Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
The diffs I had for a couple of ports have now been deleted. I just tossed away the candy I had for you. Please don't come back until you turn ten.
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 10 April 2011 01:26, Alexander Hall ha...@openbsd.org wrote: On 04/08/11 21:07, Puffy BSD wrote: On 8 April 2011 19:32, Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse jas...@openbsd.org wrote: Wow, cut the crap here please. Unless you show up with some diffs to backport the fixes/updates to stable, shut up. Just for fun, have you tried counting the number of commits that went to -STABLE in the past year? Obviously you didn't, so please show diffs to help us or fuck off. Admitted, -STABLE is not perfect, but coming here and whine about our efforts instead of actually doing something usefull isn't going to help either. -- Cheers, Jasper Capable, generous men do not create victims, they nurture them. Telling people to shut up and fuck off is a great way to get help... Oh wait... No, that was only Unless you show up with some diffs to backport the fixes/updates to stable or unless you show diffs to help us. Oh wait... Being rude and hostile against people will not get you any diffs. Calling people morons and whiners in commit messages will not get you any diffs. The diffs I had for a couple of ports have now been deleted. Have a nice day!
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
Being rude and hostile against people will not get you any diffs. Calling people morons and whiners in commit messages will not get you any diffs. The diffs I had for a couple of ports have now been deleted. Have a nice day! It comes with the turf here. You shouldn't be sensitive, they mean nothing personally. There's only so much time and so many developers. They obviously code for firefox on current because that's what they use. Many don't find the time to produce good diffs which is what will bring the most respect. If your benefiting from OpenBSD's great security from developer time spent for free, why not take it on the chin, understand why you got that response and get involved. p.s. Everyone using firefox or ssh on any system is benefiting from OpenBSD's great security. Read the security papers. Yeah I concur. I have been a undeadly reader for years, since 2005 timeframe. I decided to join and contribute recently in whatever way I can. I have been yelled at and ridiculed but its okay, I understand. Check the lists if you don't believe me. You shouldn't take it personally. Its difficult to find time to devote to any open source project, why waste it in politics? This particular discussion went off-track when you persisted in pursuing the stable ports idea when multiple people gave you an idea why they are not doing it. Manpower is an issue and a serious one to overcome. Join in and contribute. Perhaps when OpenBSD has a lot of guys they will bring back the idea of stable ports. I have found that some guys are helpful when I asked newbie questions. So it depends on your questions and their available time and mood.
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 7 April 2011 20:59, Puffy BSD puffybsd42+po...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2011 20:07, Mikolaj Kucharski miko...@kucharski.name wrote: On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 06:16:12PM +0200, Puffy BSD wrote: On 5 April 2011 14:40, Mikolaj Kucharski miko...@kucharski.name wrote: I'm curious. Why you just don't use current? Why is there an OpenBSD release cut every 6 months? Why is there a -stable branch of src and ports? Why is there green grass and blue skies? I could answer you those questions, No, you obviously can't. but that wouldn't give me an answer to my question. I still don't know why you are not using -current. http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-techm=130222866905500w=2
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 8 April 2011 00:50, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote: On 2011/04/07 12:59, patrick keshishian wrote: On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Puffy BSD puffybsd42+po...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 April 2011 14:36, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote: On 2011/04/05 13:05, Puffy BSD wrote: On 5 April 2011 11:03, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote: On 2011/04/05 09:39, Puffy BSD wrote: I know about that, just looking for an answer. The answer is: if you want to run -current ports, run -current or do the work yourself. I've gotten Firefox 3.6.16 and Chromium 10.0.648.204 to work on 4.8 so I figured this wouldn't be impossible either. Anyone else reading tempted to do the same but on amd64 should note that Chromium will need compiler changes. Chromium needed a modified compiler to build on i386 as well. You aren't really running 4.8 then. Really? $ uname -sr OpenBSD 4.8 $ arch OpenBSD.i386 Running chromium compiled without a modified compiler: Segmentation fault (core dumped) i'm curious as to what modified compiler really means in this context? in order to get chrome running, he/she has to be running a compiler with the post-4.9 commit which defines HANDLE_PRAGMA_PACK_PUSH_POP. a system with parts of 4.8 and parts of -current doesn't really count as 4.8 to me...you should really be able to support yourself if you want to run run frankenstein builds. This was built and tested on a system installed from the official 4.8 i386 cd with no parts of -current. http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PortsSecurity This is obviously wrong and might give people the false impression that they're up-to-date and secure if they're tracking -stable ports when in fact they're not anymore. Should be changed to read something like this: 15.3.9 - Security updates When serious bugs or security flaws are discovered in third party software, they are fixed in the -current branch of the ports tree. This means all you need to do is make sure you use the -current version of OpenBSD, as explained in FAQ 5 - OpenBSD's Flavors, check out the -current branch of the ports tree, and build the desired software from it. You can keep your tree up-to-date with CVS, and in addition subscribe to the ports-changes mailing list to receive security announcements related to software in the ports tree. Security updates from -current ports tree are not backported to the -stable branch anymore.
