Re: portmanager endlessly looping in x11
On 08/26/10 01:17, jhell wrote: On 08/25/2010 21:27, Chuck Robey wrote: I have an interesting thing here: I seem to have found an endless loop in portmanager. It's *entirely* possible that I'm myself causing this, so I'll explain, and if you can come up with any hints, I'll be happy to test them, because I really do like using portmanager. CC:The maintainer of ports-mgmt/portmanager is a good start. Maybe He/She can give you some insight of the working of portmanager. I am not sure how portmanager keeps the package database up to date but sometimes dependencies can get messed up in the database that can cause a loop and if not handled correctly by the upgrade process can cause a lot of grief. In portmaster you could be using --check-depends and in portupgrade you could use -Ffu but you don't seem to be using any of the suggested ports-mgmt upgrade utilities so good luck. ``emphasis on portmaster'' -- written by dougb@, so you know it works!. The problem I saw, I'm pretty sure is caused by a discrepancy (in portmanager) between how deeply it looks for dependencies versus how deeply it looks it looks to decide to actually rebuild those discovered dependencies. Merely noting the need to rebuild seems not to be the same thing as actually doing it. It found things maybe 3 levels deep, but if it's less than 2 levels down, it won't rebuild it, it'll merely realize that it *should* do it. I switched to using portmaster (this looks alike, I'm making no mistake tho, moved from portmanager to portmaster) which doesn't seem to have this uneveness, so while it takes a whole lot longer to work than portmanager (it uses slow but sure shell utils for it's databases) it really does a far more reliable job of things. You could get to rely on it. It sure took me a good while to track down the reasons that portmanager was fixing on, in deciding that something was out of date, and the frustration was sufficient to cause me to forgive the way that portmaster is much more slow. One really big irritation was how portmanager would rebuild something completely successfully 3 times, but since it would fail its dependency scans, it never would recognize that any of those looping apps had been rebuilt. Very puzzling, until I realized about the dependency problems. ___ 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: portmanager endlessly looping in x11
On 09/08/10 18:15, Jerry wrote: Portmanager did have a nasty bug that involved looping. It was fixed ages ago though. Are you running the latest version; i.e., 0.4.1_9 on your system? Run portmanager -v to confirm. Without the '-p' option, portmanager only looks 1 level deep. with the '-p' option, it will search the entire dependency chain. I always use the '-p' option and never experience any problems described by you. Not sure if the -p does that or not, but I *did* read (more than just a few times) about the -p (meaning pristine) option, and from the reading, it doesn't tell me that it might affect looping, and I didn't see anything about it in the man page. I didn't just try it and immediately mail, I tried to DTRT. Doesn't matter too much to me now, because I really love the fact that I did 4 *very* large (meaning lengthy dependency lists) ports, with 100% 1st-time accuracy, which means I will stay with portmaster for sure now. Also, because those ports are now all installed, and I don't want to take a few days to rebuild everything all over again. It looks like, in the default case, portmanager detects more problems than it deals with, which is not a desirable default action. It's probably a needed default action for some use case ... do you happen to know what that is? ___ 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
portmanager endlessly looping in x11
I have an interesting thing here: I seem to have found an endless loop in portmanager. It's *entirely* possible that I'm myself causing this, so I'll explain, and if you can come up with any hints, I'll be happy to test them, because I really do like using portmanager. What my goal is, is to update the qt4 port, but one of the dependencies it finds is x11/libX11 ... and two (the only 2) dependencies it finds unsatisfied for libX11 are x11/libXau and x11/libXtrans. Trouble is, it endlessly (and seemingly quite successfully) rebuilds both of these, but them can't seem to find either to mark them as satisfied (to move onlto building libX11). I tried to cd into both of these dirs and build them directly using make clean/package/clean, and it succeeds fine, but portmanager *still* can't get past them. My ports are up to date, no more than a week old, I use cvs to keep the sources nicely up to date. I'd really appreciate any suggestions you can offer. ___ 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
about portmanager
Forget what I questioned before, I found a likely reason for the odd behavior I was seeing, so I don't need the help really anymore. Thanks anyhow. ___ 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
portupgrade's logging
according to portupgrade's man page, the -l logfile option sets logfile to have the output of a portupgrade session, but when I try it, I don't get anything there. Is there something I'm doing wrong, something that I am overlooking? ___ 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
How to get errors printed
I'm having trouble with the devel/kdesdk4 port, in trying to update it from the 4.2.1 to the latest in ports which is 4.3.4. I'm using portupgrade, but the port itself uses cmake to build itself. At first, it gave me no useful output at all (I hate any make tool that goes out of it's way to hide errors!), but I found that if you define VERBOSE=1, you can at least get the command line given to shell to print, so I can now see all the calls to c++. The trouble is, I can't see ANY of the error output (VERBOSE apparently doesn't help there). There's gotta be some way to manipulate cmake to report it's errors. I CAN say that I *think* the build is breaking immediately after it announces that it's built kbugbuster, but I can't tell if the build actually dies doing kbugbuster, or doing whatever it is that comes after bugbuster. There is one fishy thing I can report: in the previous lines to the cm,ake report on kbugbuster, there's a command to c++ that seems to be linking kbugbuster, and it's got one phrase that's odd: -Wl,-rpath,/usr/local/kde4/lib:/usr/local/lib/qt4 All those colons, it strikes me as fishy. I see nothing in my environment that gives any hint, I'm using FreeBSD-current, with gcc-4.2.1. So, either (if you can) tell me how I can get cmake to print out the errors in a make run, OR give me a guess as to what might have caused that wierd phrase in the kbugbuster linking command. 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
trying to fix a sed line
I don't do enough in sed if I could figure out what it is that the broken
line is TRYING to do, I think maybe I could fix it, I HAVE used sed before, and
I know about the s command, and how it sets it's delimiters. Anyhow, here's the
broken line, and I hope my mailer doesn't decide to break the line for me:
REINPLACE_ARGS= -i.bak -E -e 1s,^(\#!.* )python$$,\1 -S PYTHONPATH=${DATADIR}
${PYTHON_CMD},1
should be only a single space between ${DATADIR} and ${PYTHON_CMD}, my mailer
put a line break in there for me ...
If you care, this came from editors/spe/Makefile.
___
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
building koffice
I looked into ports/editors, to find the port name for koffice, and found a great number of koffice ports that *seem* to be for foreign language support (I might be wrong, but there's nothing in the pkg-descr to say one way or another). My problem is, I don't really want support for all of those languages in my koffice, I really want only American English, but I can't figure out how to remove all of those extra languages, and how to get American English (there's apparently no koffice_en). Could I please get some advice on this? ___ 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: finding where a make variable is set
Robert Huff wrote: Given: huff@ pd /usr/ports/editors/openoffice.org-3 /usr/ports/editors/openoffice.org-3 /var/db/pkg huff@ make -V CP /bin/cp how do I track down where CP gets set? It isn't in the Makefile itself; is it in /usr/share/mk/*.mk? Would it be likely that, if you grepped in the /usr/ports/Mk directory, that the entry in bsd.commands.mk might have the entry you're interested in? Least, that's a BSD Make template file which does this, but if that part of your build is done via GNU Make, or CMake, something like that, I might be wrong here. You'd have to tell me what make tool you're talking about. Robert Huff ___ 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: why was XFree86 dropped for ports?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Noland wrote: On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 22:36 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: I recently got kde4.2 working on my home box, and all the neat eye candy things that are added, I'll have to see, maybe you're right, XFree86 might not work with KDE, but saying that XFree86 hasn't had an update since December makes no sense to me, versus the fact that I *think* git allows no release tags, so I think one could argue that there are no Xorg releases at all. That, or I don't know git well enough, either is possible. If there are tags in git, I will go back and reread the git docs until I find them. git has tags and branches, all of which can be checked out from fd.o. AFAIK, things aren't tagged for Xorg releases, but all of the packages carry tags and some have release branches. I was hoping I would get an answer on this. It is indeed a feature of git, or has it been grafted on by convention? If git's got it, I'll drop this particular topic, and try to find the command I must have missed. If those features are done by convention, I guessed I was relying on the git man pages, and just didn't look hard enough at the web pages for Xorg to spot the info. I've been a bit critical of git in my mind, and need to get myself either justified or corrected. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknTyzgACgkQz62J6PPcoOlfrgCfc9/ZsGKtJOhb4xqUecVLfrhy NDoAnRcfOJdQH1OsxVBTtjlbxlN1jyLG =uHG+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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
why was XFree86 dropped for ports?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I cc'd flz because I saw an email from March of 2008 which announces that Florent Thoumie (flz) himself deleted the XFree86-4 port. I need to understand why all support for XFree86 has been removed from our ports. It doesn't make sense to me. Here are the salient points I've seen, from doing my own experimentation with it about 2 months ago: 1) it builds in about 1/3 of the time of the Xorg offering. 2) It's still being developed, and having regular releases. 3) it configures trivially easy, most especially relative to Xorg. 4) it's a single port that downloads as one tarball, as opposed to Xorg, which is composed of about a hundred different tarballs. It's not possible to handle the Xorg port as one item, so that makes XFree86 far simpler to maintain that Xorg. 5) The configuration process for XFree86 is still what it has been for decades, and you need only change one single variable in one of their configuration files to get it to respect PREFIX. I actually built Xfree86 by changing that one single variable, so that it installed where I wanted (I favor /usr/X11R7), and it needed not a single additional change to get it to begin compiling. No errors in the build, it finished in a small fraction of the time that Xorg takes. Seeing as it doesn't seem to have any obvious drawbacks, I assume that there has to be some political failing. Can't be license, because ports as it stands now includes a huge array of different licenses, including some commercial ones, so having the license not be exactly the same as the BSD license can't be it, could it? I'm not making any argument at all comparing Xorg to XFree86 in terms of quality or development rate, only that I can't see any reason why the ports should have been removed, because XFree86 is clearly something that some folks would want, and it's a trivially easy port. I tried Googling this, but just couldn't find the reasoning that justified removing XFree86 from our ports. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknST0oACgkQz62J6PPcoOk8hwCcCRg/C+jMhH4tbgtJFxYO5qHk 2pAAnjHteJ/sgFRh4rmCa9CDRiVP6i8l =L9W9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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: why was XFree86 dropped for ports?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 matt donovan wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Mark Linimon lini...@lonesome.com mailto:lini...@lonesome.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 01:13:46PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: I need to understand why all support for XFree86 has been removed from our ports. Because no one volunteered to do the work to support it. At any given time there are at least a couple of dozen X11-related PRs outstanding, and more questions posted to various mailing lists. A lot of them are of the form I can't get X version foo to work with my XYZ card. Without anyone willing to work on such things, there was no reason to keep doing the extra work to support the parallel set of infrastructure. (Removing the code to be able to pick one or the other greatly simplified bsd.*.mk, for instance.) It's simply a question of how many hours of work people want to put in, much like any other FreeBSD ports. Also many programs compile only with Xorg now. Well without patches of course. The small programs anyways. also Xfree86 does not have regular updates either from what I can see December 28, 2008 is their last one. Xorg gets updated roughly every month since they became modular. but yes the main reason is no one to maintain it. I don't know git anywhere's near as well as I know cvs, but it seems to me that xorg doesn't have any TAGS so you can't ask for a particular release, isn't that true? I think that is probably a comment on git, not Xorg. I guess, seeing that there's about 1/4 the amount of work involved in updating xFree86 versus Xorg, I didn't expect that it was a work thing. Finally, I really don't like the fact that Xorg comes in all of those little packages, so that without our ports system, it might be prohibitively difficult to assemble Xorg. Like it would be, I suppose, for KDE. I *like* how you can deal with XFree86 as one item. If there was some way to get KDE as one compileable tarball, that would be a good thing also. I recently got kde4.2 working on my home box, and all the neat eye candy things that are added, I'll have to see, maybe you're right, XFree86 might not work with KDE, but saying that XFree86 hasn't had an update since December makes no sense to me, versus the fact that I *think* git allows no release tags, so I think one could argue that there are no Xorg releases at all. That, or I don't know git well enough, either is possible. If there are tags in git, I will go back and reread the git docs until I find them. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknS0y0ACgkQz62J6PPcoOl/YwCfSj6nbPi2leLdgZFx0Vi1vF42 ngkAnixY2RvW/1BkdJb/ln8NpMjNKlMm =hSgi -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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
qt4 ports descriptions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 someone's being very lazy here. I decided to learn a bit of qt4, so I went looking at the dozen different ports of qt4-* in ports/devel. Whoever did those ports copied the description of the entire qt (not even noting what version it is) to every single one of the ports, although they AREN'T all the same thing. At least some care, even 30 seconds, should have been given to allow at least a vague hint as to what the ports do. The ports diagnostic tools really ought to be made to detect when someone's decided they didn't need to give any kind of desciption at all, I would think that things which source in the same bsd.n.mk files, they could be checked to see if they all have identical, useless pkg-descr files. OTOH, the KDE folks deserve an attaboy for NOT doing this to folks. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknJJWwACgkQz62J6PPcoOmYfwCgm2NyOFXKVOXuwQMmlZMwUMAO h1MAoJJrHDcYr09IIUwfx+bZ4SxIKn6g =fSDJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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: qt4 ports descriptions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Doug Barton wrote: Marco Bröder wrote: On Tue March 24 2009 19:24:44 Chuck Robey wrote: OTOH, the KDE folks deserve an attaboy for NOT doing this to folks. Please post your insults somewhere else but not here! Do not spam the mailing lists with such a nonsense! Marco, I think you misunderstood what Chuck said. The term attaboy is an English colloquialism that means roughly congratulations for a job well done. What Chuck is saying is that the kde maintainers should be congratulated for adding appropriate pkg-descr files to the ports they maintain. You actually have a very annoying and insulting attitude in several of your mails! This time I cannot ignore it anymore because such an attitude makes me very angry ... :-( While you certainly have the right to your opinion, it's probably better if personal problems are handled personally, rather than on the lists. Otherwise please do not spam the mailing lists! It is extremely annoying if someone writes unqualified rants about something but actually do not contribute anything or even have any clue at all about it. There is a fine line here between a user identifying a problem and reporting it to the list (which is totally legitimate) and someone who is asking others to do work they are unwilling to do. I don't know the situation here well enough to judge, but if it's true that there are a large number of ports with duplicate and/or inappropriate pkg-descr files then reporting it is reasonable; if for no other reason than because it may spur someone who does have time to pick up the project. It's also worthwhile to point out problems (especially widespread ones) so that those who are learning to write/maintain ports themselves don't pick up on bad habits. Like I said above, there is a fine line here, but it doesn't appear to me that Chuck has crossed it. (At least not this time.) :) (thanks for that, Doug) Sure didn't mean to say *anything* derogatory about the FreeBSD-KDE group. Their doing all this works saves me a ton of work myself, and no mistake. Heck, not being personally that hot a C++ coder, I might not even be able to completely port it, no matter how much time I take. I just felt that some of the pkg-descr's have been skimped. And, NOT in KDE, either. I used to do a LOT of FreeBSD committing, but stopped when I developed disagreements with the strategy that FreeBSD-ports moved towards some time back. I had a perfectly good chance (back then) to comment, so I don't feel right about ever bringing that up, again, but I don't agree, so I don't do it anymore. That's fair, isn't it? I used to do a ton of ports, often picking just the biggest ones (as fair challenges). The best way to disagree is to have your fair say, then shut up, right? If things had gone differently, I might still be committing. I still really like FreeBSD, just have a bone about implementation strategy with ports. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknJijgACgkQz62J6PPcoOllYQCfSSlxWJFxh9Z2Rjmvx/Ivpbk4 Fi8AoJNWMCvbpfjaUyHkaxXF0+xQz1dC =9yj8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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: qt4 ports descriptions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 matt donovan wrote: Chuck is more complaining about the QT4 ports descriptions since he does not get it that all of it is required to program in QT4. so of course it will all have the same description since it all comes from one tarball think freebsd just breaks some of it up though but I could be wrong Well, let me offer an example: qt4-core versus qt4-qtdemo. They are very, very different ports, but they have precisely the same descriptions. Is this correct, from your viewpoint?? I did a find for all pkgs starting with qt4, and found they all have the same descriptions. Seeing as just how different they are (most certainly from a user perspective), it seems easily justifiable to require different descr strings, most certainly given the small work involved. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknJi+EACgkQz62J6PPcoOneugCgl+lFgZzBliebkEtfMJE+fOJV EwEAoJw4nyBCaTeqsZ2X2NUtexwEzJDb =G15G -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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
