (forget the date) ... I'm happy with an EOL and working to upgrade everything, I'm not happy that the EOL was not actually an EOL and it was actually a deadline. Hi Michelle, One subtle point that I wanted to ask for clarification is you thought the EOL announcement for pkg_install was going to be pkg_install is no longer going to be supported, but you can still use it, instead of pkg_install support is going to be removed from the tree -- is that correct? You'd probably hate to do this, but forking the sources and changing from portsnap to a git or svn backed ports tree that downloads a tarball snapshot might be the best resolution to this issue now... Thanks! -Garrett ___ 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: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
Garrett Cooper wrote: On Sep 2, 2014, at 4:47, Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net wrote: Marcus von Appen wrote: Alban Hertroys haram...@gmail.com: I can totally understand that at some point it starts to get impossible to maintain two separate packaging systems and I understand that you think 2 years is enough time to shake things out, but software vendors aren't that quick. For many, 2 years is a short time. It also should be noted that everyone had enough time to raise those issues in the time between tthe announcement and now. No one did. Now that it is gone, they are brought up, while they should have been long time ago instead. It can't work that way. My 2 cents in this discussion :-). Actually I brought it up as soon as I found the EOL was a deadline for breaking pkg_* tools, was told, too late now - that was more than 2 weeks ago, less than 2 months ago (forget the date) ... I'm happy with an EOL and working to upgrade everything, I'm not happy that the EOL was not actually an EOL and it was actually a deadline. Hi Michelle, One subtle point that I wanted to ask for clarification is you thought the EOL announcement for pkg_install was going to be pkg_install is no longer going to be supported, but you can still use it, instead of pkg_install support is going to be removed from the tree -- is that correct? 100% correct! (thank you for being one of the few to see the subtle but *very* important difference) You'd probably hate to do this, but forking the sources and changing from portsnap to a git or svn backed ports tree that downloads a tarball snapshot might be the best resolution to this issue now... This is my only option - however, I suspect I'm already f**ked - my build servers kicked off at 4am and the non pkg jails automatically converted themselves to pkg.. the pkg jails obviously continued... however I now have a repo that contains half pkg versions in the same directory structure and indexes as the pkg_install structure... Time to rebuild everything from scratch I think - second time in a year.. I'm guessing my boss is going to tell me, use RPM, no wasting more time on it... only time will tell... you'll know the result if you see future posts and patches from me. Michelle -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.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: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net wrote: This is my only option - however, I suspect I'm already f**ked - my build servers kicked off at 4am and the non pkg jails automatically converted themselves to pkg.. the pkg jails obviously continued... however I now have a repo that contains half pkg versions in the same directory structure and indexes as the pkg_install structure... So, the flip side of enterprise software management is that you probably should not be integrating a rolling release like ports into what is supposed to be a stable verified environment in the first place. *Especially* not via cron jobs with no supervision. At the very least, your jails should be working from a local ports tree (or packages via poudriere), with cherry-picking of locally tested patches. -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allber...@gmail.com ballb...@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonadhttp://sinenomine.net ___ 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: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
Brandon Allbery wrote: On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net wrote: This is my only option - however, I suspect I'm already f**ked - my build servers kicked off at 4am and the non pkg jails automatically converted themselves to pkg.. the pkg jails obviously continued... however I now have a repo that contains half pkg versions in the same directory structure and indexes as the pkg_install structure... So, the flip side of enterprise software management is that you probably should not be integrating a rolling release like ports into what is supposed to be a stable verified environment in the first place. *Especially* not via cron jobs with no supervision. At the very least, your jails should be working from a local ports tree (or packages via poudriere), with cherry-picking of locally tested patches. The roll until they get a stable base (using Jenkins as the controller) - they've been rolling since a patch to DBIx-SearchBuilder (that I created and submitted), which out came the DBD::Pg update to 3.3.0 and the subsequent blacklisting of it for RT 4.x and then the tcl breakage around mid August until 2 days ago... So yeah not that stupid. -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.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
tmux backspace patch?