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 2011 Apr 08 (Fri) at 12:19:34 +0200 (+0200), Puffy BSD wrote: :This was built and tested on a system installed from the official 4.8 :i386 cd with no parts of -current. Except the compiler, Firefox, and whatever else you have installed. As has been said many times before in this thread: if you want -current, you should probably run -current. Since you are changing things, if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces. This is documented in the FAQ: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#NoFun -- Don't abandon hope: your Tom Mix decoder ring arrives tomorrow.
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Puffy BSD puffybsd42+po...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PortsSecurity This is obviously wrong and might give people the false impression that they're up-to-date and secure if they're tracking -stable ports when in fact they're not anymore. Are you talking about Chromium here? Can you give me an example, what should be updated in -stable? Regards, Mikolaj
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 8 April 2011 14:59, Mikolaj Kucharski miko...@kucharski.name wrote: On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Puffy BSD puffybsd42+po...@gmail.com wrote: to my question. I still don't know why you are not using -current. http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-techm=130222866905500w=2 So your point here is, you need stable OS with latest packages. Am I correct? Yes. Or at least security updated packages like it used to be. http://www.openbsd.org/pkg-stable.html
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 8 April 2011 15:08, Mikolaj Kucharski miko...@kucharski.name wrote: On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Puffy BSD puffybsd42+po...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PortsSecurity This is obviously wrong and might give people the false impression that they're up-to-date and secure if they're tracking -stable ports when in fact they're not anymore. Are you talking about Chromium here? No, I'm talking about the lack of security updates for -stable ports. Can you give me an example, what should be updated in -stable? firefox35-3.5.11 - firefox35-3.5.18 mozilla-firefox-3.6.8 - mozilla-firefox-3.6.16 samba-3.5.4 - samba-3.5.8 and all other software in ports with known security holes.
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
This is stated many times on list and elsewhere. I will paraphrase as what I understood of OpenBSD's stance. we don't have enough manpower to do juggling to update old ports, if you need latest and greatest, use current. i perfectly understand this. sometimes it is crazy enough to update a port and then you add on top of that tracking library versions etc. It can be done but its not worth it (use FreeBSD). NetBSD (and DragonFly) use a quarterly pkgsrc but there's more effort in that (4 times a year vs 2 times). There's a reason DragonFly just reuses pkgsrc as they have even less manpower than OpenBSD. On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Puffy BSD puffybsd42+po...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PortsSecurity This is obviously wrong and might give people the false impression that they're up-to-date and secure if they're tracking -stable ports when in fact they're not anymore. Are you talking about Chromium here? Can you give me an example, what should be updated in -stable? Regards, Mikolaj
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 2011/04/08 16:47, Puffy BSD wrote: On 8 April 2011 15:08, Mikolaj Kucharski miko...@kucharski.name wrote: On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Puffy BSD puffybsd42+po...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PortsSecurity This is obviously wrong and might give people the false impression that they're up-to-date and secure if they're tracking -stable ports when in fact they're not anymore. Are you talking about Chromium here? No, I'm talking about the lack of security updates for -stable ports. Can you give me an example, what should be updated in -stable? firefox35-3.5.11 - firefox35-3.5.18 mozilla-firefox-3.6.8 - mozilla-firefox-3.6.16 samba-3.5.4 - samba-3.5.8 and all other software in ports with known security holes. Feel free to send diffs.
