PR merge-quarterly flag
I submitted a PR to update a port I maintain and I selected the merge-quarterly flag with a ? [question mark]. I see the updated version is now in the pkg "latest" repo, but it's not in the pkg "quarterly" repo yet. How long should it take before the merge into "quarterly" happens? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Is pkg quarterly really needed?
I maintain a port and I have users complaining that the pkg system takes
many months before the updated version of my port shows up in the pkg
system.
My response is I tell them to change a line in their
/etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf file
from url: "pkg+http://pkg.Freebsd.org/${ABI}/quarterly;,
to url: "pkg+http://pkg.Freebsd.org/${ABI}/latest;,
The old pkg system never had this quarterly update cycle and I see no
reason to have it now when its so easy to over ride the default.
Why not just change the default to "latest" and save on all the overhead
of the quarterly cycle?
Is there a better place to over ride this setting than in
/etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf?
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is pkg quarterly really needed?
Jan Beich wrote: qjail1 <qja...@a1poweruser.com> writes: I maintain a port and I have users complaining that the pkg system takes many months before the updated version of my port shows up in the pkg system. Better ask committer assigned to your bug to add MFH tag or send an email to ports-secteam@ (and CC portmgr@) which commit to backport. For leaf ports such requests are unlikely to be declined, just keep in mind risks due to using old dependencies and possible regressions. My port is nothing but two sh scripts and an example directory plus the man pages. It has no dependencies and no regressions. Does this port qualify for MFH tag? Is this something I can put in the port Makefile? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Is pkg quarterly really needed?
I maintain a port and I have users complaining that the pkg system takes
many months before the updated version of my port shows up in the pkg
system.
My response is I tell them to change a line in their
/etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf file
from url: "pkg+http://pkg.Freebsd.org/${ABI}/quarterly;,
to url: "pkg+http://pkg.Freebsd.org/${ABI}/latest;,
The old pkg system never had this quarterly update cycle and I see no
reason to have it now when its so easy to over ride the default.
Why not just change the default to "latest" and save on all the overhead
of the quarterly cycle?
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Need commit of simple port update
Hello ports list; May some kind committor please commit my simple port update: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218272 Thanks ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: os of system fetching port source
Ed Maste wrote: On 19 February 2017 at 10:06, qjail1 <qja...@a1poweruser.com> wrote: My port has it's source hosted on sourceforge.net. That site has function that shows the count of times the port source file has been downloaded along with the country and operating system type of the computer requesting the download. 99.9% of the time the operating system is "unknown". I can only assume those are downloads originating from FreeBSD systems using the "make install" method. I believe the port system uses a fetch/ftp call to download the ports source file from where ever it's hosted at. Is there some fetch/ftp option to tag the ports system download request with the operating system the request is coming from? Libfetch uses the HTTP_USER_AGENT environment variable if set, and it can also be set via a fetch command-line argument. If not set it defaults to just getprogname() with the libfetch version appended. I'm not sure what would be the best approach with respect to having this set by default in the ports infrastructure though. Is "Libfetch" whats used in the current port system to download the port source? If you could point me to where in the ports system I would find the command that downloads the port source, then I could make the change on my system and test if the anticipated results do in fact show up on sourceforge.net as the os downloading the requested files. Once I know this solution does work, then an PR should be enough to get it implemented for 11.1. Thanks for your help ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
os of system fetching port source
My port has it's source hosted on sourceforge.net. That site has function that shows the count of times the port source file has been downloaded along with the country and operating system type of the computer requesting the download. 99.9% of the time the operating system is "unknown". I can only assume those are downloads originating from FreeBSD systems using the "make install" method. I believe the port system uses a fetch/ftp call to download the ports source file from where ever it's hosted at. Is there some fetch/ftp option to tag the ports system download request with the operating system the request is coming from? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Committer needed for Maintainer updated ports
These port updates are in preparation for publication of RELEASE-11.0. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212201 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212202 Thanks ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: requesting help with Variable OSREL in port Makefile
>> .if ${OPSYS} == FreeBSD && ${OSVERSION} < 100
>> IGNORE= builds only on 10 or greater than 10
>> .endif
>
> That's OSVERSION. The OP asked about OSREL.
