Re: ports/pkg/OS integration 2.0

2016-02-14 Thread Royce Williams 
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:49 PM, John Marino  wrote:
> Royce wrote:
>> It would be nice to be asked at the point of installing the system
>> what kind of software management you want:
>>
>> [X] Install software from binary packages only
>> [ ] Install software from ports only (compiling everything locally)
>> [ ] Prefer packages, prompting me when default options change
>> [ ] Prefer ports, but use packages if the port options are identical
>
> I can't tell if you realize that Synth already does this.
> well, not the first one because if a person used binary packages *only*
> then Synth has nothing to do.
>
> But there is definitely an option to use official FreeBSD packages
> instead of building when they are "suitable" which includes identical
> build options.
>
> So anyway, this wish is already here.

That is pretty cool -- I will check it out.

And this seemed topical (ignore the glitz, but the text is worthwhile):

https://medium.com/@sdboyer/so-you-want-to-write-a-package-manager-4ae9c17d9527

Royce
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

PR ready for commit

2016-02-14 Thread Randy Westlund 
This is just waiting on a committer:

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205052

Randy


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: PR ready for commit

2016-02-14 Thread Jason Unovitch 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 04:11:07PM -0500, Randy Westlund wrote:
> This is just waiting on a committer:
> 
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205052
> 
> Randy

Done! Thanks for the quick response on the requested QA and for taking
over the port from ports@!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=
=aCdj
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: postfix-current is marked broken w.r.t SPF support, why?

2016-02-14 Thread olli hauer 
On 2016-02-08 20:13, Michael Grimm wrote:
> Hi —
> 
> I am wondering why postfix-current is still marked broken regarding SPF 
> support:
> 
> | poudriere build log file excerpt:
> | Finished build of mail/postfix-current: Ignored: is marked as broken: 
> At the moment, SPF support is unavailable for postfix-3.0-20151003
> 
> Thus, I made a custom port removing this restriction in the Makefile, and 
> that custom port compiles including SPF support:
> 
> | mail> pkg query %do postfix-custom
> | security/openssl
> | devel/icu
> | mail/dovecot2
> | mail/libspf2
> | devel/pcre
> 
> | mail> pkg info | grep libspf
> | libspf2-1.2.10_2   Sender Rewriting Scheme 2 C Implementation
> 
> | mail> ldd `which postfix`
> | /usr/local/sbin/postfix:
> | ...
> | libspf2.so.2 => /usr/local/lib/libspf2.so.2 (0x8024a8000)
> | ...
> 
> I do not have a demand in using SPF at the moment, but I am only wondering 
> whether this is a bug or feature.
> 
> Any feedback is highly appreciated,
> Michael


Hi Michael,

until now the patch will not apply clean and there is no new patch available.
If we remove the BROKEN message users getting perhaps no notification if 
current will become the new default postfix


===> Fetching all distfiles required by postfix-current-3.0.20151003_1,4 for 
building
=> SHA256 Checksum OK for postfix/postfix-3.0.3.tar.gz.
=> SHA256 Checksum OK for postfix/postfix-2.8.0-libspf2-1.2.x-0.patch.gz.
===> Patching for postfix-current-3.0.20151003_1,4
===> Applying distribution patches for postfix-current-3.0.20151003_1,4
1 out of 2 hunks failed--saving rejects to src/global/mail_params.c.rej
1 out of 7 hunks failed--saving rejects to src/smtpd/smtpd.c.rej
1 out of 3 hunks failed--saving rejects to src/smtpd/smtpd_check.c.rej
*** Error code 1


-- 
olli
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Recent update of security/nettle broke security/keepassx2

2016-02-14 Thread Lars Engels 
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:59:26AM -0500, Richard Kuhns wrote:
> Apologies; it was apparently libgcrypt, not nettle.
> 
> On 02/12/16 09:29, Richard Kuhns wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > After updating security/nettle, when I try to start keepassx2 I get:
> > 
> > : rjk$~; keepassx
> > O j: Assertion `ctx->unused < 64' failed
> > (salsa20.c:400:salsa20_do_encrypt_stream)
> > Abort trap
> > 