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 04:47:10PM +0200, Puffy BSD wrote: On 8 April 2011 15:08, Mikolaj Kucharski miko...@kucharski.name wrote: On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Puffy BSD puffybsd42+po...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PortsSecurity This is obviously wrong and might give people the false impression that they're up-to-date and secure if they're tracking -stable ports when in fact they're not anymore. Are you talking about Chromium here? No, I'm talking about the lack of security updates for -stable ports. Can you give me an example, what should be updated in -stable? firefox35-3.5.11 - firefox35-3.5.18 mozilla-firefox-3.6.8 - mozilla-firefox-3.6.16 samba-3.5.4 - samba-3.5.8 and all other software in ports with known security holes. Wow, cut the crap here please. Unless you show up with some diffs to backport the fixes/updates to stable, shut up. Just for fun, have you tried counting the number of commits that went to -STABLE in the past year? Obviously you didn't, so please show diffs to help us or fuck off. Admitted, -STABLE is not perfect, but coming here and whine about our efforts instead of actually doing something usefull isn't going to help either. -- Cheers, Jasper Capable, generous men do not create victims, they nurture them.
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 03:18:26PM +0200, Puffy BSD wrote: On 8 April 2011 14:59, Mikolaj Kucharski miko...@kucharski.name wrote: On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Puffy BSD puffybsd42+po...@gmail.com wrote: to my question. I still don't know why you are not using -current. http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-techm=130222866905500w=2 So your point here is, you need stable OS with latest packages. Am I correct? Yes. Or at least security updated packages like it used to be. http://www.openbsd.org/pkg-stable.html So, you base your crusade against volunteers working on OpenBSD on this one fucking page that's outdated? Get real and read ports-changes, you'll see there have been many commits to -STABLE the past year. Sure, we didn't update that one page you came up with, but you didn't have the brains to look any further, have you? -- Cheers, Jasper Capable, generous men do not create victims, they nurture them.
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 16:47:10 +0200 Puffy BSD wrote: Can you give me an example, what should be updated in -stable? firefox35-3.5.11 - firefox35-3.5.18 mozilla-firefox-3.6.8 - mozilla-firefox-3.6.16 samba-3.5.4 - samba-3.5.8 and all other software in ports with known security holes. The important thing to realise is that stable is only meant for servers as a service to users a bit like debian stable but far less patches especially in the kernel and backporting. I believe you could apply many patches to php 5.2.13 in stable for example but I'm pretty sure there are no serious security patches and probably far less undiscoverd ones than in 5.3. Stable is stable with minimum changes to keep running safely and represents a guaranteed known level of service or bugfree operation. Current is hectic and you may be caught out by a transition but aims for high stability at all times still. Maybe when the user base or port developer base grows a lot we'll get auto updates but I've got a sneaky feeling the developers appreciate keeping the uninitiated to a minimum.
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:10:10PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote: Maybe when the user base or port developer base grows a lot we'll get auto updates but I've got a sneaky feeling the developers appreciate keeping the uninitiated to a minimum. s/unitiated/whiners who don't send diffs/
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 9/04/2011 5:46 AM, Matthias Kilian wrote: On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:10:10PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote: Maybe when the user base or port developer base grows a lot we'll get auto updates but I've got a sneaky feeling the developers appreciate keeping the uninitiated to a minimum. s/unitiated/whiners who don't send diffs/ whiners who don't send diffs Sheesh, some of us whiners used to send diffs, backport things from current and were generally ignored. Along came the ressurection of stable ports and we were still ignored. Yes I could have backported the samba fixes for stable as an example(as maintainer), I have no incentive to. Ian McWilliam
Stable ports (was: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable)
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 06:08:20AM +1000, Ian McWilliam wrote: whiners who don't send diffs Sheesh, some of us whiners used to send diffs, backport things from current and were generally ignored. Along came the ressurection of stable ports and we were still ignored. If your diffs got ignored, this isn't good of course. What can we do? I think, stable ports should be handled by at least two or three people. But then those people caring about stable ports also need machines to run -stable on it. Ciao, Kili
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 5 April 2011 14:36, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote: On 2011/04/05 13:05, Puffy BSD wrote: On 5 April 2011 11:03, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote: On 2011/04/05 09:39, Puffy BSD wrote: I know about that, just looking for an answer. The answer is: if you want to run -current ports, run -current or do the work yourself. I've gotten Firefox 3.6.16 and Chromium 10.0.648.204 to work on 4.8 so I figured this wouldn't be impossible either. Anyone else reading tempted to do the same but on amd64 should note that Chromium will need compiler changes. Chromium needed a modified compiler to build on i386 as well. You aren't really running 4.8 then. Really? $ uname -sr OpenBSD 4.8 $ arch OpenBSD.i386 Running chromium compiled without a modified compiler: Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 5 April 2011 14:40, Mikolaj Kucharski miko...@kucharski.name wrote: On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 01:11:18PM +0200, Puffy BSD wrote: Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I now have Firefox 4.0 running on 4.8-stable. Video and audio works on Youtube. A big Thank You to everyone involved with porting Firefox 4 to OpenBSD! I'm curious. Why you just don't use current? -- best regards q# Why is there an OpenBSD release cut every 6 months? Why is there a -stable branch of src and ports? Why is there green grass and blue skies?