upgrading phonon-xine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I can't figure out why (because the Makefile sure seems fine) but whenever I try to install the phonon-xine port, it comes back and tells me it doesn't: make: don't know how to make install. Stop I can't see anything about the port that would do this ... the include of bsd.port.mk seems totally ordinary ... it's the latest cvsup of the phonon-xine port. Both phonon-4.3.1 and phonon-gstreamer-4.3.1 are installed fine. I tried to see if maybe removing the pnonon-gstreamer port would affect things, but it didn't, so I put it back in, but I need the phonon-xine port to complete the upgrade of kde4. Need a hint here, does the phonon-xine port work for everyone else? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknAOJ4ACgkQz62J6PPcoOmq8ACcDhhWoTLMTXFCNj9g0f8mI1FW U1AAn0ABSORMUBY4n/02eXjxO1LmYqFY =oPwQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Doug Barton wrote: Chuck Robey wrote: Just before sending my mail, I took a look at the cvs log, last entry is from more than 6 months ago, unless something is somehow fubared with my archive. If it sits unchanged for so long, I interpreted that as being dead, I wasn't trying to be insulting, maybe I made an incorrect assumption. The last change to portmaster (minor bug fixes and one minor new feature) was just shy of 6 months after the previous change, but I assure you that it's very much alive. :) Just because an existing feature set is more or less mature doesn't mean that the project is dead. Doug Doug, we were speaking of portmanager, not portmaster (about which I'm utterly innocent). Being thjat this is ports, not -chat, I think we shouldn't just launch out at random (although I'd enjoy that personally.) If you want to continue this in any direction other than portmanager, maybe you could either move this to freebsd-chat, or make it private (no list in the CC:?) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkm2ncAACgkQz62J6PPcoOkgYgCfQuTfs7AlhYv7zcHBbM2ar2wP PzwAn0nIZh3IOqVM0IIInE3AOGTOg+y0 =lURE -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 RW wrote: On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:40:08 -0400 Chuck Robey chu...@telenix.org wrote: Here's the portmanager listing, maybe someone here can tell me what's causing portmanager to want to patch my bsd.port.mk, and why the patchfile should be so far off, and what might be the CORRECT way to fix this. Oh, BTW, I run current, and keep myself that way via cvsup. IIRC the patch was made so that when portmanager built a port, the makefile would call back into portmanager to let it modify the dependencies. Portmanager had a major rewrite just before the original author had a row with some FreeBSD people and abandoned the project. AFAIK the feature wasn't yet used, so it doesn't matter if the patch doesn't apply since it's a null operation. Ahh, I didn't realize that portmanager was moribund. OK, I can figure out what to do from here, then, thanks. I might not like the method being used by portmanager very much, but it's not worth complaining about a dead port. Too many other choices, aren't there? ___ 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 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkm1u6sACgkQz62J6PPcoOlcfQCgnXJkaeu1SOXMhcWxWhlVMQFc 9lcAni5kfl+jmQE1C3b6t0lQkdocH+HL =OTs8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Noland wrote: On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 21:00 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: RW wrote: On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:40:08 -0400 Chuck Robey chu...@telenix.org wrote: Here's the portmanager listing, maybe someone here can tell me what's causing portmanager to want to patch my bsd.port.mk, and why the patchfile should be so far off, and what might be the CORRECT way to fix this. Oh, BTW, I run current, and keep myself that way via cvsup. IIRC the patch was made so that when portmanager built a port, the makefile would call back into portmanager to let it modify the dependencies. Portmanager had a major rewrite just before the original author had a row with some FreeBSD people and abandoned the project. AFAIK the feature wasn't yet used, so it doesn't matter if the patch doesn't apply since it's a null operation. Ahh, I didn't realize that portmanager was moribund. OK, I can figure out what to do from here, then, thanks. I might not like the method being used by portmanager very much, but it's not worth complaining about a dead port. Too many other choices, aren't there? It's not exactly dead... I keep it running, because it is still the best available option. Just before sending my mail, I took a look at the cvs log, last entry is from more than 6 months ago, unless something is somehow fubared with my archive. If it sits unchanged for so long, I interpreted that as being dead, I wasn't trying to be insulting, maybe I made an incorrect assumption. The patch I saw in the bsd.port.mk was there in order to add in a couple of Makefile variables, and that just seems a really odd method to use for that purpose. I don't honestly know how portmanager works, so I couldn't give any meaningful criticism, it just seemed so odd that I couldn't figure out the goal behind it. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkm1z28ACgkQz62J6PPcoOlZNgCcC86aFuuz37IerQpV6Z081IPT ZrwAnRXsUgaQFnxg8WrllnAEF6DvJagF =7mON -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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
portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm busy trying to use portmanager to get me to kde4.2, but I'm having problem in updating my misc/localedata port. Portmanager has decided misc/localedata needs to get rebuilt, and for some reason, that it needs to patch my /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port/mk file with the patchfile /usr/local/share/portmanager/patch-bsd.port.mk-0.3.6. I can't figure out why portmanager thinks that misc/localedata needs updating, but I much much worse, can't figure out why it needs to patch my /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port/mk file. I checked the patchfile I listed above, the patch seems fine BUT it's off in terms of line number, it wants to patch around the line 2049, but in searching my bsd.port.mk, it should really be looking to patch about line 2347. I could go about fixing this, but seeing as I don't know why it's patching things to begin with, I feel really unsafe in changing the patchfile. I did make sure that the patchfile was totally up-to-date, and that my bsd.port.mk is also up-to-date. Here's the portmanager listing, maybe someone here can tell me what's causing portmanager to want to patch my bsd.port.mk, and why the patchfile should be so far off, and what might be the CORRECT way to fix this. Oh, BTW, I run current, and keep myself that way via cvsup. If you tell me I should just fix the patchfile, I know how to do that, I just feel uneasy when I have no idea of the context involved. I think this exact same probolme is actually (probably) occurring in several other points in my kde4.2 build, so I really need to understand the reason it's trying to patch to begin with, and why things are out of sync. +++ FROM the portmanager listing +++ TCSH-april:root:/usr/ports/lang:#44-19:26portmanager misc/localedata -f -l MGPMrController 0.4.1_9 info: running in forced update mode rCreateInstalledDbVerifyContentsFile 0.4.1_9 error: @name not found in /var/db/pkg/convertall-0.4.0/+CONTENTS convertall-0.4.0 installation is corrupt! recomend running pkg_delete -f convertall-0.4.0 then manually reinstalling this port rCreateInstalledDbVerifyContentsFile 0.4.1_9 error: @name not found in /var/db/pkg/convertall-0.4.0/+CONTENTS convertall-0.4.0 installation is corrupt! recomend running pkg_delete -f convertall-0.4.0 then manually reinstalling this port - portmanager 0.4.1_9: Collecting installed port data forced mode - - -0001 localedata-5.4 /misc/localedata rCreateInstalledDbVerifyContentsFile 0.4.1_9 error: @name not found in /var/db/pkg/convertall-0.4.0/+CONTENTS convertall-0.4.0 installation is corrupt! recomend running pkg_delete -f convertall-0.4.0 then manually reinstalling this port - Port Status Report forced mode - 1 :localedata-5.4 /misc/localedata MISSING updating localedata-5.4 /misc/localedata options reason: MISSING localedata-5.4 /misc/localedata - percentDone-=0 = 100 - ( 100 * ( oldPortsDbQTY-=1 / oldPortsDbTOTALIZER-=1 ) ) patching bsd.port.mk-=cd /usr/ports/Mk; patch /usr/local/share/portmanager/patch-bsd.port.mk-0.3.6; Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: - -- |--- /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk Tue Nov 8 01:02:51 2005 |+++ bsd.port.mkWed Nov 16 02:16:57 2005 - -- Patching file bsd.port.mk using Plan A... Hunk #1 failed at 2049. 1 out of 1 hunks failed--saving rejects to bsd.port.mk.rej done - MGPMrUpdate 0.4.1_9 command: #1 of 14 cd /usr/ports/misc/localedata make -V OPTIONS - - checking for conflicts before building localedata-5.4 MGPMrUpdate 0.4.1_9 command: #3 of 14 cd /usr/ports/misc/localedata make check-conflicts - - intitial clean of work directories MGPMrUpdate 0.4.1_9 command: #7 of 14: - After this point, the stuff above repeats 2 more times, until it announces that it's failed 3 times, and quitting. No additional info, no idea why it's doing that patching to begin with. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)
Re: FreeBSD Port: ktorrent-3.1.6_1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jonathan wrote: Chuck Robey wrote: I finally found an odd fix, not sure why it worked this way, but I thought to pass it along on the hope that maybe it will work for you as well as it did for me. My max upload is about 38KBPS, my max download is about 160KBPS. I'd set for to -1, so that the u/d rates would be set to infinite, so that the torrent client would intelligently choose the best rate. But my experience showed that my max ACTUAL gross download was only about 25KBPS (remember, I was expecting, from the torrent protocol, to get better than 6 times that.) Well, finally losing all hope, I decided to set the upload rate down to about 20K, so I could use the reserved rate for other entertainments. IMMEDIATELY upon limiting the UPLOAD rate to 20K, the download rate shot up to nearly my 160K maximum. I can't understand this, but I tried to move the upload/download rates around a little bit, to verify the finding: that I just should NEVER set the rates to infinite, and that (at least in ktorrent) the max download rate really was attainable. I haven't any idea why this worked for me, only that it did do this, reliably. I may go back to trying previous torrent clients now. What a fine way to spend the afternoon! Your problem is not related to the one I and the others have. Your problem is caused by your upstream being so saturated with data packets that the acknowledge packets for the downloads are being delayed or dropped. A much more detailed description and more general solution can be found here http://www.benzedrine.cx/ackpri.html You may be right, I said I didn't understand, but if my upload was supposedly satured, it makes less sense to me that it never showed as using more that about 10K (5K for the average, really) and my limit (for both upload download) was set to -1 (infinite). I didn't see why that would cause saturation, although the other results (having the download rate go from very limited to a max value) do kind of support such an idea. Why would my setting the rates both to infinite cause saturation? Or is maybe the upload rate that's being set being only affecting one use of upload, but not all uses of upload? That could be twisted in that direction, I guess, choking off the ability to use uploads for acks, because it's all being reserved for some other use? Boy, that surprises me, but it's it's what's meant, it could explain things. -- Jonathan ___ 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 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmZre8ACgkQz62J6PPcoOkCNACgg9KLcYQPqfMt7PSnNzGxIR4N 4esAnjz53tOMiKIGUAQmXzHonyUeDAi2 =FKsT -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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: FreeBSD Port: ktorrent-3.1.6_1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Max Brazhnikov wrote: On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:21:32 +0300, Nikolay Tychina wrote: Hello, i installed ktorrent3 and it seems to be very slow while checking pieces. (~2mb per second) (Deluge do it much more faster, i didn't try any other clients though) Do you have the same problem? Do you mean 'Check data' for downloaded files? It gives me about 20Mb/s I finally found an odd fix, not sure why it worked this way, but I thought to pass it along on the hope that maybe it will work for you as well as it did for me. My max upload is about 38KBPS, my max download is about 160KBPS. I'd set for to -1, so that the u/d rates would be set to infinite, so that the torrent client would intelligently choose the best rate. But my experience showed that my max ACTUAL gross download was only about 25KBPS (remember, I was expecting, from the torrent protocol, to get better than 6 times that.) Well, finally losing all hope, I decided to set the upload rate down to about 20K, so I could use the reserved rate for other entertainments. IMMEDIATELY upon limiting the UPLOAD rate to 20K, the download rate shot up to nearly my 160K maximum. I can't understand this, but I tried to move the upload/download rates around a little bit, to verify the finding: that I just should NEVER set the rates to infinite, and that (at least in ktorrent) the max download rate really was attainable. I haven't any idea why this worked for me, only that it did do this, reliably. I may go back to trying previous torrent clients now. What a fine way to spend the afternoon! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmXKZgACgkQz62J6PPcoOn0jACfe1wnh+JFmhQYi2UgjYRIc/y2 SFQAn2y5qjyzL3rEfmT8YOtq2MMuoKTx =xcN8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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: poscript display problems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Philipp Ost wrote: Chuck Robey wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim Kellers wrote: 55 completely blank pages well, thanks very much, Tim. You and Phil Ost tested, and I found out that our FreeBSD-ports installed gs seems to have some sickness, when being asked to display PS files that don't have embedded fonts ... because that's what this is. I see this too. I get the following error when displaying the files with Ghostview: Error: /typecheck in --setscreen-- Operand stack: 6.01146 0.0 --dict:4/4(ro)(L)-- 4 4 Frequency 6.01146 Execution stack: %interp_exit .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- false 1 %stopped_push 1905 1 3 %oparray_pop 1904 1 3 %oparray_pop 1888 1 3 %oparray_pop 1771 1 3 %oparray_pop --nostringval-- %errorexec_pop .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- 1883 3 4 %oparray_pop 1821 3 4 %oparray_pop --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --dict:4/4(ro)(L)-- --nostringval-- 4 %dict_continue --nostringval-- Dictionary stack: --dict:1146/1684(ro)(G)-- --dict:0/20(G)-- --dict:128/200(L)-- --dict:286/400(L)-- Current allocation mode is local GPL Ghostscript 8.62: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1 Program version: $ pkg_info | grep ghost ghostscript-gpl-8.62_2 GPL Postscript interpreter ghostview-1.5_1 An X11 front-end for ghostscript This time I'm copying Hiroki Sato, who is the fellow who did the last few ghostscript commits ... why? Because I just tried to compile ghostscript-8.62.tar.bz2 directly from the version that was downloaded by the port into distfiles. I only used autogen.sh (with the only options being - --prefix=/usr/local), used gmake, and then executed it from the preinstallation ./bin directory. Result: it displays fine, no error. I think that hrs ought to take a look at his port now, does that sould right? When I'd used the port, at first I'd had no extra options at all, later on for testing, I added the trutype font processing (the 3rd option, I think). So, if you needed it today, that's the fix, DON'T use the port. $ I'll be investigating it further. I have already verified that at least some of the Linux-derived gs ports display this fine, so it's a ports problem of some kind, because of the testing, and I know my gs and gs fonts are installed the way they should be. evince-2.22.2_2 has also problems displaying the files. I don't know if evince uses ghostscript as a backend though. ps2pdf can't convert them also, it bombs out with the same error message as above. I'm running 7-STABLE if this matters. HTH, Philipp -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkh2QhsACgkQz62J6PPcoOnGbgCdHLNAuk9ycLKiUlkA3YxEKfEZ WoQAnRzbMgTVpuClSRRkq9L2tpqEjjwd =51Z2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: poscript display problems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim Kellers wrote: I was in a rush last night when I sent that e-mail. I wanted to add that the file, when ftp'd to my MacBook (10.5.4), open just fine Preview and all the pages were readable. OK, I appreciate that, it seems to work on Linux ghostscript also, just fails on FreeBSD's ghostscript, so I'll be checking out it's font handling today, I'm willing to bet that's the problem. To the others (I'm still getting more test offers!) I have all the testing I could possibly need now, I only need to troubleshoot this now, there's something screwy about gs's font handling. Tim Chuck Robey wrote: Tim Kellers wrote: 55 completely blank pages well, thanks very much, Tim. You and Phil Ost tested, and I found out that our FreeBSD-ports installed gs seems to have some sickness, when being asked to display PS files that don't have embedded fonts ... because that's what this is. I'll be investigating it further. I have already verified that at least some of the Linux-derived gs ports display this fine, so it's a ports problem of some kind, because of the testing, and I know my gs and gs fonts are installed the way they should be. Chuck Robey wrote: Tim Kellers wrote: Send me one, I have gv installed (FreeBSD 7.0-Stable Xorg 7.3_1). Great, it's attached, I really appreciate this. Chuck Robey wrote: I'm seeing some odd display problems, and I need to get somebody else to verify for me if it's a pan-FreeBSD problem, or if perhaps I have some oddity with my ghostcript installation. My problem is, on doc files from the Xorg project, *.PS.gz files (and not all of these, only the ones deriving directly from Framework .mif files) gv displays blank pages, and ps2pdf is converting to blank pages on pdfs. If you have a moment to do it, and would write me, I'd mail you one of these files, and see if you can view them yourself. If you can, I need to look harder. If you can't, then maybe we all need to (because one of the Xorg folks just told me they can read them fine using gv). I need some independent verification. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkh054kACgkQz62J6PPcoOmb9QCfVdh6TblGlW59cw18EB++58b2 UYYAni8kp4sROy305stlEIJYgeCw9ZEI =jT8d -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: poscript display problems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Philipp Ost wrote: Chuck Robey wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim Kellers wrote: 55 completely blank pages well, thanks very much, Tim. You and Phil Ost tested, and I found out that our FreeBSD-ports installed gs seems to have some sickness, when being asked to display PS files that don't have embedded fonts ... because that's what this is. I see this too. I get the following error when displaying the files with Ghostview: Error: /typecheck in --setscreen-- Operand stack: 6.01146 0.0 --dict:4/4(ro)(L)-- 4 4 Frequency 6.01146 Execution stack: %interp_exit .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- false 1 %stopped_push 1905 1 3 %oparray_pop 1904 1 3 %oparray_pop 1888 1 3 %oparray_pop 1771 1 3 %oparray_pop --nostringval-- %errorexec_pop .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- 1883 3 4 %oparray_pop 1821 3 4 %oparray_pop --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --dict:4/4(ro)(L)-- --nostringval-- 4 %dict_continue --nostringval-- Dictionary stack: --dict:1146/1684(ro)(G)-- --dict:0/20(G)-- --dict:128/200(L)-- --dict:286/400(L)-- Current allocation mode is local GPL Ghostscript 8.62: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1 Yeah, Phil, it seems to be a gs font problem, and a LOT of things use gs (like ps2pdf). I'm sorry, my disability means I need to move slower than I personally think is reasonable, but leave me a day or so with it, I'll puzzle this out. My error list is exactly as yours is. Program version: $ pkg_info | grep ghost ghostscript-gpl-8.62_2 GPL Postscript interpreter ghostview-1.5_1 An X11 front-end for ghostscript $ I'll be investigating it further. I have already verified that at least some of the Linux-derived gs ports display this fine, so it's a ports problem of some kind, because of the testing, and I know my gs and gs fonts are installed the way they should be. evince-2.22.2_2 has also problems displaying the files. I don't know if evince uses ghostscript as a backend though. ps2pdf can't convert them also, it bombs out with the same error message as above. I'm running 7-STABLE if this matters. HTH, Philipp -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkh1b4EACgkQz62J6PPcoOljdACfRbTI9ZkhQ+3dAWWbpqfTY2BA wzYAn1bZC/YtZfLTKmyNNNpjEp77I+oH =5boa -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
poscript display problems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm seeing some odd display problems, and I need to get somebody else to verify for me if it's a pan-FreeBSD problem, or if perhaps I have some oddity with my ghostcript installation. My problem is, on doc files from the Xorg project, *.PS.gz files (and not all of these, only the ones deriving directly from Framework .mif files) gv displays blank pages, and ps2pdf is converting to blank pages on pdfs. If you have a moment to do it, and would write me, I'd mail you one of these files, and see if you can view them yourself. If you can, I need to look harder. If you can't, then maybe we all need to (because one of the Xorg folks just told me they can read them fine using gv). I need some independent verification. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkhzsnUACgkQz62J6PPcoOnwZgCgmVuBDWVPk0ati4u0clyUrZUb ijAAn17ajDK/cpRCad4Wq/kln1zis/xk =C6hS -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD imapsync port
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 21:55:18 +0200 (CEST) Remko Lodder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, June 21, 2008 9:09 pm, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:51:15 +0200 Remko Lodder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, There are some trouble getting imapsync port running: First, it would be nice adding a patch to change the shebang to /usr/local/bin/perl. I don't expect anybody having perl on FreeBSD at /usr/bin/perl. Secondly imapsync will not run with Mail::IMAPClient from ports, as said by imapsync itself: Subroutine Authuser redefined at /usr/local/bin/imapsync line 2557. imapsync needs perl lib Mail::IMAPClient release 2.2.9 exactly, future imapsync release may suppoort 3.0.x, but sorry not now. See file BUG_IMAPClient_3.xx # Looks like your test died before it could output anything. Mail::IMAPClient provided with imapsync src should be used instead. Regards, Adam #!/usr/bin/perl is installed as symlink for consistency. The line does not have to be changed in my eyes. I also do not see us removing the symlink anytime soon so lets just leave it like that :-). Actually it should. # PERL - Set to full path of perl5, either in the system or # installed from a port, but without the version number. # Use this if you need to replace #! lines in scripts. That does not say it SHOULD be set to /usr/local/bin/perl, all perl scripts I have seen so far are /usr/bin/perl, why break that without general concensus? :) I live with the impression that is the general consensus. I never seen a port that doesn't do that patch. Since I'm not a perl guy I'm CC'ing perl@ on this. I use python, where I picked up this little trick, which lets python find it's actual location and execute itself, based upon the reliable location of env: #!/usr/bin/env python You could replace python with perl, for your needs. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIXX6Iz62J6PPcoOkRAulRAJ4pHng7y3KkKDwTXFr89qjYPCU3FACeNuZI NavNInhZO4viAHiVUa5gO1c= =28zV -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trying for a duplex printer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gary Jennejohn wrote: On Wed, 07 May 2008 14:43:32 -0400 Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip Kyocera FS-1030D] Thanks, Gary. Took me quite a while to find this baby, because it seems that Kyocera's main site doesn't acknowledge of the Kyocera-Mita's products. I finally found out that it's a fairly big monochrome laser. I rather like the color I get from the cheaper inkjets, although I sure would rather get one with a FreeBSD driver. Further, from what I could find, I couldn't tell if it was a postscript native printer, and I am dead-set against any postscript native printers, because I used to have one, and when compared to any innkset that must use a translator such as ghostscript, the postscript native printers are (or, at least used to be) dead slow. Maybe it took them too long to transfer big postscript files, or maybe it took the internal processors too long to translate, I dunno, but when I had one of the original old HP laserjets with a postscript cartridge, and I converted to using ghostscript about a year after I got it, I was shocked that my print rate went up about 4-5 times as fast. I could actually get the advertised print rates. Well, I have an ethernet card in it, so transfer times are not a problem. This printer _emulates_ postscript quite well. It actually supports other modes. Here's a list from the Technical Reference manual: The printing systems emulate the operation of seven other printers: HP LaserJet (mode 6) HP 7550A (mode 8) IBM Proprinter X24E (mode 1) Epson LQ-850 (mode 5) Diablo 630 (mode 2) Standard line printer (mode 0) KPDL (mode 9) [PostScript compatible] Supposedly it can do 22 ppm single sheet and 11 ppm duplex, but I've never checked that. I suppose my next trick is to attempt to find out about glib's symbol versioning, enough so that it could be added to the linuxwrapper. Then (I hope) I get the PIPS driver that exists for the Epson RX680. I wasn't trying to suggest that you get a FS-1030D. I was just giving an example of a printer which works with CUPS in duplex mode. IMO the next trick would be to look for a PPD file for one of the printers you have in mind. If you find one then it would be simple to use CUPS. Umm, I may be wrong here, but I thought the absolute minimum to get any printer working (in cups, or in any printing system whatever) was a way to get a page description language translator working (ghostscript is a good example of what I'm referring to). If you don't have a PPD, you can make one yourself, I've done that, but you can't fake out the PDL translator, right? Maybe, you meant that if you have a PPD, the chances of having that PDL translator are very, very good, is that it? I mean, well, like apsfilter doesn't need ppds at all, but it sure does need that PDL translator. --- Gary Jennejohn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIIyKpz62J6PPcoOkRAoUSAJ4yz4x+jvUJv5fSDvqFAB/JmWuJbgCdFBJI ecAWbd2R5VwTOiXl1tpCE7M= =3MS3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trying for a duplex printer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joakim Fogelberg wrote: On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I have been scouring all the data I can, to find printers that do duplex printing (that means doublesided printing). I found 3 models, but two of them (the HP C7280 and the Canon PIXMA MX850) have no public drivers I can find. The third, which is the Epson RX680, seems to be supported via drivers from Avasys (http://avasys.jp/hp/menu00900/hpg00859.htm) called PIPS drivers, but while there is are ports for various versions of PIPS in the print dir of ports, and I can find that the Avasys site lists supporting the RX680, I have two problems: 1) I can't determine which (if any) of the PIPS ports support the RX680, and 2) right now, none of them build because of an error you get about a linuxwrapper not handling symbol versioning. Is there any way to rely on any FreeBSD port to be able to use the RX680 from Epson? Have you tried print/gutenprint ? No ... I know how to do a minimal test with gs (just use the gs flags to convert a postscript file to a printer-native file, then (as root) copy it over to the printer's port in /dev). Do you know how to do that in gutenprint? There isn't any man page for it. Besides that, I think that the usb interface must have some bug in it. At every attempted copy to /dev/ulpt0, it always fails to print, just tossing this error: Cannot open /dev/ulpt0 read/write: Device busy That happens even if I have powered down the printer for a minute, then restarting it. I know that's the correct device by reading /var/log/messages: May 8 12:02:01 april kernel: ulpt0: EPSON USB Printer, class 0/0, rev 1.10/1.00, addr 3 on uhub0 May 8 12:02:01 april kernel: ulpt0: using bi-directional mode -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIIyZNz62J6PPcoOkRAh+TAJ4yQirycFgMOk2UA8JGOUe98rH6nQCdGubk O/ZLQfIIHHShHKW5I6X74rA= =M6np -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trying for a duplex printer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Peter Jeremy wrote: On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 12:43:08PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: 1) I can't determine which (if any) of the PIPS ports support the RX680, and Based on a quick look at the pips ports, the RX680 is not currently supported. I suspect it wouldn't be terribly difficult to get running. 2) right now, none of them build because of an error you get about a linuxwrapper not handling symbol versioning. This is a bigger issue. The linuxpluginwrapper maintainer is not responding to emails about it so I doubt it will get fixed anytime soon. I've had a quick look at it and decided that I don't understand enough about how the symbol aliasing used to work or how the symbol versioning broke it. So, I guess that means that if I want to get this printer working, I either have to try to fix that myself, or forget using FreeBSD to print with that Epson RX680? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIIfLaz62J6PPcoOkRAoh7AKCFjJO4ELi6JgSoD3oODy528u5BMACeIkF9 iFrorlnzPcPAemBym36Abyo= =ibUA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trying for a duplex printer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gary Jennejohn wrote: On Tue, 06 May 2008 12:43:08 -0400 Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I have been scouring all the data I can, to find printers that do duplex printing (that means doublesided printing). I found 3 models, but two of them (the HP C7280 and the Canon PIXMA MX850) have no public drivers I can find. The third, which is the Epson RX680, seems to be supported via drivers from Avasys (http://avasys.jp/hp/menu00900/hpg00859.htm) called PIPS drivers, but while there is are ports for various versions of PIPS in the print dir of ports, and I can find that the Avasys site lists supporting the RX680, I have two problems: 1) I can't determine which (if any) of the PIPS ports support the RX680, and 2) right now, none of them build because of an error you get about a linuxwrapper not handling symbol versioning. Is there any way to rely on any FreeBSD port to be able to use the RX680 from Epson? I'm using a Kyocera FS-1030D (the 'D' means duplex). Yes, it works. It works just fine with CUPS. It could be that one of the printers which you're looking at would also work with CUPS. What you need to find is a PPD file which describes your printer. Mine uses Kyocera_FS-1030_en.ppd. There's a Linux-specific site which has these PPDs available, which is pretty easy to find with google. --- Gary Jennejohn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIIfZpz62J6PPcoOkRAjI2AJ96uxdoX1ZhAimAFEotkeNTMU2FEwCgl8vB ps34akd9ZgHXwN0bjAM3Vf4= =tYlI -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trying for a duplex printer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gary Jennejohn wrote: On Tue, 06 May 2008 12:43:08 -0400 Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I have been scouring all the data I can, to find printers that do duplex printing (that means doublesided printing). I found 3 models, but two of them (the HP C7280 and the Canon PIXMA MX850) have no public drivers I can find. The third, which is the Epson RX680, seems to be supported via drivers from Avasys (http://avasys.jp/hp/menu00900/hpg00859.htm) called PIPS drivers, but while there is are ports for various versions of PIPS in the print dir of ports, and I can find that the Avasys site lists supporting the RX680, I have two problems: 1) I can't determine which (if any) of the PIPS ports support the RX680, and 2) right now, none of them build because of an error you get about a linuxwrapper not handling symbol versioning. Is there any way to rely on any FreeBSD port to be able to use the RX680 from Epson? I'm using a Kyocera FS-1030D (the 'D' means duplex). Yes, it works. It works just fine with CUPS. It could be that one of the printers which you're looking at would also work with CUPS. What you need to find is a PPD file which describes your printer. Mine uses Kyocera_FS-1030_en.ppd. There's a Linux-specific site which has these PPDs available, which is pretty easy to find with google. Thanks, Gary. Took me quite a while to find this baby, because it seems that Kyocera's main site doesn't acknowledge of the Kyocera-Mita's products. I finally found out that it's a fairly big monochrome laser. I rather like the color I get from the cheaper inkjets, although I sure would rather get one with a FreeBSD driver. Further, from what I could find, I couldn't tell if it was a postscript native printer, and I am dead-set against any postscript native printers, because I used to have one, and when compared to any innkset that must use a translator such as ghostscript, the postscript native printers are (or, at least used to be) dead slow. Maybe it took them too long to transfer big postscript files, or maybe it took the internal processors too long to translate, I dunno, but when I had one of the original old HP laserjets with a postscript cartridge, and I converted to using ghostscript about a year after I got it, I was shocked that my print rate went up about 4-5 times as fast. I could actually get the advertised print rates. I suppose my next trick is to attempt to find out about glib's symbol versioning, enough so that it could be added to the linuxwrapper. Then (I hope) I get the PIPS driver that exists for the Epson RX680. --- Gary Jennejohn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIIfhUz62J6PPcoOkRArz4AKCR7giZyxfH6iju6U1L08uq1vigBwCgnxtd nzQqaTxkCmkxW4d5kXfZQhM= =hMy6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: using pkgdb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Parv wrote: in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote Chuck Robey thusly... -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm using pkgdb because I wanted to try portupgrade, and it required it. portupgrade does not require pkgdb. pkgdb is part of portupgrade; portupgrade installs pkgdb. I don't doubt that, but portupgrade itself tossed out the instruction to me to run pkgdb -F, to fix something (I don't know what). I didn't just want to run something which has such a confusing man page. I ran it under instructions, and now it's asking me questions which I can't figure out the effects of any of the offered actions will be. Everyone seems to want to toss me hazy hints instead of what those options actually accomplish; I'm beginning to think that the only folks who are answering are the folks who don't really know the answer. - Parv -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH7msKz62J6PPcoOkRAh1pAKCHnjBpSDD3AGpvAXAlbpd7zGyTPACfdOo1 OEfkUWyRgb9sOq3p4/aCLIU= =+T6d -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
something screwey with qt4-gui