I can confirm this. :-/


pgpwfEx1HKVEE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Recent update of security/nettle broke security/keepassx2

2016-02-14 Thread Jason Unovitch 
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Lars Engels  wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:59:26AM -0500, Richard Kuhns wrote:
>> Apologies; it was apparently libgcrypt, not nettle.
>>
>> On 02/12/16 09:29, Richard Kuhns wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > After updating security/nettle, when I try to start keepassx2 I get:
>> >
>> > : rjk$~; keepassx
>> > O j: Assertion `ctx->unused < 64' failed
>> > (salsa20.c:400:salsa20_do_encrypt_stream)
>> > Abort trap
>> >
>
> I can confirm this. :-/

See https://bugs.FreeBSD.org/207042 and by extension
https://bugs.FreeBSD.org/207107.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Hiawatha v.10.1 is out. Please update pkg and port <3

2016-02-14 Thread SATRIANI Santana 
Hello,

the Hiawatha-Webserver version 10.1 is out, with great features https:/
/www.hiawatha-webserver.org/changelog
 
Can you please update package and port?

Thanks in advance and  best regards.

Alex.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

2016-02-14 Thread Kevin Oberman 
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Steven Hartland 
wrote:

> On 14/02/2016 11:25, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Kevin Oberman wrote:
>>
>>> My experience is that pkg(8) has been wonderfully robust since 1.3.
>>> before
>>> 1.3 it was a real pain in the neck, though I never had a need to rebuild
>>> the DB, I did ave to do a bit of fix-up. I really, really wish Bapt had
>>> listened and held up the default to pkg for a bit. Much as I like it, it
>>> really was not ready for prime time when it became the default. The early
>>> issues chased too many people away. E.g. you.
>>>
>>>
>> Nailed it!
>>
> The problem with that is its a chicken and egg situation, without it
> hitting prime time it likely wouldn't have got the needed use to identify
> and subsequently fix the issues you're referring to; at the very least it
> would have slowed that process down :(
>
> Regards
> Steve
>

Sorry, but I'm afraid not.

There was spirited discussion at the time about the weaknesses and problems
with pkg. It finally came to a head over portmaster. Its author and
maintainer refused to put revisions to support pkg(8) because he felt
strongly that issues with it had to be dealt with first.

To be clear, I was one of those who wanted more development before making
pkg the default. I really, really wanted pkg to help me deal with issues at
work with maintaining FreeBSD that led to its replacement with Linux. As
much as I wanted pkg, it seemed clear to me that it needed more work.
Obviously, I was not on the winning side and there is no going back now
that pkg has become a stable and robust tool that was critical to the
growth of FreeBSD.
--
Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer
E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://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

2016-02-14 Thread portscout 
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
+-+
devel/ocaml-lacaml  | 7.2.6   | v8.0.2
+-+
net-mgmt/weathermap | 1.1.1   | 18.0.0
+-+


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
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

2016-02-14 Thread Steven Hartland 

On 14/02/2016 11:25, Michelle Sullivan wrote:

Kevin Oberman wrote:

My experience is that pkg(8) has been wonderfully robust since 1.3. before
1.3 it was a real pain in the neck, though I never had a need to rebuild
the DB, I did ave to do a bit of fix-up. I really, really wish Bapt had
listened and held up the default to pkg for a bit. Much as I like it, it
really was not ready for prime time when it became the default. The early
issues chased too many people away. E.g. you.
   

Nailed it!
The problem with that is its a chicken and egg situation, without it 
hitting prime time it likely wouldn't have got the needed use to 
identify and subsequently fix the issues you're referring to; at the 
very least it would have slowed that process down :(


Regards
Steve
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Removing documentation

2016-02-14 Thread Michelle Sullivan 
Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
> My experience is that pkg(8) has been wonderfully robust since 1.3. before
> 1.3 it was a real pain in the neck, though I never had a need to rebuild
> the DB, I did ave to do a bit of fix-up. I really, really wish Bapt had
> listened and held up the default to pkg for a bit. Much as I like it, it
> really was not ready for prime time when it became the default. The early
> issues chased too many people away. E.g. you.
>   

Nailed it!


-- 
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"