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 7 April 2011 20:07, Mikolaj Kucharski miko...@kucharski.name wrote: On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 06:16:12PM +0200, Puffy BSD wrote: On 5 April 2011 14:40, Mikolaj Kucharski miko...@kucharski.name wrote: I'm curious. Why you just don't use current? Why is there an OpenBSD release cut every 6 months? Why is there a -stable branch of src and ports? Why is there green grass and blue skies? I could answer you those questions, No, you obviously can't. but that wouldn't give me an answer to my question. I still don't know why you are not using -current. -- best regards q#
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Puffy BSD puffybsd42+po...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 April 2011 14:36, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote: On 2011/04/05 13:05, Puffy BSD wrote: On 5 April 2011 11:03, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote: On 2011/04/05 09:39, Puffy BSD wrote: I know about that, just looking for an answer. The answer is: if you want to run -current ports, run -current or do the work yourself. I've gotten Firefox 3.6.16 and Chromium 10.0.648.204 to work on 4.8 so I figured this wouldn't be impossible either. Anyone else reading tempted to do the same but on amd64 should note that Chromium will need compiler changes. Chromium needed a modified compiler to build on i386 as well. You aren't really running 4.8 then. Really? $ uname -sr OpenBSD 4.8 $ arch OpenBSD.i386 Running chromium compiled without a modified compiler: Segmentation fault (core dumped) i'm curious as to what modified compiler really means in this context? --patrick
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 2011/04/07 12:59, patrick keshishian wrote: On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Puffy BSD puffybsd42+po...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 April 2011 14:36, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote: On 2011/04/05 13:05, Puffy BSD wrote: On 5 April 2011 11:03, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote: On 2011/04/05 09:39, Puffy BSD wrote: I know about that, just looking for an answer. The answer is: if you want to run -current ports, run -current or do the work yourself. I've gotten Firefox 3.6.16 and Chromium 10.0.648.204 to work on 4.8 so I figured this wouldn't be impossible either. Anyone else reading tempted to do the same but on amd64 should note that Chromium will need compiler changes. Chromium needed a modified compiler to build on i386 as well. You aren't really running 4.8 then. Really? $ uname -sr OpenBSD 4.8 $ arch OpenBSD.i386 Running chromium compiled without a modified compiler: Segmentation fault (core dumped) i'm curious as to what modified compiler really means in this context? in order to get chrome running, he/she has to be running a compiler with the post-4.9 commit which defines HANDLE_PRAGMA_PACK_PUSH_POP. a system with parts of 4.8 and parts of -current doesn't really count as 4.8 to me...you should really be able to support yourself if you want to run run frankenstein builds.
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 09:39:10AM +0200, Puffy BSD wrote:
On 5 April 2011 00:34, Brad b...@comstyle.com wrote:
On 04/04/11 4:29 PM, Puffy BSD wrote:
make package
(lots of output)
checking for GL/glx.h... no
configure: error: Can't find header GL/glx.h for WebGL (install
mesa-common-dev (Ubuntu), mesa-libGL-devel (Fedora), or Mesa (SuSE))
*** Error code 1
ls -l /usr/X11R6/include/GL/glx.h
-r--r--r-- 1 root bin 17913 Aug 9 2010 /usr/X11R6/include/GL/glx.h
Why is this not picked up?