Hi, there: I was just wondering about the backspace patch for tmux. Since upgrading to tmux 1.9a (from 1.8) where this patch is unconditionally applied, my backspace key no longer works in the tmux command prompt (e.g. C-b:). I had to remove the patch and manually rebuild to get it to work. I'm just wondering what purpose this patch serves? I don't really understand what this patch is doing, but I see from Google searching that I'm not the only one to have the exact same issue with this patch. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports-bugs/2011-January/204523.html ___ 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: wine (-devel) and i386-wine
Hi Tom, On Monday, 1 September 2014 22:24:57 Thomas Mueller wrote: I read something about two days on www.freshports.org about wine and i386-wine that alters my plans. I tried to build i386-wine from i386 with the idea of using it both from i386 and amd64, in the latter case mounting the i386 partition on /compat/i386. But what I see makes that look not feasible. It is feasible to run the i386-wine ports from a 32bt environment - however it is not ideal. The port implements various hacks to get the package to work properly on an amd64 system that is simply not needed when running natively. If I want to run wine from both i386 and amd64 (not at the same time), do I need to make separate installations on separate partitions? In that case, how do I avoid wasteful duplication in compiling? I am getting ready to rebuild/update FreeBSD-current and possibly 10.0-STABLE from source, am planning to also make a new i386 installation on a hard drive in a USB 2.0 and eSATA enclosure, using eSATA. I want to do this soon, at least for FreeBSD-current because, after running svn up on FreeBSD src tree from NetBSD, I saw an update in $SRCDIR/sys/dev/re/if_re.c and want to see if that works on my Ethernet. I also want the new NFS improvements. If you are going to have a /compat/i386 chroot then you could install (normal 32bit) wine there and with the correct scripts run wine from that chroot without needing i386-wine at all (you will need to set up the correct PATH, LD_32_LIBRARY_PATH and LD_32_LIBRARY_PATH_RPATH variables). Alternatively, you could install wine on 32-bit and i386-wine on 64-bit and use those respectively. I hope this clarifies. Regards signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: tmux backspace patch?
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Patrick gibblert...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, there: I was just wondering about the backspace patch for tmux. Since upgrading to tmux 1.9a (from 1.8) where this patch is unconditionally applied, my backspace key no longer works in the tmux command prompt (e.g. C-b:). I had to remove the patch and manually rebuild to get it to work. I'm just wondering what purpose this patch serves? I don't really understand what this patch is doing, but I see from Google searching that I'm not the only one to have the exact same issue with this patch. Hi, I've the same regression: I need to use shift + backspace now. ___ 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
/head/sysutils/gnome-system-monitor/Makefile
Log of /head/sysutils/gnome-system-monitor/Makefile Revision 367008 - (view) (download) (annotate) - [select for diffs] Modified Tue Sep 2 14:23:10 2014 UTC (11 hours, 43 minutes ago) by tijl Add missing library libgmodule-2.0 Reported by:antoine I think if you: Add missing library libgmodule-2.0 you must also add library libgthread-2.0 I couldn't get it to compile on i386 current without that Manfred || n...@pozo.com || || || ___ 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: poudriere and DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES
On 09/02/14 04:05, Alex Dupre wrote: Russell L. Carter ha scritto: However, what I would like to learn is if poudriere is able to understand DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=YES, and if so, how to enable it. I'm not asking a political question here, just a technical one. If this is possible, how do I do it? NO_IGNORE= yes Thanks! That worked. My family can stop hating on me now, as youtube lives. So, on FreeBSD-current, is there any other way besides chromium or firefox plus the dastardly nspluginwrapper'd flash plugin to view youtube, vimeo, etc? I am hoping that I have missed a better way. Supposedly there are new video protocols coming down the pipe, w/o the adobe baggage, or so I gather. Best, Russell ___ 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