>
> (however, OSVERSION is more useful as one can test it numerically; it
> is documented in Chapter 16 of the Porter's Handbook, if the OP wants
> to know more)
I read Chapter 16 of the Porter's Handbook before posting. It doesn't
say how you got to a "100" value for OSVERSION. Why so many zeros?
A 10.0 value is what I interpret to be the value for OSREL. Is that
correct?
The IGNORE= keyword is confusing also. The port will build/install on
all versions. Its just that some things in 10.0 changed that caused the
port source to be modified to work on 10.0 and newer systems. It will
not work correctly on 9.3 and older systems. So I want the port/pkg to
check the host version and refuse to install if installing on 9.3 or
older systems. This has no impact on the auto building of pkgs.
The Porter's Handbook section containing the OSREL Variable talks about
the placement of the OSREL Variable is critical and based on where
bsd.port.pre.mk statement is located in the Makefile. I don't have a
existing bsd.port.pre.mk statement in the Makefile. Do I need to add one?
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
requesting hep with Variable OSREL in port Makefile
Hello list; I would like to restrict the port to only installing on Freebsd 10.0 and newer. Desire example of Makefile with OSREL Variable coding and placement of bsd.port.pre.mk statement. Thanks in advance. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
[Bug 209929] needs commitor
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209929 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Please commit PR # 206935
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206935 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: port maintainer address
Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! A year ago I was receiving loads of spam email on the maintainer email addresses used in the ports makefile. I created bug tickets to change the user name part of the email address for all the ports I maintain, but some how I missed the qjail2 port. Now that port says its maintained by po...@freebsd.org and the spam email has stopped. Since bugzilla uses the port maintainer email address as the way to identify the port maintainer, I no longer can post updates to qjail2 port. We'll understand that the patch comes from you, so just submit it. Why has Freebsd NOT done something to protect their port maintainers from spam. Because if you think that not having the email addresses in the port protects you from spam, this probably will not scale. Spam defense is not a task the FreeBSD project can also take on, in addition to all the others. In todays world the normal, customary, and prudent methodology is to protect a users email address from public view so its increasingly more difficult for it to be harvested for targets of spam. I ask WHY is the Freebsd ports system using a very old methodology that was designed over 20 years ago, before the birth of spam. The majority of customer websites and programming development websites all have protected their user email addresses, WHY NOT FREEBSD? It's way past the time that this problem gets the attention it deserves. Lets at least create a project to analyze the ports system "Maintainer email address" to see just what would be involved in populating it with a dummy value so every place it is viewable to the public the real content is masked, this includes the down loadable ports tree. Lets not have any more defeatist comments to let the sleeping dog lay. Thats what got us in this position in the first place. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
port maintainer address
A year ago I was receiving loads of spam email on the maintainer email addresses used in the ports makefile. I created bug tickets to change the user name part of the email address for all the ports I maintain, but some how I missed the qjail2 port. Now that port says its maintained by po...@freebsd.org and the spam email has stopped. Since bugzilla uses the port maintainer email address as the way to identify the port maintainer, I no longer can post updates to qjail2 port. This is a two sided coin. On one side [no more spam email] but on the other side [blocked from making port updates] to ports I am really the maintainer. Lest look at the big picture. The https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=qjail2=all website displays the maintainer email address for each and every port. A person doesn't have to be a genius to see that this is one of the places where email address are being harvested from. Why has Freebsd NOT done something to protect their port maintainers from spam. Bugzila is now the preferred way to report bugs in ports. There is no longer a need to publicly display the ports maintainer real email address on the ports website. The simple solution is to change the html code of the ports website to replace every where the maintainer's email address is displayed with po...@freebsd.org. That way the makefile info stays the same and bugzilla works the same. Your just changing what the public user and harvesters see. There are other places where this info can be obtained, such as //svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/. This is a very large doorway to all the ports maintainer email address. The big picture solution is to NOT carry the maintainer email address in the makefile at all. Have it entered into a secure maintainers database that only bugzilla has access to. You get the general picture here. I am sure there are people with a better understanding of the internal workings who can develop a better concept to prohibit the public from having access the ports maintainer real email address. Its time serious thought is given to this problem. Thanks for letting me stand on my soap box. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