FAQ 15.4.1.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I know about that, just looking for an answer.
I've gotten Firefox 3.6.16 and Chromium 10.0.648.204 to work on 4.8 so
I figured this wouldn't be impossible either.
You're on your own. Update to current if you want help.
It works in current because config.site contains
ac_cv_header_GL_glx_h=${ac_cv_header_GL_glx_h=yes}.
Landry
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 2011/04/05 09:39, Puffy BSD wrote: I know about that, just looking for an answer. The answer is: if you want to run -current ports, run -current or do the work yourself. I've gotten Firefox 3.6.16 and Chromium 10.0.648.204 to work on 4.8 so I figured this wouldn't be impossible either. Anyone else reading tempted to do the same but on amd64 should note that Chromium will need compiler changes.
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 5 April 2011 11:03, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote: On 2011/04/05 09:39, Puffy BSD wrote: I know about that, just looking for an answer. The answer is: if you want to run -current ports, run -current or do the work yourself. I've gotten Firefox 3.6.16 and Chromium 10.0.648.204 to work on 4.8 so I figured this wouldn't be impossible either. Anyone else reading tempted to do the same but on amd64 should note that Chromium will need compiler changes. Chromium needed a modified compiler to build on i386 as well.
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 5 April 2011 10:38, Landry Breuil lan...@rhaalovely.net wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 09:39:10AM +0200, Puffy BSD wrote:
On 5 April 2011 00:34, Brad b...@comstyle.com wrote:
On 04/04/11 4:29 PM, Puffy BSD wrote:
make package
(lots of output)
checking for GL/glx.h... no
configure: error: Can't find header GL/glx.h for WebGL (install
mesa-common-dev (Ubuntu), mesa-libGL-devel (Fedora), or Mesa (SuSE))
*** Error code 1
ls -l /usr/X11R6/include/GL/glx.h
-r--r--r-- 1 root bin 17913 Aug 9 2010 /usr/X11R6/include/GL/glx.h
Why is this not picked up?
FAQ 15.4.1.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I know about that, just looking for an answer.
I've gotten Firefox 3.6.16 and Chromium 10.0.648.204 to work on 4.8 so
I figured this wouldn't be impossible either.
You're on your own. Update to current if you want help.
It works in current because config.site contains
ac_cv_header_GL_glx_h=${ac_cv_header_GL_glx_h=yes}.
Landry
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
I now have Firefox 4.0 running on 4.8-stable.
Video and audio works on Youtube.
A big Thank You to everyone involved with porting Firefox 4 to OpenBSD!
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 2011/04/05 13:05, Puffy BSD wrote: On 5 April 2011 11:03, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote: On 2011/04/05 09:39, Puffy BSD wrote: I know about that, just looking for an answer. The answer is: if you want to run -current ports, run -current or do the work yourself. I've gotten Firefox 3.6.16 and Chromium 10.0.648.204 to work on 4.8 so I figured this wouldn't be impossible either. Anyone else reading tempted to do the same but on amd64 should note that Chromium will need compiler changes. Chromium needed a modified compiler to build on i386 as well. You aren't really running 4.8 then.
Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
make package (lots of output) checking for GL/glx.h... no configure: error: Can't find header GL/glx.h for WebGL (install mesa-common-dev (Ubuntu), mesa-libGL-devel (Fedora), or Mesa (SuSE)) *** Error code 1 ls -l /usr/X11R6/include/GL/glx.h -r--r--r-- 1 root bin 17913 Aug 9 2010 /usr/X11R6/include/GL/glx.h Why is this not picked up?
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
On 04/04/11 4:29 PM, Puffy BSD wrote: make package (lots of output) checking for GL/glx.h... no configure: error: Can't find header GL/glx.h for WebGL (install mesa-common-dev (Ubuntu), mesa-libGL-devel (Fedora), or Mesa (SuSE)) *** Error code 1 ls -l /usr/X11R6/include/GL/glx.h -r--r--r-- 1 root bin 17913 Aug 9 2010 /usr/X11R6/include/GL/glx.h Why is this not picked up? FAQ 15.4.1. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Firefox 4.0 on 4.8-stable
http://openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#NoFun Why is this not picked up?