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm not personally asking for help on this one, because I can get this one easily on my own, but as an experiment, I decided to try to use portupgrade to update my qt4 installation. You might remember, I was asking for some help on different promps that pkgdb was asking me, and portupgrade was the direct reason (the only reason) that I was trying pkgdb; portupgrade told me to do it. OK, I couldn't get a clear answer on pkgdb, but I finsally gort finished with it. I haven't any idea whether I did it right or not, but it completed. Anyhow, I then again tried to use portupgrade to upgrade my qt4-gui port. What came back to me was this: === Patching for qt4-gui-4.3.4 === qt4-gui-4.3.4 depends on executable: cupsd - found === qt4-gui-4.3.4 depends on package: qt4-qmake=4.3.4 - not found === Found qt4-qmake-4.3.1, but you need to upgrade to qt4-qmake=4.3.4. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/x11-toolkits/qt4-gui. *** Error code 1 I finally found that port: it wasn't named qt4-qmake, i found it in ports/devel/qmake. Like I said, no problem with me, but I think I am seeing that portupgrade, for some reason, got the name wrong, it is teeling me qt4-qmake, when it should have been qmake. This is just a hint to whoever runs those ports. No response to me needed. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH7rpHz62J6PPcoOkRAkqXAJ9KaFgEhvJJOn0CGeV2HWvShe09PwCeL/4W 6IV95TSODAr8JNnw7Nj2kAE= =ntFL -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: something screwey with qt4-gui
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: On Mar 29, 2008, at 17:53 , Chuck Robey wrote: I finally found that port: it wasn't named qt4-qmake, i found it in ports/devel/qmake. Like I said, no problem with me, but I think I am seeing that portupgrade, for some reason, got the name wrong, it is teeling me qt4-qmake, when it should have been qmake. Not that unusual; a package name is different from an origin. qt4-qmake would be a specific instance of the general qmake port as specified by build knobs. I suspect you need to learn more about how ports works. I checked, and you're incorrect, the name of the qmake is off, it's the only one of the qt4 deps NOT to be prefixed with qt4-, and that's NOT a standard thing with ports, the name of deps must be right, not close. I don't know much about portupgrade, but I know ports itself well enough. On this one, I just dind't feel like tracing it down myself, I just thought to inform (I need to be a lot more greedy with my time since my health went south on me), but I'm not wrong on that, either the name of that one ouight to be changed, or all of the others should. It'd be possible to just fix the reference to it, but that'd be leaving in a bug for others to trip over. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH7uwqz62J6PPcoOkRAsbuAJ93qZsRDv13kQvoLKjNoQVg7L4/1wCcDvsO vX5TGFGPJ+9mLLXD3h8VIiw= =VFVH -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
file conversion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Anyone know if we have any port that allows conversion of rtf docs to anything else like maybe ps, pdf, html or maybe even plain ASCII text? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH7Ttoz62J6PPcoOkRAtppAKCbfB0nJzB6nVFVmtaz8EJ55INTjACfZLp1 QqayZ2Rvhtdd5IohyVVhAhg= =YvlV -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: using pkgdb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lowell Gilbert wrote: Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm using pkgdb because I wanted to try portupgrade, and it required it. My problem is that it's doing procedures, asking for a decision on my part, but I can't make any guess how to answer it, because the prompt is fairly meaningless to me. Here is an example of what I'm seeing: Stale dependency: someportname-1.1.1 - differentportname-1.1.1 (differentportname): 3rdportname-1.1.1 ? ([y]es/[n]o/[a]ll) [yes] To me, this is fairly self-explanatory. someportname is listed as depending on differentportname, but differentportname isn't installed. It suggests that 3rdportname be listed as a dependency instead, on the theory that 3rdportname may be providing the functionality that someportname actually depends on. Your choices are y to accept that suggestion, n to refuse it, and a to accept it and also apply it to all other ports that depend on differentportname. Unfortunately, you didn't tell me what the Y/N/A meant either. First, thing, your estimate of what it means isn't obvious to ME (I'm writing this as some prank), my own guess would have been that the word stale would refer to something that's still hanging around. Irregardless, I can't get any hint whatsoever if Y means to do some deleting somewhere; for the deletion, I have no guess if it's going to delete the first or second file reference. If you think I'm dumb and just want to be insulting, then just tell me what actual action the Y refers to, so I get something useable out of this, then go ahead and talk about me. I'm honestly confused about it, and wouldn't be writing this if I weren't. I haven't the least idea what the Y/N/A is referring to, what sort of action I am causing or allowing. I tried the man page on pkgdb, but I didn't see that sort of message in that page. Sure hope you can give me a hint (and, as a hint, this might be a good time to fix that fairly useless prompt). Apparently, but you would have to make a concrete suggestion to the program's author. Since it makes sense to me, I doubt any attempts I made for improvements would turn out to actually be better. Be well. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH7XIvz62J6PPcoOkRApX/AKCBoZPmradKZp5jOPnU4NLy+RXt1wCfZZmA HtsV9gOqSX3dfj/Q0o9ZW90= =uvet -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: file conversion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martin Tournoij wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: Anyone know if we have any port that allows conversion of rtf docs to anything else like maybe ps, pdf, html or maybe even plain ASCII text? rtfreader (textproc/rtfreader) converts rtf to plain text, it has always worked for me. There also seem to be some other ports for dealing with rtf files: textproc/unrtf textproc/rtf2html print/rtf2latex OK, I have a huge load of files to convert, and it looks to me like rtfreader works the best. Luckily, all those ports are small, so I just went and got them all, and tried them on file files each. Nothing works perfectly, but rtfreader seems to be the best of the pick. Thanks for the reference! Regards, Martin Tournoij -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH7XPdz62J6PPcoOkRAvDnAJ4gCy8fBnun5dcQSaxR1IUs4gY3swCfZVo8 BTrBwutLjtLTymY0XFiA0B0= =QnaJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using pkgdb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm using pkgdb because I wanted to try portupgrade, and it required it. My problem is that it's doing procedures, asking for a decision on my part, but I can't make any guess how to answer it, because the prompt is fairly meaningless to me. Here is an example of what I'm seeing: Stale dependency: someportname-1.1.1 - differentportname-1.1.1 (differentportname): 3rdportname-1.1.1 ? ([y]es/[n]o/[a]ll) [yes] I haven't the least idea what the Y/N/A is referring to, what sort of action I am causing or allowing. I tried the man page on pkgdb, but I didn't see that sort of message in that page. Sure hope you can give me a hint (and, as a hint, this might be a good time to fix that fairly useless prompt). -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH69qyz62J6PPcoOkRAkLKAJ4pV/vKgKv4aojyYymSPaclGHonzgCfZD9a lN12HYVWg/m22k700ubkokA= =BMlj -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cups pkg-descr's badly written
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The pkg-descr's for the ports cups and cups-base, which by the name have confusing titles, should at the very, very least give a word or two as to the difference between those two ports, but instead, they are duplicates, very obviously directly lifted from cups documentation, and copied between the two. I don't know the difference myself, and there are a host of other ports of cups also, I wonder if they are maybe included into cups-base? This sort of stuff is easy to fix, and needs to be. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH1F5wz62J6PPcoOkRAoFeAJwLXVuqT2xGQGcSyIYi4VDRJN1nuQCfZGLr /a2Te4H3tK1NFotLldQd2Vk= =8P8X -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Port: nvidia-driver-169.07
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brodey Dover wrote: So I'm reading your response and thinking, okay I'll do this tomorrow. But then you mentioned, that is not your error...but. I can program, what the hey, let's look at the error and see what is upwell I made the following changes to nv_freebsd.h lines 337 and 338 / S032 nv_os_agp_init(nv_state_t *, void **, U032 *); S032 nv_os_agp_teardown(nv_state_t *); /to /S032 nv_os_agp_init(*nv_stack_t *sp*, nv_state_t *, void **, U032 *); S032 nv_os_agp_teardown(*nv_stack_t *sp*, nv_state_t *); /I then got a stop because ../../graphics/libGL was already installed, feeling redundancy kicking in I decided to give in for a registered install of the nvidia-drivers, I deinstalled libGL and fired up make install from nvidia-driver directory again. After that, the driver successfully installed itself and I'm a happy happy camper. I am running FreeBSD6.3/i386- RELEASE. Sounds good to me. I forgot, myself, that I needed to set a X11BASE variable in the sources to get it to install things right. I'd just _assumed_ you'd seen that too, what a silly thing for me to do! Regards, Brodey Dover See you all at BSDCan ;). -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHyE92z62J6PPcoOkRAj+AAJwNA4NFrAIiXTzvX1FZ8gytqz9FOQCgknMA NAdfGekICOuoHfrJunc5fH4= =M8y3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HOW-TO get Flash7 working!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Boris Samorodov wrote: On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:10:15 -0500 Chuck Robey wrote: All those libraries need to be found by the flash9 plugin library. Please, give me strict instructions how to repeate (what to do after a fresh install): - 0. Fresh RELENG_X_Y install. 2. Fresh ports (or date=...). 3. ... I said at the very beginning of this thread, that I didn't keep track of what I did, because the tack I took was to relocate all of the libs to the /compat tree, and this sort of strategy can't be taken until I could get official approval of that as the correct method to take for installation of Linux libraries. If I got that approval, I said I would undertake to locate and fix all of the ports that currently install Linux stuff into the /usr/local tree, and then make the flash9 work. This sort of tack can't be attempted, unless I could show the port authors involved that I have official approval to get this thing done, so they could either approve of the diffs I would give them, or argue it with the port managers themselves. What I never, ever intended to try, was to force things in any way, that's acting childishly. I just needed a official hammer that was morally strong enough to get things moving. In fact, if it were understood that I was to get that sort of ruling in advance, then I would agree to submit complete diffs, in advance of the work, both so folks could look at them, and so it could be proven that this strategy does indeed get the flash9 working. I'm not terribly worried about doing that, because I did it on my system already, and the only worry for me is if things (in the meantime) might have changed enough to make this no longer possible. But without that? I would be condemned to endless arguments, in order to effect all the changes, and I don't like arguing that much. No, I am not going to contribute to a tack that I feel is wrong-headed. I won't get in your way, but I wouldn't contribute to that. I hope that's a reasonably honest approach. To be REALLY stict about it, what I'm most strict about is getting all Linux libraries into the /compat tree, and probably doing that alone would be sufficient, but I'm trying here for the whole boat, moving all Linux things into /compat, as the hier(7) dictates (as I read it), and for the reasons that I've given endlessly by now. In fact, I think it's a fact that I've really given this all the airing that's really needed. If folks can't see it's needed after all this, then go ahead and live with it, as long as I can make my system my way. I will no longer feel bad about it, I gave it a fair try at sharing what I felt was the right way to do things. I have asked a bunch of times (both in this thread, and in one direct mail to them) to get one of the port managers to issue a ruling, but I think I will take being ignored as a de facto ruling. I don't wish to harangue folks any longer. - Thanks. WBR -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHjlw/z62J6PPcoOkRAtEgAKCUv3DlBKThxmnDut/8SVvT79jo6ACfd9rR Qm3oROp1RrR/iS+4/HezGPU= =Gd0p -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HOW-TO get Flash7 working!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alexander Leidinger wrote: Quoting Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:08:50 -0500): -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Boris Samorodov wrote: Hello Chuck, On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:54:31 -0500 Chuck Robey wrote: As an example, the flash9 plugin needed a linux lib, libdl.so (I think it was .so.2). If I I wrote the port which installs libdl.so.2, so I guess I should respond... wanted to be complete, it really needed about twenty different libraries, but libdl.so will serve as an example well enough). It had been installed in some subdir of /usr/local/lib. Are you sure that you didn't use some non-default paths to install a linux_base port? I'm asking the question because: - % locate libdl.so /usr/compat/linux/lib/libdl.so.2 % pkg_info -W /compat/linux/lib/libdl.so.2 /compat/linux/lib/libdl.so.2 was installed by package linux_base-fc-4_10 - I'm a little behind in answering my mail, I hope I didn't keep you waiting too long. Yeah, you're right, you had it right. If and when I finally get ports-management to comment on my thesis, and IF they finally agree with me, I guess I'm going to be forced to completely zero out my entire system (damn, what a PITA) and get things fixed right from the beginning. Back some years back, when I was very active in ports last, I had to maintain my system in an extremely clean status, because otherwise, one can never really guarantee that what builds fine one your system won't break on everyone else's. Anyhow, I said I made no effort to record what I did, and if in this case I misremembered, please don't take it as an insult to your work, which does look like you did a fine job of it. This, at least, is one port that DOES do things as I would have them. _All_ pure infrastructure ports install into LINUXBASE. Just so I have an example of things doing the install badly (I mean here, as I define badly, mreans not using /compat), I just checked the very first linux browser I found in /usr/ports/www, that's linux-firefox, and it does it badly, using /usr/local only. I was wrong in pulling yours out of my heaad (altho, in my own defense, I prefaced it with I think it was, because I wasn't sure. Didn't realize you would take it as an insult, and sure didn't mena it thast way. I just want to eliminate all ports installing Linux type things outside of /compat/linux. There are just so many reasons that it's bad news (see other mail, I won't repeat it all over again here). This is not a nice to have-style requirement, it is a _hard_ requirement. Anyone violating this gets a slap on the hand from me as sonn as I discover it. So in case you talk about ports which only install libs and they are not in LINUXBASE, I would say your system is fucked up It's not fucked up, I just gave a hard example of one that definitely does it bad. I was wrong in misremembering you, not wrong in misremembering the action. Go check that yourself, sir. There are indeed many Linux ports that stick there stuff in /usr/local. and you should install from scratch to have a good basis for discussion. So far you just point fingers in a generic direction without giving hard facts. A lot of this finger pointing is for libs, as far as I understand your posts. So please, install a clean system and tell us about concrete port names. Hard facts are a good base to talk about, the oh, I don't remember what I did but my current setup is not satisfying is leading nowhere. The only way I'm going to get things to be for certain, it's to start over from the beginning, and this time follow the procedures that any serious porter (such as you) already knows by heart. I'm not going to try to repeat all that here. I reply to your other mail later when I have more time. It is big and I have to write some things there. Bye, Alexander. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHjQnmz62J6PPcoOkRAsASAJ4mMxo/80qUNKKttzjWOn91/dY8rwCfbkps PoyKLFdTyWOhSjghgC3FTTQ= =nTaE -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling utilizing multiple CPUs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chuck Swiger wrote: On Jan 14, 2008, at 3:55 PM, Christoffer Strömblad wrote: Having looked through much of the available documentation one thing continues to elude me... Is it possible to specify globally how many CPUs are available when compiling a port? When I compile a port now it seems as if only one CPU is used, even though more are available. The quality of the Makefiles or similar used by individual ports varies, and many of them are not safe to compile in a multithreaded fashion. You can set MAKEFLAGS=-j3 or similar in your environment, but it's really not recommended. I think it's necessary to tell why its not recommend it: because many makefiles are insufficiently sedt up to correctly allow multiple cpu's to work side by side. the make(7) utility itself uses the j flag correctly, and I have had many correct items correctly compiled. You just need to understand the makefiles very carefully, and not try the multiple makefile trick without being certain of your makefile. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHjQrEz62J6PPcoOkRAs4iAJ0UB5qW2yHAGwwCMCA26ACqlEc/BQCfdgFH e1dXbLby+3TkyGxuT7J5MZY= =Jmwk -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HOW-TO get Flash7 working!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Boris Samorodov wrote: On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:08:50 -0500 Chuck Robey wrote: Anyhow, I said I made no effort to record what I did, and if in this case I misremembered, please don't take it as an insult to your work, which does I didn't. I (as a developer) tried to help you (as a user) to track the difficulties. look like you did a fine job of it. This, at least, is one port that DOES do things as I would have them. Well, since some other (may be 15-20) fc4-linux infrastructure port were written by me as well, I hope that there should be more that that one. :-) The only way I'm going to get things to be for certain, it's to start over from the beginning, and this time follow the procedures that any serious porter (such as you) already knows by heart. I'm not going to try to repeat all that here. OK, great. And please, in any doubt about any (in this case linux) port's behaviour don't hesitate and write to this or emulation@ ML. I just replied to Alex Leidinger's mail (where he replied to this one) incorrectly. I thought it was you, and didn;'t realize until after I'd kicked off the send key. Should have realized it from his use of invective, and how he tried to paint this one error as if _all_ linux ports installed correctly, and I was only confused. No big loss, I ppointed out there a particular example (/usr/ports/www/linux-firefox) that does install into /usr/local, just didn't appreciate his painting it as if all I said was wrong, and using the libdl thing as if I was wrong all around the ring. I haven't sent any of this to emulation. I dislike crossposting without some truly major reason, and this thread did begin in ports. I wonder, does the fact that your own port installs into /compat mean that you, yourself, agree with my thesis, that all Linux items belong inmstalled into the /compat/linux tree? What is your own opinion of this? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHjQzBz62J6PPcoOkRAiPKAJ49w43EbG50fW//JG99IyYigN52kACeKjXD UEmBdC/47U1M2iVEyGHUb+Y= =whyR -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HOW-TO get Flash7 working!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Boris Samorodov wrote: On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:30:47 -0500 Chuck Robey wrote: Alexander Leidinger wrote: _All_ pure infrastructure ports install into LINUXBASE. Just so I have an example of things doing the install badly (I mean here, as I define badly, mreans not using /compat), I just checked the very first linux browser I found in /usr/ports/www, that's linux-firefox, and it does it badly, using /usr/local only. Just saying that it seems bad to you is not very helpful, isn't it?. Can you provide an evidence that by installing this port to /usr/local this (or other) port becomes broken? I did that already (I am getting confused with what seems to me this thread getting a bit shattered(?)) anyhow, check the ports/www/linux-firefox, which installs a raft of libraries. All those libraries need to be found by the flash9 plugin library. WBR -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHjSE3z62J6PPcoOkRAq2fAJ45PcaMMJcwjoh96LGDnlkAEUaEKwCfdj/s fVfBgvk0fwNS0v5ILLh+lm8= =Ie/l -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another question based on: Re: HOW-TO get Flash7 working!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 eculp wrote: The dialog at the end of this email is becoming a bit more philosophical than I need right now ;). Is there an accepted or reasonably so, sure-fire way to get linux flash[79] working in Prerelease or in current? If so, would you please share how you did it on this list? Getting my method accepted so that I could modify the ports in question, is the reason for all this folderol. The method I detail below is what I followed, and it's complicated enough that NO WAY would I ever suggest anyone follow it, but I haven't been able to provoke anyone in authority to either agree or disagree (officially) with me, either to get me rolling, or to stop a major bore from putting everyone to sleep. I don['t enjoy all this arguing. Flash is becoming more dominate daily and there are many sites that are basically unusable without it. Some banking, telco, etc. sites, etc. That are difficult if not impossible too use for account access without flash and don't pay much attention to end user requests based on the installed base of Flash[89]. That brings up another detail, many sites now require Flash[89] even though they don't actually need it probably to impress their customers with their being on the technological, bleeding edge. Thanks, Chuck, for getting this started and for finding a solution that may or may not be appropriate for all. I would personally like to try what you have done with flash9 if it is stable for you and if you would be so kind as to document a bit clearer how to do it. Well, I couldn't get any responses from my mail to the ports leaders, so I didn't even try to make a port of it. I looked over to my Gentoo Linux box, sand saw that my firefox there (which does flash just fine) had the libflashplayer.so in /usr/lib/firefox/plugins, so I copied that file tp my /usr/compat/usr/lib/linux-firefox/plugins. I did an ldd on that file, and found all files excepting one existed on my system, so one by one I moved them to /usr/compat/linux/usr/lib (checking each time, with the llinux ldd, that the loader was finding the file being used). I *think* that there was one that I coudlnt find (I'm not really sire at this point), but I think it was liobdl.so.2, so I copied that one from my Gentoo box also, and also the requisite softlink to libdl.so (remember that all linux libs need their symlinks to the library file without the version number). I need to admit that there were a couple of startup errors I got from the linux-firefox, ones that told me it couldn't find a aprticular library, but when I located the library that it couldn't find, and moved it to the compat tree, the error evaporated. Once I got finished with all this dance, flash9 worked fine using linux-firefox. Thanks to all, ed Quoting Alexander Leidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:54:31 -0500): -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alexander Leidinger wrote: Quoting Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:05:16 -0500): I actually got the linux flash9 working. Why didn't I post it, put in a patch? Because one of the main reasons that it doesn't work now is the insane way that much Linux libraries are installed. If folks would honor Would you mind telling us how, so that we understand the problem? hier(7) then all linux libs would go into /usr/compat/usr/lib, but instead, many linux ports (including browsers, believe me) install into $(PREFIX)/lib/libsubdir. This means every single linux app that uses linux libs hsa to be run with a shell wrapper, artificially extending the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Since no porter of an app installing libs knows all the ports that might use their libs, random breakages are the rule of the day, to say nothing of the egregious harm to security this kind of strategy causes. It's a big reason why the flash things don't work. Want proof? Go use the linux ldd to see just how long the list of libraries is, that those extensions use, then you'll begin to see. Not all those libs are browser products, either. Have fun trying to get a wrapper to work there. I volunteered to fix this situation all myself, if only the ports management would give me written agreement that the strategy I decry is in fact bad software practice, so that I may point to that document to port authors, when I ask for permission to edit their work. Ports management hasn't seen fit to reply, or at least, I haven't seen it if they did. I don't intend to force anyone, but without having ports mangement backing, I am NOT going to have this argument with every porter, no way. I tried that once, and at least one fellow told me he thought that requiring every linux application to have it's own wrapper was the cleaner way to go. Huh, if that's so, then I guess I should be stopped
Re: HOW-TO get Flash7 working!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Boris Samorodov wrote: Hello Chuck, On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:54:31 -0500 Chuck Robey wrote: As an example, the flash9 plugin needed a linux lib, libdl.so (I think it was .so.2). If I I wrote the port which installs libdl.so.2, so I guess I should respond... wanted to be complete, it really needed about twenty different libraries, but libdl.so will serve as an example well enough). It had been installed in some subdir of /usr/local/lib. Are you sure that you didn't use some non-default paths to install a linux_base port? I'm asking the question because: - % locate libdl.so /usr/compat/linux/lib/libdl.so.2 % pkg_info -W /compat/linux/lib/libdl.so.2 /compat/linux/lib/libdl.so.2 was installed by package linux_base-fc-4_10 - I'm a little behind in answering my mail, I hope I didn't keep you waiting too long. Yeah, you're right, you had it right. If and when I finally get ports-management to comment on my thesis, and IF they finally agree with me, I guess I'm going to be forced to completely zero out my entire system (damn, what a PITA) and get things fixed right from the beginning. Back some years back, when I was very active in ports last, I had to maintain my system in an extremely clean status, because otherwise, one can never really guarantee that what builds fine one your system won't break on everyone else's. Anyhow, I said I made no effort to record what I did, and if in this case I misremembered, please don't take it as an insult to your work, which does look like you did a fine job of it. This, at least, is one port that DOES do things as I would have them. The only way I'm going to get things to be for certain, it's to start over from the beginning, and this time follow the procedures that any serious porter (such as you) already knows by heart. I'm not going to try to repeat all that here. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHi8FSz62J6PPcoOkRAv92AJ0fXol9ju7rXM6owJKMVQ7UxbUOIQCgkCKb 7XZMdPkycUska0hzLlXq8wo= =7waE -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HOW-TO get Flash7 working!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alexander Leidinger wrote: Quoting Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:54:31 -0500): -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alexander Leidinger wrote: Quoting Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:05:16 -0500): I actually got the linux flash9 working. Why didn't I post it, put in a patch? Because one of the main reasons that it doesn't work now is the insane way that much Linux libraries are installed. If folks would honor Would you mind telling us how, so that we understand the problem? hier(7) then all linux libs would go into /usr/compat/usr/lib, but instead, many linux ports (including browsers, believe me) install into $(PREFIX)/lib/libsubdir. This means every single linux app that uses linux libs hsa to be run with a shell wrapper, artificially extending the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Since no porter of an app installing libs knows all the ports that might use their libs, random breakages are the rule of the day, to say nothing of the egregious harm to security this kind of strategy causes. It's a big reason why the flash things don't work. Want proof? Go use the linux ldd to see just how long the list of libraries is, that those extensions use, then you'll begin to see. Not all those libs are browser products, either. Have fun trying to get a wrapper to work there. I volunteered to fix this situation all myself, if only the ports management would give me written agreement that the strategy I decry is in fact bad software practice, so that I may point to that document to port authors, when I ask for permission to edit their work. Ports management hasn't seen fit to reply, or at least, I haven't seen it if they did. I don't intend to force anyone, but without having ports mangement backing, I am NOT going to have this argument with every porter, no way. I tried that once, and at least one fellow told me he thought that requiring every linux application to have it's own wrapper was the cleaner way to go. Huh, if that's so, then I guess I should be stopped anyhow. You think that way? I think you are referring to me here. I think the important part to understand my opinion to install end-user applications into PREFIX instead of LINUXPREFIX (note: linux library ports _have_ to go to LINUXBASE) is missing here. In fact, I have never been at all good at remembering names, to the point that I no longer even try. I haven't the faintest idea (even now) if it was you or not. If it pleases you, though, that's fine, assume away. I don't think I was insulting, I have made enough of an ass of myself in the past to realize the folly of being sarcastic (it always comes back to bite you). I didn't understand it as insulting. No user shall have subdirs of LINUXPREFIX in his path. This would open up Pandorra's box. OK, need to stop you here. I don't know what that LINUXPREFIX item is. I It was either my mispelling of LINUXBASE, or my failed try to make a distinction between the user chosen prefix for two different management domains. Chose the error you like more. ;-) Are you telling me that your statement above should replace LINUXPREFIX with LINUXBASE? OK, I will assume that in my replies below. just grepped for it in /usr/ports subdirs Mk, emulators, and www (recursive one), and even did an apropos. I did a bit of googling and found a LINUXPREFIX in some Linux docs, is that the one you're referring to? What's it mean, how's it used? Regardless, please, could you explain why it would open up Pandora's Box? Maybe if I could have a better handle on what it is, I might not ask that question, but I can't, so I'm asking. If an user has the bin directories in the LINUXBASE in his path - he may accidentally execute linux programs when FreeBSD programs may be required - a configure run may detect linux things and enable stuff which is not valid for FreeBSD - ... (I don't remember everything by heart, and I'm too lazy currently to try to reverse engineer all of them in my brain, but you get the big picture of the bad stuff which can happen) If the alternative is to install the executable into the common /usr/local/bin, and effect the choice of executable by adding a linux- to the front of any linux command, please explain to me AGAIN why making the ports all sit in a speparate linux directorty is either more complicated or makes using our PATH variable more difficult? And quit *please* your attempts to escape having to explain by saying either I'm too lazyor you understand or anything of that sort. I don't know it, I don't understand, and if that's your best defense, please quit this, because it's really becoming a pain for most of us to read. If I'm able to honestly defend my position without waffling, so can you. I do wish someone in ports management would just step up and give an authritative decision
Re: HOW-TO get Flash7 working!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alexander Leidinger wrote: Quoting Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:05:16 -0500): I actually got the linux flash9 working. Why didn't I post it, put in a patch? Because one of the main reasons that it doesn't work now is the insane way that much Linux libraries are installed. If folks would honor Would you mind telling us how, so that we understand the problem? hier(7) then all linux libs would go into /usr/compat/usr/lib, but instead, many linux ports (including browsers, believe me) install into $(PREFIX)/lib/libsubdir. This means every single linux app that uses linux libs hsa to be run with a shell wrapper, artificially extending the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Since no porter of an app installing libs knows all the ports that might use their libs, random breakages are the rule of the day, to say nothing of the egregious harm to security this kind of strategy causes. It's a big reason why the flash things don't work. Want proof? Go use the linux ldd to see just how long the list of libraries is, that those extensions use, then you'll begin to see. Not all those libs are browser products, either. Have fun trying to get a wrapper to work there. I volunteered to fix this situation all myself, if only the ports management would give me written agreement that the strategy I decry is in fact bad software practice, so that I may point to that document to port authors, when I ask for permission to edit their work. Ports management hasn't seen fit to reply, or at least, I haven't seen it if they did. I don't intend to force anyone, but without having ports mangement backing, I am NOT going to have this argument with every porter, no way. I tried that once, and at least one fellow told me he thought that requiring every linux application to have it's own wrapper was the cleaner way to go. Huh, if that's so, then I guess I should be stopped anyhow. You think that way? I think you are referring to me here. I think the important part to understand my opinion to install end-user applications into PREFIX instead of LINUXPREFIX (note: linux library ports _have_ to go to LINUXBASE) is missing here. In fact, I have never been at all good at remembering names, to the point that I no longer even try. I haven't the faintest idea (even now) if it was you or not. If it pleases you, though, that's fine, assume away. I don't think I was insulting, I have made enough of an ass of myself in the past to realize the folly of being sarcastic (it always comes back to bite you). No user shall have subdirs of LINUXPREFIX in his path. This would open up Pandorra's box. OK, need to stop you here. I don't know what that LINUXPREFIX item is. I just grepped for it in /usr/ports subdirs Mk, emulators, and www (recursive one), and even did an apropos. I did a bit of googling and found a LINUXPREFIX in some Linux docs, is that the one you're referring to? What's it mean, how's it used? Regardless, please, could you explain why it would open up Pandora's Box? Maybe if I could have a better handle on what it is, I might not ask that question, but I can't, so I'm asking. One item that some might not know: most unixes have a strong bias towards installing everything into /usr/bin or /usr/lib. Many Linux boxes don't even have a /usr/local, or opt, or whatever. Much Linux software makes the assumption that it's using a prefix of /usr. I hate this myself, I MUCH more like FreeBSD's way of doing things, but I can have my cake and eat it too, if Linux software is installed into /compat/linux/usr/bin (and lib, etc), I get the separation as far as FreeBSD is concerned, but Linux software is fooled into obeying their abhorrent lack of separation. Real nice. [Man, your mail is huge, I would have preferred to make it decide things in smaller bits, but I guess not.] Continuing ... A clean way to achieve this is to have something in prefix which calls the linux program. This can be a symlink or a wrapper in PREFIX. If you install parts of a port into LINUXPREFIX and a link/wrapper in PREFIX (or more generic: if you have 2 different prefixes in a port), you have to do some ports-magic. If you install the port in a sub-directory in PREFIX and add a wrapper in the PREFIX/bin, you don't have to do ports-magic. OK. Ab initio, I have always felt that using wrappers was a tacky way to do things. Not that it wasn't sometimes the only available way to go, but certainly to be avoided. I also have always felt that screwing with LD_LIBRARY_PATH, as your wrappers would need to do, is a security problem, which again might sometimes be the best way to go, but not ever the first choice. This is only part of my argument, though (I would be embarrassed if my argument was only based upon my prejudices). The larger real problem is, some ports install libs, and do not know what possible executables might need to have
Re: HOW-TO get Flash7 working!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Started in -questions, but redirected to -ports with the change in direction of discussion (you'll see). Rudy wrote: Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: rm /usr/ports/distfiles/flashplugin/fp7_archive.zip An other way to fix it in some ways is to run a make makesum to update the distfile checksums The fp7_archive.zip was an odd case were I felt more comfortable deleting it -- hadn't see that error before (and didn't save it to cut and paste). I thought it was only my system, but apparently, others had this same issue with the fp7_archive.zip file. Maybe a new one was released with the same filename on adobe? Would makesum would blindly use what is in the /usr/ports/distfiles -- corrupt, man-in-the-middled, or whatever was there? I've never used makesum... I will RTFM. :) I actually got the linux flash9 working. Why didn't I post it, put in a patch? Because one of the main reasons that it doesn't work now is the insane way that much Linux libraries are installed. If folks would honor hier(7) then all linux libs would go into /usr/compat/usr/lib, but instead, many linux ports (including browsers, believe me) install into $(PREFIX)/lib/libsubdir. This means every single linux app that uses linux libs hsa to be run with a shell wrapper, artificially extending the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Since no porter of an app installing libs knows all the ports that might use their libs, random breakages are the rule of the day, to say nothing of the egregious harm to security this kind of strategy causes. It's a big reason why the flash things don't work. Want proof? Go use the linux ldd to see just how long the list of libraries is, that those extensions use, then you'll begin to see. Not all those libs are browser products, either. Have fun trying to get a wrapper to work there. I volunteered to fix this situation all myself, if only the ports management would give me written agreement that the strategy I decry is in fact bad software practice, so that I may point to that document to port authors, when I ask for permission to edit their work. Ports management hasn't seen fit to reply, or at least, I haven't seen it if they did. I don't intend to force anyone, but without having ports mangement backing, I am NOT going to have this argument with every porter, no way. I tried that once, and at least one fellow told me he thought that requiring every linux application to have it's own wrapper was the cleaner way to go. Huh, if that's so, then I guess I should be stopped anyhow. You think that way? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHhs7cz62J6PPcoOkRAoKmAJ99iCuZXy1fcQuzaCUvXHCOot+1uACaA3N5 aU6mEKw5AhH3uFUDrp3FH6A= =ku7L -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mailer question #2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chess Griffin wrote: * Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-17 23:28:30]: Any mailers handling those 3 requirements? Some that come to mind are: mozilla-thunderbird, claws-mail, evolution, kmail. Hope this helps. Finally, I got enough of my other problems fixed so I could go back to making my mail the best it could be. I took a look at your suggestions, and decided to try claws-mail first, but trying to figure out what to build, from the pkg-descr's, well, it's confusing, to say the least. You see, the mail/claws-mail/pkg-descr tells me all about (what seems to be a) totally different port, a mail/sylpheed[2]. In fact, when I take a look at the pkg-descrs for either the claws-mail or sylpheed ports, they both seem to be describing the sylpheed port, although they aren't copies, they are very much alike. Could you clear this up? Whats the relationship here, does anyone know it? I'm just trying to figure out what to build, so I can try another mailer for myself. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHeqmyz62J6PPcoOkRAsOJAJ4sogGp3vwcoLETZC1WqhcjuyNPdQCfTyhU zdEmBrcWONX3SJthz9KVpbY= =73CV -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: adding enigmail to seamonkey
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alex Dupre wrote: Chuck Robey ha scritto: I'm lost. Anyone gotten the enigmail-seamonkey port to work? Well, I suppose you never manually installed (or googled about installing) an xpi with seamonkey. Simply File-Open the xpi, how could it be simpler? Maybe by having the menu say Open addons or at least having some doc that says that. I would normally assume an open function in a browser would open URL's, but you wouldn't? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHcWDnz62J6PPcoOkRArTDAJ0Ujoh5/ld/LmWdreRWo3F2eIxu2gCcCi5U i27kXPMf9sG6MpTU7McUk+M= =3xai -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: who is the portsmgr? Re Linux hier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mark Linimon wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 08:36:32PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: Back last time I was last active,Satoshi Asami was the Portsmeister. I dunno if that term is used anymore, but I need to find out if one person is in charge of ports, or if it's a group of folks, and whichever it is, what their name(s) are? Most of your questions are probably answered on http://www.freebsd.org/portmgr/. With the addition of another 10,000 or so ports, things have gotten more formalized over time :-) mcl You're maybe just a touch late answering this, but it seems obvious to me that if you knew the url of this, then you already knew the name. I don't know if I'm the only one that finds the setup the web pages have moved to, these last few years, to be far more difficult to traverse than the older one, which I felt right at home with. The current one leave me pretty cold, which is part of the reason, I guess, that I never found this link. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHcWBAz62J6PPcoOkRAkxDAJwIXBJOCkMV7h5QUyQR9jsTZjuO0wCgl5WN gH7bcnqESsdA+kOtNZXBfio= =Gv0r -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: who is the portsmgr? Re Linux hier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Edwin Groothuis wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 08:36:32PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: Back last time I was last active,Satoshi Asami was the Portsmeister. I dunno if that term is used anymore, but I need to find out if one person is in charge of ports, or if it's a group of folks, and whichever it is, what their name(s) are? [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the right email address. Or try #bsdports of the Efnet IRC network, three of them are hanging out there during various times of the day. Edwin Ahh, thanks, that channel might be very useful, thanks! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHcWBvz62J6PPcoOkRAu5IAJ9dvomfrTm7sApjrarDT8r3jVQjzwCeMx55 vfLjCX6EhysFtMf3uWi3GY8= =iTt5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: who is the portsmgr? Re Linux hier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Edwin Groothuis wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 08:36:32PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: Back last time I was last active,Satoshi Asami was the Portsmeister. I dunno if that term is used anymore, but I need to find out if one person is in charge of ports, or if it's a group of folks, and whichever it is, what their name(s) are? [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the right email address. Or try #bsdports of the Efnet IRC network, three of them are hanging out there during various times of the day. To everyone who responded, thanks. In the manual, I saw a listing for ports-secretary but not the portmgr, so I was really at a loss as to even the title of the person, much less the name. Far as that goes, though, I gotta admit to being rahter shocked: I didn't get even one complaint about my target, even though I knew it couild be misinterpreted a ton of different ways. I guess I must be living right, or caught everyone feeling generous. Anyhow, thanks. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHbDHAz62J6PPcoOkRAjmmAJ0c11BfbyG2mN05f7NdGeAG+ujdnQCeLRAz O5rWzKuUiwzugMx1SetMOyI= =c6lb -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
who is the portsmgr? Re Linux hier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Back last time I was last active,Satoshi Asami was the Portsmeister. I dunno if that term is used anymore, but I need to find out if one person is in charge of ports, or if it's a group of folks, and whichever it is, what their name(s) are? In case you're curious (nosy, aren't you?) I need to ask questions about the official attitude with regards to the install hierarchy to be followed for Linux applications. I need more than just opinions, else I'd just ask here, but I need to know, officially, what it is. IF I can get it nailed down, and if it ends up the way I would like it, I will go ahead and invest all the time it takes, to fix every port I see that I think is broken, but I won't start doing this until I get official word on RIGHT WAY. Oh, BTW, I don't intend sneaking anything in, but I am not going to do the work unless I find out if the work (if it does like I ask) would be accepted. Darn, I can see 6 different ways to misinterpret that. Ah, heck, it'll be easier to reply to all the accusations, than try to explain it all up front. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHaxigz62J6PPcoOkRAltuAJ0c14uXXocEzIX3zwXY6VUc+EI9fACfWMcT QHXnAixnorYljynmcdO4AAk= =Icxf -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: adding enigmail to seamonkey
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Huff wrote: Chuck Robey writes: Well, the enigmail-seamonkey install has the same somewhat bare hint, so I went looking for the Tools-AddOns menu, but that's a lost cause, it's not there, although the install comment in the port tells you it is. Well, sez I, go look into the .thunderbird file, figure out where the enigmail.xpt file went, and ciopy it to the same spot in .seamonkey ... that's not any good, because there isn't any .seamonkey directory in my homedir. So, that might or might not work. I'm lost. Anyone gotten the enigmail-seamonkey port to work? My seamonkey always looked in the same place Mozilla did; as far as I remember I don't have aything special set to make that happen. Robert, do you remember how you went about installing your enigmail into seamonkey? Apparently, after you build the enigmail-seamonkey port, you still have to take some action with the newly built seamonkey (as had to happen with enigmail-firefox), but the hint given in the message listed in the enigmail-seamonkey port gives me menu options to hit, that don't exist in seamonkey. So I need to know how you installed it. I don't have a mozilla to check. I have a firefox; is the installation a mere option of locating the enigmail.xpt file in the firefox config dir, and placing that came file in the seamonkey config dir? And, do you know the name of the seamonkey config dir? Is it .mozilla? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHaCtHz62J6PPcoOkRAlWjAJ9da0Vg1Fa6+pdMyShzBbRXt9+9AgCdEVCO 9ELJkl2Gm6x+y1L0IzrvrHU= =osUe -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
kgpg
I am trying (with notiable lack of success so far, but I'll be posting to -questions about that, so don't answer it) to get seamoneky to cooperate with GNUpg ... so I saw a reference to another port, security/kgpg, and I went to build it. Unfortunately, kgpg has a dependency tp gnupg1, and I already have gnupg (the current port, whic hinstalled version 2.04 of gnnupg) and I have no intention of downgrading. My question is, can kgpg cooperate with the later version of gnupg, or should I forget the port? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
adding enigmail to seamonkey
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm trying to add enigmail to seamonkey, and not having much fun doing it. I'm rather hoping someone here can help me. First, I'm using Seamonkey's mailer (and not Thunderbird) because it handled the formatting of fixed-width-font lines better. Where Thunderbird would show me llines getting as wide as my window, Seamonkey added in CRs at the 76th character, like I asked for. Not sure, this maybe has (or will) change, but I'm not looking at that here. I went ahead and stuck enigmail in Thunderbird as a dry-run, and while there was very little instruction in the port telling you how to install the enigmail port (the process of installing it is NOT handled by the port). It's apparently done by selecting Tools-Addons-Install, which copies a engimail.xpt file (the port's instructions really should mention that filename, you need it explicitly) and that menu option installs it for you. Well, the enigmail-seamonkey install has the same somewhat bare hint, so I went looking for the Tools-AddOns menu, but that's a lost cause, it's not there, although the install comment in the port tells you it is. Well, sez I, go look into the .thunderbird file, figure out where the enigmail.xpt file went, and ciopy it to the same spot in .seamonkey ... that's not any good, because there isn't any .seamonkey directory in my homedir. So, that might or might not work. I'm lost. Anyone gotten the enigmail-seamonkey port to work? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHZ0hMz62J6PPcoOkRAq4gAJ9dGAk7wSIETqHqbkAaAoyIVkEc/wCgiP2+ 26j4j1xbrRiomEGh5+qX+O4= =AiLf -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailer question #2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Well, assuming that I can't get enigmail-seamonkey fixed up, I was wondering if I could get a recommendation about a mailer. This following is my list of requirements, so please don't lets open up a mailer free-for-all (I like the ACME mailer!) unless it has what I'm after, ok? Seeing as I initially liked Seamonkey, it should surprise noone that I want a graphical UI (no ascii interface, please, I don't care how much you like it) and it works with the latest version of the gnupg port (version 2.04) and not the older gnupg1 port, so I can use my present keys to sign/encrypt stuff. Lastly, I has to allow for an imap interface to the mail. That's all: GUI, GNUpg-2.04, and IMAPv4 I didn't mean it provides the IMAPv4, I use dovecot/postfix/openssl to set up a nicely portable system environment, just that my adding GNUpg has made problems for myself, so I need a new mail client. Any mailers handling those 3 requirements? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHZ0xuz62J6PPcoOkRAuUWAJ4vl0hAe8C+dmfsEYJTR7HAp26slgCfR1mH y/j1YrL6FTenFgw0ONYjPi8= =U5li -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
enigmail
I need some help on using gpg with my mail client, and I use seamonkey's mail handler to access my dovecot imap server. I see that Enigmail is the thing that normally handles getting gpg to work with seamonkey, but there are two possible ports that zi might use, and they don't both have pkg-descr's. There's a mail/engimail, but there's also a mail/enigmail-seamonkey, and it's that latter one that has no description, not even a plist to help out. If I already have a Seamonkey that I like, which should I install? I am worried that the enigmail-seamonkey port might build and install another seamonkey for me, which I really don't want. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: results of ports re-engineering survey
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 *PLEASE ONLY REPLY TO ME OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] Omigod!! For Gods sake, could you PLEASE not have folks reply to the list! We have been sufficiently bombarded with this already. If you must have the replies public, then send them to freebsd-chat, but plesae stop polluting the list (as you are clearly asking people to do above). A few disclaimers: Neither I or anyone else is asking for FreeBSD to incorparate any modifications to the current base system and/or ports collection. If and when any code is developed from this process it will be committed using normal commit and review processes. The following summary of results is based on my eyeballing of answers and should not be interpreted as being any sort of mathematically and/or scientifically valid in any manner. Number of responses: roughly 30 Summary of results: 1. Most respondents stated that both the underlaying OS and the ports collection are equally important. When a preference was shown it was for the underlaying OS in most cases. 2. On average people tend to interact with the port system once or twice a week 3. The single best aspect of the ports system according to respondents is dependency tracking when installing new ports 4. The single worst aspect of the ports system according to respondents is dependency tracking when updating or deleting existing ports 5. Most respondents would not change there answers tothe survey if they where new to FreeBSD 6. Almost all respondents would use a new system if it fixed their personal worst aspect of the current system 7. About 50% of respondents would use a new system if it broke the best aspect of the ports system but fixed the worst aspect 8. Length of FreeBSD usage: rough avr. of 8 years with roughly 3 year std. dev. 9. Prefered install method: ports 10. Usage roughly evenly spread among desktop, development and servers 11. Subsystem ratings (rough avr's): UI: 6 Constancy: 9 Dependancy tracking: 7 Record keeping: 9 Granularity: 9 12. Most users are either sysadmins and/or developers Orginial Survey: As has been hashed out in -ports@ over the last few days there is at least a need to examine weither or not the current ports system should remain as is or potentially be re-engineered in the future (estimates if and when needed vary from ASAP to 10-15 years). I have volunteered to undertake a feasibility/pilot project to examine what changes (if any) are needed in the system (for the purposes of this thread I will not venture any of my own suggestions). I have the following broad questions for people: 1. What is more important to your personal use of FreeBSD (the ports system, the underlaying OS, some other aspect)? 2. How frequently do you interact with the ports systems and what is the most common interaction you have with it? 3. What is the single best aspect of the current system? 4. What is the single worst aspect of the current system? 5. If you where a new FreeBSD user how would your answers above change? If you where brand new to UNIX how whould they change? 6. Assuming that there was no additional work on your behalf would you use a new system if it corrected your answer to number 4? 7. Same as question 6 but for your answer on question 3? 8. How long have you used FreeBSD and/or UNIX in general? 9. That is your primary use(s) for your FreeBSD machine(s) (name upto 3)? 10. Assuming there is no functional difference what is your preferred installation method for 3rd party software? 11. On a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being the best) please rate the importance of the following aspects of the ports system? a. User Interface b. Consistency of behaviors and interactions c. Accuracy in dependant port installations d. Internal record keeping e. Granularity's of the port management system 12. Please rate your personal technical skill level? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHX3MyzIOMjAek4JIRAqqjAJ9YlNJW9Uqa21yK+sm1IST+KmO7QACfeum+ 9rhuEkdKX6BKkFZr6WGmbDU= =jhg0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: has FreeBSD's libc been swigged?
Xin LI wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chuck Robey wrote: Need to do some python work, using a lot of FreeBSD's base libs, and I was wondering, if any ports have swigged the FreeBSD libs? I'll do it if I must, just trying to save me some work. py-freebsd? I need to look at this harder, but I must say, after a quick perusal, it sure seems to be just exactly what I was after, so my thanks! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: has FreeBSD's libc been swigged?
Vivek Khera wrote: On Dec 3, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Chuck Robey wrote: Need to do some python work, using a lot of FreeBSD's base libs, and I was wondering, if any ports have swigged the FreeBSD libs? I'll do it if I must, just trying to save me some work. Not understanding your use of the word swigged, all I can say is that the ports do not touch the system libraries except in the rare case of things like openssl which have the _option_ to install on top of the system ssl libraries. devel/swig is a well-known interface generator, which automates writing the interfaces, so that the scripting languages can make direct use of compiled languaes. My particular target is to get python to use FreeBSD llibraries, so your comment is amiss in this case, although you are correct in general.. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ade Lovett wrote: On Dec 03, 2007, at 10:12 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: I have about 20 responses in private email and only the ones you have seen in public are in this category Enough said. There are currently ~180 people with direct access to the ports/ tree (ie: ports committers). Only 2 are self-reported maintainers and at least 5 admit to not being maintainers... I think your main issue is you are 100% in there is nothing wrong camp and for what ever reason want to convience everyone else any effort to say/do differently is misguided. Even assuming all private email responses came from committers, that's an 11% hit rate. That is why I am planning to wait to the end of Dec. or so to report the results in detail (and widen the audiences/forums) Which part of statistically invalid is not getting through here? A self-selected sample will never be statically valid *BUT* it can be informative about what people are thinking. One item that's always been completely true, it's that NO ONE, I mean NO ONE AT ALL, gets any sort of approval for software until it's actually written, so folks can see what's really being talked about. Does this mean that you might end of doing work that gets tossed away? Yeah, it does mean that, but it's the cost that's paid, even by core members, in order that really sneaky bombs never make their way into FreeBSD's base. If you don't like this, unfortunately, you don't get any say about it whatsoever. About what Ade's been talking about, I mean all his comments about folks who come up with plans (he used the term Napoleonic, I think it fits). Probably every single one of us folks who are actual coders has gone thru the painful initiation trying to help folks who at first present as folks who are honestly trying to learn, so they can contribute, then you find out that their real agenda is in talking YOU into doing THEIR ideas. The dodo-bird that woke me up, I finally realized that he wanted me to write the program that included the entire universe of possible binary combinations, in the belief that such a task, although difficult (and costing MY life, but he was willing to pay the price of MY life, that's ok with him) would be the final program ever needed. After I found his true goals, and realized that no amount of explanation was going to wake him up to the reality of the sheer idiocy he wanted me to launch off on, I shook him off (he was hard to shake, too!) and began, myself, to form the psychological callus that we have most of us formed against these armchair Napoleons. So, how can you tell if you are in that category? It's simple ... are you asking others to do your task for you? Are you justifiying this by saying that some folks should code, and others should plan? Have you actually got any demonstratable code to offer, so that others can REALLY evaluate your goals? If you fit that description, you are an archair Napoleon, that is not arguable, merely something to wail about, won't change any reality. Note that I am NOT telling you here that you are in any category whatever, you can do that as well as I can, and you haven't yet asked me to do anything. At least, you won't, for me, because my own callus is thick enough to shake stuff like that off, the same as I ignore the entreaties to pay 100 bucks for those life experience dipomas. I do know someone who paid something like that, and he STILL can't understand why they won't let him prescribe. That's the real truth, although I won't divulge the name, he exists. Some folks just can't see, that you can't TALK you r way into real respect, that takes honest accomplishments. Like Ade so obviously can point to. If you can, then maybe it's time to prove it, we'll all of us appreciate it very honestly, because the only way to prove it is to DO it. If you can't, then maybe it's time to realize why folks don't listen to self-important people. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All those 'Ports System Re-engrg posts
He took his roadshow over to -questions. Funny thing is, he has set of folks that are all just like him, and they are all merrily re-engineering ports. I figure he's going to sic one of his crew to come back and try again to talk folks into this. Seeing as no one here who has the ability to do the job also still has enough innocence to get snagged into it, well, it's just going to be amusing, after a while. Who knows, they *might* actually come up with some useable ideas, but my own experience says, no. Personally, someone else can wake him up, I'm just going to use the 'delete' key. It's not worth it, you can talk yourself blue in the face, they won't wake up. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
Paul Schmehl wrote: --On Monday, December 03, 2007 13:53:06 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you ever attempted to install the individual ports of a mega metaport? Of course I have. And I haven't run into any problems that weren't solvable. Before you waste any more time, why don't you get very specific about what you think the bad state of the ports system is. I don't like it doesn't qualify nor does ports freezes suck. I never asked or said any of those... the original thread was started when I asked how long the port freeze would last... others turned it into a referendum on the ports system... once the thread had been transformed I ventured some of my own ideas. The bad state quote is directly from you. Since you made the statement, I simply asked for some concrete examples of what you think bad state means. You used the term. Surely you have some idea what you meant by it? I have 4 ports awaiting inclusion in the ports tree after the freeze is over (I am willing to wait but I think the fact that there was a ports freeze in the first place points to some underlaying flaws which I cited in the original thread) What would those flaws be? You have a system that is entirely volunteer. Expecting the same performance that you get from a paid system is unrealistic. Sometimes maintainers are very busy and can't commit changes as rapidly as others would like. The solution? Submit your own patches to the port and they will most likely get approved. Sometimes committers are very busy and can't get to your port right away. The solution? Ask a different committer to take a look. Or become a committer yourself. Umm, not sure I agree with you here, fella, because I've been a user of commercial Unix software both as a direct purchaser (my first Unix was the old Everex Esix Unix) and often enough for different employers. I can state here unequivolcal truths, that NO ONE with equal experience would possibly challenge: commercial software houses DO NOT give better service, neither more timely, nor more responsive, than any aspect whatever of FreeBSD. There are aspects of FreeBSD (ports and others) that I personally think could be improved, but the only way that ANY coomercial product is better, is if you are the one or two biggest customers of that software house. If you're not, then there simply isn't even any possible chance of me being anywhere near wrong on this. If you agree, keep silent, you know as well as I that if all folks who agreed answered up here, we'd never end this thread. If you are a professional, and can state any example at all of any company at all that beats FreeBSD's actual record, g'wan, post. It's only you that you'd be embarrassing. God knows I never got such service as one gets, as a regular item, from these mailing lists. I'm not saying you will ayways get agreement with your own personal peeve, I know I don't, but I do know, that asking any commercial company to change their product, you will get some sales geek who will jolly you by saying its in the pipe but, in fact, don't hold your breath, fella, it's never gonna arrive. I can be pretty certain here about not being seriously challenged, anyone who's experienced enough to know, knows I'm right. Short of hiring professionals to do this work on a fulltime basis, what would you propose that would improve the system? According to your sig you're a developer, so I'm certain you understand what library incompatibilities are. Given that, how would you propose to not freeze ports while the base system is being prepared for release? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
has FreeBSD's libc been swigged?
Need to do some python work, using a lot of FreeBSD's base libs, and I was wondering, if any ports have swigged the FreeBSD libs? I'll do it if I must, just trying to save me some work. Thanks. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
Paul Schmehl wrote: Here's a hint that would help a *ton* of users. Don't try to install a port until your ports tree is up to date. Completely up to date - as is, run portsnap or cvs or cvsup *first*, *then* try to install your port. I have several possible solutions (contact me privately if you want more detail) but am purposely not stating them publically so as not to taint the survey any more then it needs to be. This is the part I don't get. If you have suggestions, post them. Post the code that implements your suggestions. *Then* people can evaluate whether or not your suggestions add value to the ports system. Why the silly games? As I read them, this seems to be the primary objection of all the people responding who have @freebsd.org in their email address. They've heard it all before, but they know that actions speak much louder than words. If you say the implementation of foo is flawed, and then you post code that, IYO, improves it, people with experience and knowledge can review it and say, Hey, nice idea or sorry, your code would break ports and here's why. Without the code, all the surveys and gesticulations in this tread accomplish little except to irritate people. Why the silly games? I get the feeling that Aryeh is honestly not understanding that he's trying to change the basic way that things get done in FreeBSD. He doesn't see that. In industry, first a decision is made that a market exists for such and such, then a study is made as to what could be done realistically. We don't operate that way. What we're all afraid of, Aryeh, is that you're going to run off with your poll of what you believe is needed (when we haven't even agreed that anything is needed) and you'll code something up, under the completely wrong misapprehension that if you code something up that does what the poll results said, it would get added in, pal, that's totally, totally false, you can ask any committer whatever, you will never get any apriori agreement on the adding of code, no matter what, until we can see the code. This has been endlessly argued in the past, and folks have certainly left FreeBSD over it, but it will not change. If you can't see that, then we will remain at loggerheads. If you can see that, then quit asking folks to agree on stuff without showing us code. I don't care how much research you do on what is needed, you will never change that fact, all you're going to do is trigger knee-jerk reactions from folks who have been *very highly* sensitized by prior attempts to change that rule. It's not gonna happen, and you strongly seem to be trying an end-run around it. If you honestly aren't, then you need to do a better job of convincing folks of that fact. That's what it all boils down to, anyone disagree, at base? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chuck Robey wrote: Paul Schmehl wrote: Why the silly games? I get the feeling that Aryeh is honestly not understanding that he's trying to change the basic way that things get done in FreeBSD. He doesn't see that. In industry, first a decision is made that a market exists for such and such, then a study is made as to what could be done realistically. We don't operate that way. If finding the market is all they do but they don't follow the whole process to produce code then they completely missed the point... the idea of modern (almost anything that post-dates v7 of unix) looks at how to do the whole process systematically... thats the idea here doing a market survey then doing no code is as worse as making random tweaks for no apparent reason (i.e. you have no idea if they are needed) Well, that last paragraph seems to be telling me that you do indeed want to modify the procedure we produce code with. OK then, I tried to explain what parts are worth dicussing, and what parts aren't, and you've either decided I'm just plain wrong, or lying to you. I'm not insulted, I'm just bored by the endless arguments that have been there about once or twice a year, and never ever gets even close to causing change. Seeing as you are going to tilt at windmills, I now lose interest. This is an unrealistic target you've aimed at, but I'll surely admit that you sound much more reasonable than the usual sort of folks who try to take this on. Too bad. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports modifying system setups
Gergely CZUCZY wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 11:43:35PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: Gergely CZUCZY wrote: echo 'sevice_enable=YES' /etc/rc.conf.local Yes, I think we all know how to go about this manually. The question at hand is whether or not it's possible or desirable to create the possibility of doing it for the user at port install time. If what you're trying to say here is that you don't find such a facility interesting or necessary, thanks for stating your opinion. I said, that this can be done from the Makefile as well, if that OPTIONS of yours is enabled. Seeing as I was gone (really way gone) from the FreeBSD community for a while, but I used to be very closely associated, I felt that it was possible that because I had seen both environments (several other unixes, like Solaris and different Linuxes) and FreeBSD, that before I stopped seeing things as novel, I might be able to point out some differences that might be useful. I've seen a lot of knee-jerk responses to anything new; this group isn't the largest, but they ARE the loudest. I'm not sayiing I'm right, but I AM saying that it's worth some serious consideration. I'm suggesting a number of ideas that just might be worth adding. In this case, what I meant was to change the rules, the commonly accepted methods, for ports to install daemons, to that they directly patch an rc file, not to make some change in bsd.port.mk, but it really wouldn't be all that hard to code up some macro to do this, so perhaps the idea is sound. I'm currenlty going to present something regarding adding a ports screening method, but that's a much harder thing to code. This macro handler, that would be comparatively easy. I see that we need to decide whether to do it or not, but that decision can wait until I have a macro, a diff to gbsd.port.mk coded up, so we don't discuss this twice (you can kill the idea very well then, you['re not going to lose the opportunity). The only things I see to decide NOW are: 1) name of this proposed macro. I like INSTALL_DAEMON_NAME, do you? 2) the name of the file to carry the resulting definitions. It could be /etc/rc.local, I saw that suggested, but I would like to say why I like $(PREFIX)/local/etc/rc.d. I would rather that the dividing line between any and all system stuff and ports stuff be very very firm and clear. I detest the Linux habit of folding /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin together, and I would really want to maintain FreeBSD's current stance on this. Next couple days, I will show you folks a diff about this. We can make the changes on the two items above rather easily then, but you might want to post your feelings now on it. Save the argument over the entire notion until I get a diff ready. I mean, that's the FreeBSD way, that no one gets any sort of prior blanket approval, and I wouldn't change it for the world. Sincerely, Gergely Czuczy mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package Building in the Large
Doug Barton wrote: Jason C. Wells wrote: Doug Barton wrote: On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Jason C. Wells wrote: What I am trying to do is to build 30 or so packages including the big ones like X, kde, gnome, plus all of their dependencies on a build host and then use pkg_add on various machines. I have had a variety of difficulties with all of the methods I have used thus far (portmaster, portupgrade, homegrown). What problems did you have with portmaster? Did the backup package creation fail in some way? Not all dependencies had a package built for them. For my list of 31 ports that I actually desired to build there was a dependency list (make all-depends-list) of 758 ports. Of those 758 ports there were 427 packages built. That's disturbing, but I think I know why it happened, see below. I'm more disturbed that this piece of news isn't common knowledge. Those numbers actually understate the problem. Just one commonly required port, one of the browsers like Firefox, alone brings in over 300 dependencies. At least in my own opinion, the largest part of that dependency list is VERY weakly required, mainly a matter of a porter saying to himself I have that port, I like it a lot, everybody should have it and not this port won't run without that port That's my own main motivation behind all that work I'm doing aboout making a ports keyword list, so as to better control the growth of dependency lists. It's no problem at all to show ludicrous examples of overly agressive dependency lists taking the choices of what ports to add out of the hands of the users. As soon as I get the keyword list written (asnd who knows, maybe accepted?), then I intend to push what I see as the second part of this, a tool that looks at what ports are installed, the state of your keyword lists, and a user's personal interests, and make suggestions of what ports a user might find interesting. Sort of a ports-advertiser. This would take the place of overly agressive dependency lists, but not by removing the user from the process, but instead by making that user's selection job easier to make. Such a tool could have a link to a ports installer, even, so as to further ease things, but not to remove the choice from the user, as it's moving towards today. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a2ps users with HP Deskjets/OfficeJets?
I was wondering if there are any a2ps users who have HP DeskJet or OfficeJet printers? I wanted to confirm something before i sent some patches upstream. It's the size of the print offsets, which are smaller on those printers. The default setup in the a2ps-letterdj port is wrong for me, and I suspect it would be for you also. There's a line in the /usr/local/etc/a2ps.cfg file that sets the size of the letterdj offsets, and I changed mine from: Medium: Letterdj 612 792 24 40 588 768 to Medium: Letterdj612 792 18 36 594 756 I'd just like someone else with this kind of printer to tell me if these setups work better for you. Specifically, they more correctly set the right hand margins and the size of the page.. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
problems with linux ports
I sam working to try getting a current flash working, and I found something that seems screwy. I've had pr0blems with the way that ports do/don't respect LOCALBASE/X11BASE so far, and while I guess I was wrong, I think I would ask someone else to check this ... the www/linux-firefox-devel (and probably the linux-firefox) ports sticks its large selection of shared libs intoa subdir named firefox-devel, but instead of this going into /usr/compat/linux/usr/lib like I was expecting, its being stuck into /usr/local/lib. The files aren't bsd llibs, they're SYSV libs, so i dono't think that the linux ldconfig should go hunting over there. I think it's installing in the wrong spot. So I can continue with my work on the Adobe stuff, I'm going to fix my stuff here anyhow. Let me know if I'm right, ok? I'd file the PR if you wanted, I just want someone to verify this as wrong. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports modifying system setups
Naram Qashat wrote: Also a good thing to point out is that portupgrade can be configured to automatically start or stop a port's daemon via it's /usr/local/etc/rc.d script, which still relies on having the appropriate line in /etc/rc.conf to tell the rc.d script to run, but it is helpful for upgrading ports which have daemons so they can be shut down and then started again after the upgrade is complete. Not sure I understand what you mean here. I *think* I remember that ports (quoite a while back) did not require any patching of rc.conf at all, just coding in /usr/local/etc/rc.d. Nowadays, there are required lines in rc.conf which fire sections of rc.d, but apparently (and i do approve of this) the /etc/rc.conf can't be touched. I guess I don't understand why not have the entire startup code in rc.d, and merely have rc source in rc.d after it's finished with rc.conf. I just took a good long look at portupgrade, I didn't see any option like you're talking about. You understand, there is no reason that ports couldn't do what I'm asking about. They aren't written to do this (at least, several different daemon-ports that I've installed all required manual patching of rc.conf). This isn't just my own interpretation, because the ports themselves hint to the user that they should patch rc.conf to get the port working as a daemon. I'm just saying that ports should be written to handle this themselves, and not to require manual patching to get this done. One reason would be users (non-technical ones) who install a particular port as a dependency, and thus never even see the comments about what they should do to get things working. I can't see any reason NOT to do this, and good reason why it should be done. Naram Qashat Chuck Robey wrote: I was wondering why ports apparently aren't allowed an obvious freedom, that of being able to set themselves to run as daemons. A greate long time past, I seem to remember that there used to be a file /usr/local/etc/rc.local, which (if it existed) would be automatically sourced in at the end of rc.conf. Ports which built daemons were allowed (well, actually, expected) to ask the user if they wished to activate the port, and if so, the port would add a line of the form 'portname_enable=YES', and this would make your new port operate. Well, it seems from what I see of my new system, that this is no longer the case. I could understand (and approve of) ports not being allowed to modify any /etc/contents, but howcome ports can't use this rather obvious workaround? I'm pretty sure this used to be allowed... and it seems like a good policy to me, from the number of non-technical folks who now run FreeBSD. I just wanted to know why its not anymore. __ _ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports modifying system setups
Edwin Groothuis wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 08:17:36PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: activate the port, and if so, the port would add a line of the form 'portname_enable=YES', and this would make your new port operate. Well, it seems from what I see of my new system, that this is no longer the case. I could understand (and approve of) ports not being allowed to modify any /etc/contents, but howcome ports can't use this rather obvious workaround? I don't recall this behaviour at all, I think you're confused with the messages which ports print at the end of the install-phase which say Add 'foo_enable=YES' to your /etc/rc.conf to enable this port. Edwin Hmm. I remember this behavioour, but I can't find any example of it now. I need to go look up into my old cdroms (they're around here somewheres, I just need to go unearth them, way back to 1.0). Until I can prove this, I guess I will withdraw it, but I do remember this behavior. Ports, a long time back, used to do all the install steps that they reasonably could do. Couldn't do all the setups for things like dovecot, which has too many options, but even there, an attempt was made to change the conf file to something closer to a FreeBSD standard. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports modifying system setups
Scot Hetzel wrote:
On 11/18/07, Edwin Groothuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 08:17:36PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
activate the port, and if so, the port would add a line of the form
'portname_enable=YES', and this would make your new port operate.
Well, it seems from what I see of my new system, that this is no longer
the case. I could understand (and approve of) ports not being allowed
to modify any /etc/contents, but howcome ports can't use this rather
obvious workaround?
I don't recall this behavior at all, I think you're confused with
the messages which ports print at the end of the install-phase which
say Add 'foo_enable=YES' to your /etc/rc.conf to enable this
port.
Edwin is correct that ports never had this behavior when they were
converted to the rc_ng startup script style, they always required the
system administrator to set the appropriate rc variable in
/etc/rc.conf.
I remember the behavior, but not sure how far back it was. I was using
FreeBSD before rc_ng, so it could have been a _long_ time back.
Before rc_ng some scripts would automatically start on a reboot, while
others required copying the *.sh{-dist,-default,...} startup script to
one without the extentsion, as well as setting the execute bit.
This is probably what you are remembering.
Scot
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports modifying system setups
Naram Qashat wrote:
In the pkgtools.conf file that portupgrade installs, there's two
sections, BEFOREINSTALL and AFTERINSTALL. In BEFOREINSTALL, you could
put the following in to make it try to stop the service if there's an rc
script for the port:
'*' = proc { |origin| cmd_stop_rc(origin) }
And almost the same thing for AFTERINSTALL, except cmd_start_rc instead
of cmd_stop_rc. And as long as the line for that service is in
/etc/rc.conf, it'll start or stop via the rc script. It even says that
in the comments of pkgtools.conf.
Ah, you misunderstood me. I was never saying, or meaning, that ports
could not do it, I was saying they did not do it, no one I have seen
implemented that behavior. Yes, you're certainly right, they can,
they've had the ability all along.
Naram Qashat
Chuck Robey wrote:
Naram Qashat wrote:
Also a good thing to point out is that portupgrade can be configured
to automatically start or stop a port's daemon via it's
/usr/local/etc/rc.d script, which still relies on having the
appropriate line in /etc/rc.conf to tell the rc.d script to run, but
it is helpful for upgrading ports which have daemons so they can be
shut down and then started again after the upgrade is complete.
Not sure I understand what you mean here. I *think* I remember that
ports (quoite a while back) did not require any patching of rc.conf at
all, just coding in /usr/local/etc/rc.d. Nowadays, there are required
lines in rc.conf which fire sections of rc.d, but apparently (and i do
approve of this) the /etc/rc.conf can't be touched. I guess I don't
understand why not have the entire startup code in rc.d, and merely
have rc source in rc.d after it's finished with rc.conf.
I just took a good long look at portupgrade, I didn't see any option
like you're talking about. You understand, there is no reason that
ports couldn't do what I'm asking about. They aren't written to do
this (at least, several different daemon-ports that I've installed
all required manual patching of rc.conf). This isn't just my own
interpretation, because the ports themselves hint to the user that
they should patch rc.conf to get the port working as a daemon.
I'm just saying that ports should be written to handle this
themselves, and not to require manual patching to get this done. One
reason would be users (non-technical ones) who install a particular
port as a dependency, and thus never even see the comments about what
they should do to get things working. I can't see any reason NOT to
do this, and good reason why it should be done.
Naram Qashat
Chuck Robey wrote:
I was wondering why ports apparently aren't allowed an obvious
freedom, that of being able to set themselves to run as daemons. A
greate long time past, I seem to remember that there used to be a
file /usr/local/etc/rc.local, which (if it existed) would be
automatically sourced in at the end of rc.conf. Ports which built
daemons were allowed (well, actually, expected) to ask the user if
they wished to activate the port, and if so, the port would add a
line of the form 'portname_enable=YES', and this would make your
new port operate. Well, it seems from what I see of my new system,
that this is no longer the case. I could understand (and approve
of) ports not being allowed to modify any /etc/contents, but howcome
ports can't use this rather obvious workaround?
I'm pretty sure this used to be allowed... and it seems like a good
policy to me, from the number of non-technical folks who now run
FreeBSD. I just wanted to know why its not anymore.
__
_
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ports modifying system setups
I was wondering why ports apparently aren't allowed an obvious freedom, that of being able to set themselves to run as daemons. A greate long time past, I seem to remember that there used to be a file /usr/local/etc/rc.local, which (if it existed) would be automatically sourced in at the end of rc.conf. Ports which built daemons were allowed (well, actually, expected) to ask the user if they wished to activate the port, and if so, the port would add a line of the form 'portname_enable=YES', and this would make your new port operate. Well, it seems from what I see of my new system, that this is no longer the case. I could understand (and approve of) ports not being allowed to modify any /etc/contents, but howcome ports can't use this rather obvious workaround? I'm pretty sure this used to be allowed... and it seems like a good policy to me, from the number of non-technical folks who now run FreeBSD. I just wanted to know why its not anymore. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: suggestions for ports screening
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Chuck Robey wrote:
...
This might either turn into a bikeshed or a creative brainstorming. I hope for
the latter, so I take part.
Yeah, if it looked like a flamebait, I would run for the hills myself,
but it looks pretty good so far.
My rule of thumb is to stick to the defaults if I don't know what I'm doing. I
think that could be put mentioned in the handbook, just to make beginners feel
more confident about what they're doing.
Problem is, those defaults take absolutely no notice whatever of a
user's local environment. It does allow some level of user input, but
since the way things have been implemented has been totally up to the
programmer, our system right now is very nearly out of control, as far
as an unbelieveable level of grabiness for dependencies. The other day,
I selected one single port, and when portmanager had completed, ~200
more things had ben installed. I'm just saying that we need some system
that pushes people to do a bit more active screening.
You have also to recognize, it's largely a human, psychological thing
I'm am trying to manipulate, because our present system if implemented
100% perfectly, would absolutely do the job. It's the particular human
emphasis'es (how do you pluralize emphasis?) that I want to play with.
An example? If a programmer asks you if you want the blotz program (I
make up great fake names, don't I?) hows the user going to know the the
blotz program is a particular sound program, when they have no sound card?
OK, My suggestion is for a two level system (yes, some of you are going
to recognize some of this from other OSes. G'wan, brag about it). The
first part is a small list of keywords (well, not terribly small, maybe
100-200 of them, but most user's personal lists would be far shorter).
These words are descriptive of the sort of machine environment the user
wants, like, they might have the words SOUND, FMRADIO and TELEVISION to
show that they care to have those sort of dependencies built. All ports
would be required to export a list of words that they check for, before
they build. If a browser sees no SOUND word, it requires to sound
dependencies be built.
I like the sound of that. It might be a bigger change that would have to be
implemented into ports over a long period of time. And of course it would only
appear in ports where maintainer are willing to spend the time to support it.
These dependencies can show up on the list in the form of KEYWORD=VALUE,
where value can be used to point towards a user's preference. A user
might set BROWSER=www/seamonkey,www/mozilla in the list, so this gives a
port all the info it would need to match dependencies nicely, without
having to get interactive about it.
How would you deal with cases in which following the users wishes is not
supported. What if a user has SOUND=direct defined to tell programs to use
/dev/dsp instead of a sound server like arts or estd? Most KDE applications
only work with arts, no matter how much you wish otherwise.
OK, this is only the first part ... the second part is a list of the
names of ports. This REJECT list serves as a rejection filter: if a
port finds it's way upon that list, it can't get put on any dependency
list at all. I, personally, never like any Samba ports, so I could
stick all the Samba ports on the REJECT list, or I could just fail to
put SAMBA as a keyword. My choice, although if I stuck a particular set
of ports on that list, I'd have to watch new ports, so new Samba port
didn't sneak past me. Still, it would allow a user to really have all
the control anyone could ask for. or they could ignore it and still not
face disaster as long as they maintained the KEYWORD list.
That's kinda possible already.
Like I said above, yes, our current system CAN DO the job, but with the
way that it's pointed, psycolgically, it's doing a particularly poor job
of it. We need a change that pushes the level of control,
psychologically, more towards the user. I cannot, do not argue that our
present system can't do the job, I am saying that it isn't doing it.
.if ${.CURDIR:M*/ports/*samba*}
IGNORE= I don't like samba!
.endif
Are you seriously asking all of are tech aznd non-tech users to keep
track of all the names of any ports that supply a particular
functionality set (do you really think that all Samba ports have the
name Samba? That's silly) BUT if you required programmers to set the
correct list of KEYWORDS, then that's a much more obvious and easy to
check item.
This would keep everything with samba in the name from being built. I don't
know how the depending ports would react to that, though.
I guess, from all the guesses that came in., I maybe better admit where
I stole this idea... Gentoo's Portage system no other. I DO NOT propose
to bring that system in, I really like FreeBSD system, based upon our
make(7). But, I do propose to bring in sections of their USE system,
for qualifying
Re: suggestions for ports screening
Anton Berezin wrote: On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 04:59:58PM +1100, Edwin Groothuis wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 10:36:45PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: An example? If a programmer asks you if you want the blotz program (I make up great fake names, don't I?) hows the user going to know the the blotz program is a particular sound program, when they have no sound card? When I search for a certain program with some capabilities, I go through the INDEX file (/usr/ports/INDEX) or I go to freshmeat or freshports and do a search there. If I don't see blotz there, I'm not interested in it. OK, My suggestion is for a two level system (yes, some of you are going to recognize some of this from other OSes. G'wan, brag about it). The first part is a small list of keywords (well, not terribly small, maybe 100-200 of them, but most user's personal lists would be far shorter). These words are descriptive of the sort of machine environment the user wants, like, they might have the words SOUND, FMRADIO and TELEVISION to show that they care to have those sort of dependencies built. All ports would be required to export a list of words that they check for, before they build. If a browser sees no SOUND word, it requires to sound dependencies be built. Let me repeat this to get it clearly: the words are used to qualify the dependcency lists, but if a particular port is chosen, then it gets built, period. If a user asks for that sound program explicitly, then it gets built, SOUND word or no SOUND word. It's the dependency lists that have to check and modify themselves. This sounds like the ports-tag project started by tobez@ a long time ago: http://www.tobez.org/port-tags/. Not sure what the current status is. It's not being developed any further due to general lack of interest. I would love to have it resurrected provided there is aforementioned interest. OK. I got very little truly negatives, and 2 semi-positives, so I will start to gen up the software. Understand (as I sure do) that just because I begin to write it is absolutely no indication that my software will be accepted. Lots of reasons why it still might get stopped, or maybe someone else might write a better one (it's possible, I guess, that maybe I'm NOT the finest programmer in the known universe), so if you are really against it, go ahead and speak up anytime you feel like it, your chances to veto things hasn't gone away. I'll write up the software, probably change maybe 10 ports to allow it also. The only thing I would change if I could would be, I'd REALLY like to have Python available as a language available for system work, but as it stands now, I don't see Python as being a candidate for inclusion in usr.bin. Love to see that (or even Ruby) but that's a fight for another day. One I figure I'd probably lose. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
suggestions for ports screening
May as well get all my bright ideas out and over with, all at once. You see, I've spent the last few years exploring other OSes, and finally decided I was right, way bakc when I was running FreeBSD to begin with. BUT I have to admit that I saw several good ideas while I was out and about. I have never seen a better package system (at least, in my own opinion, you understand) than FreeBSD ports, BUT the methodology for qualifying dependencies isn't as good as some I've seen, so I wanted to open a discussion about this. If, at the end of this, no one agrees, all I ever ask is that folks give a listen, NOT that anyone actually agrees, so I will happily fold up my tent and slink away. Anyhow, here's the suggestion. The system we have, currently, is basically dependent on people who write ports instrumenting options to include or not include various options. A very large portion of those options are written up in such a way as to make it nearly impossible for a non-expert to figure out if a particular option is good for their use of not. An example? If a programmer asks you if you want the blotz program (I make up great fake names, don't I?) hows the user going to know the the blotz program is a particular sound program, when they have no sound card? There are ways to fix this, you know. Read on. OK, My suggestion is for a two level system (yes, some of you are going to recognize some of this from other OSes. G'wan, brag about it). The first part is a small list of keywords (well, not terribly small, maybe 100-200 of them, but most user's personal lists would be far shorter). These words are descriptive of the sort of machine environment the user wants, like, they might have the words SOUND, FMRADIO and TELEVISION to show that they care to have those sort of dependencies built. All ports would be required to export a list of words that they check for, before they build. If a browser sees no SOUND word, it requires to sound dependencies be built. Let me repeat this to get it clearly: the words are used to qualify the dependcency lists, but if a particular port is chosen, then it gets built, period. If a user asks for that sound program explicitly, then it gets built, SOUND word or no SOUND word. It's the dependency lists that have to check and modify themselves. These dependencies can show up on the list in the form of KEYWORD=VALUE, where value can be used to point towards a user's preference. A user might set BROWSER=www/seamonkey,www/mozilla in the list, so this gives a port all the info it would need to match dependencies nicely, without having to get interactive about it. OK, this is only the first part ... the second part is a list of the names of ports. This REJECT list serves as a rejection filter: if a port finds it's way upon that list, it can't get put on any dependency list at all. I, personally, never like any Samba ports, so I could stick all the Samba ports on the REJECT list, or I could just fail to put SAMBA as a keyword. My choice, although if I stuck a particular set of ports on that list, I'd have to watch new ports, so new Samba port didn't sneak past me. Still, it would allow a user to really have all the control anyone could ask for. or they could ignore it and still not face disaster as long as they maintained the KEYWORD list. 3 stale to the first programmer who notices where I stole the idea from, and a used mousetrap to him (or her?) who knows the correct name of the KEYWORD list. If you hate the idea, just say so, believe me I will be catching all responses, and I will report your overwhelming acceptance or rejection, as the case may be. It shouldn't take a master's degree to guess my own opinion. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
