Postgresql configure seems to be picky about exactly what version of
autoconf it works with:
===>>> Returning to dependency check for databases/postgresql84-server
===>>> Dependency check complete for databases/postgresql84-server
===> Cleaning for postgresql-server-8.4.4_3
=== BACK
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Matthew Seaman
wrote:
>
> Postgresql configure seems to be picky about exactly what version of
> autoconf it works with:
>
I did not encounter that one. My postgresql-server-84 builds fine.
--
chs,
___
freebsd-ports@f
Hi,
$ uname -a
FreeBSD blizzard.phoenix 7.3-RELEASE-p2 FreeBSD 7.3-RELEASE-p2 #0: Mon Jul 12
19:04:04 UTC 2010
r...@i386-builder.daemonology.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386
$ pwd
/usr/ports/devel/autoconf267
$ make reinstall
:
install -o root -g wheel -m 444 ./autoconf-2.67.info '/usr
i suspect this is due to the autoconf upgrade..
I'm in the process of downgrading autoconf, unless anyone has a better idea?
/usr/local/etc/rc.d/sa-spamd start
Starting spamd.
Can't locate NetAddr/IP.pm in @INC (@INC contains:
*/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.1*
/usr/local/lib/perl5/5.12.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:31:51AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 9/15/2010 1:18 AM, Greg Byshenk wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:22:24PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> >>I can think of at least one more scenario off the top of my head. You
> >>want to run the new version of the service the next
On 16/09/2010 11:01, Paul Macdonald wrote:
i suspect this is due to the autoconf upgrade..
I'm in the process of downgrading autoconf, unless anyone has a better
idea?
/usr/local/etc/rc.d/sa-spamd start
Starting spamd.
Can't locate NetAddr/IP.pm in @INC (@INC contains:
*/usr/local/lib/perl
Nicholas E. Solon | CTO ha scritto:
> I am writing to request a change to the php5-gd port. This port
> requires that the gd extension include xpm support, which relies on a
> long dependency chain of x11 libraries. Since many PHP users run
> production web servers, myself included, it is not des
Am 16.09.2010 01:30, schrieb Barbara:
>
> I've just run portupgrade -ap, after getting the new autotools and reading
> UPDATING.
>>From what I can understand, as it's not a version bump but a new port (I
> realized it too late...). So maybe I should have used something like:
> # portupgrade -o
On Thu, September 16, 2010 1:09 am, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
> 16.09.2010 05:45, Dan Langille пиÑеÑ:
>> This came in last night: http://blog.openx.org/09/security-update/
>>
>> Port needs to be upgraded to 2.8.8 and a vuln entry created Sorry,
>> bags not me.
>>
>
> Until update is not
On 16/09/2010 11:43:04, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 16.09.2010 01:30, schrieb Barbara:
>>
>> I've just run portupgrade -ap, after getting the new autotools and reading
>> UPDATING.
>> >From what I can understand, as it's not a version bump but a new port (I
>> realized it too late...). So maybe I
16.09.2010 17:59, Dan Langille пишет:
On Thu, September 16, 2010 1:09 am, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
16.09.2010 05:45, Dan Langille пишет:
This came in last night: http://blog.openx.org/09/security-update/
Port needs to be upgraded to 2.8.8 and a vuln entry created Sorry,
bags not me
16.09.2010 19:19, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov пишет:
16.09.2010 17:59, Dan Langille пишет:
On Thu, September 16, 2010 1:09 am, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
16.09.2010 05:45, Dan Langille пишет:
This came in last night: http://blog.openx.org/09/security-update/
Port needs to be upgraded to 2.8.8 a
The risk is real, my own server was compromised yesterday.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Unpatched-OpenX-Vulnerability-Exploited-to-Compromise-Multiple-Ad-Servers-156402.shtml
I am in the process of creating an updated port, should file a pr soon,
but it should be marked as forbidden until then.
Dnia 11.09.2010 Dmitry Marakasov napisał/a:
> software authors kindly agreed to remove revocation term (which worried
> be the most), however other terms are in question. Could someone review
> that license and say whether that's ok in ports, whether distfile
> mirroring is OK and whether we shoul
On 16.09.2010 10:20, Christer Solskogen wrote:
> After upgrading perl to 5.12.2_1 running perl-after-upgrade showed
> that no files will be moved. And that is a little wierd when there are
> a lot of files left in /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.12.1. Is that script
> working as expected?
Fixed, thanks fo
* Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
> dependency?
>
> I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any
> /running/ software but build systems. And I don't see how rebuilding
> all the software improves it.
>
Anonymous writes:
Hello,
> Why not extract it as a dependency then?
>
> .if defined(WITH_HTTP_UWSGI_MODULE)
> CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --add-module=${UWSGI_WRKSRC}/nginx
> BUILD_DEPENDS+= ${NONEXISTENT}:${PORTSDIR}/www/uwsgi:patch
> UWSGI_WRKSRC!= ${MAKE} -V WRKSRC -C ${PORTSDIR}/www/uwsgi
>
* Marcin Cieslak (sa...@saper.info) wrote:
> > software authors kindly agreed to remove revocation term (which worried
> > be the most), however other terms are in question. Could someone review
> > that license and say whether that's ok in ports, whether distfile
> > mirroring is OK and whether w
Hi,
I'm running Tomcat6 in a jail which I'm using to host the Xwiki application.
This is the version of Tomcat I'm running:
tomcat-6.0.29 Open-source Java web server by Apache, 6.x branch
Now after a while the wiki will just stop working and the CPU will spin
up to 100%??
The system
On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> * Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
>
>> Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
>> dependency?
>>
>> I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any
>> /running/ software but build systems. And I don't s
Hi--
On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> The only thing left that worries me is that US export laws stuff - I
> absolutely don't understand what that means and how we can/cannot
> violate these by mirroring distfiles/packages. For now I've removed all
> mirroring permissions fr
> Christer Solskogen wrote
>On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Matthew Seaman
>>
>> Postgresql configure seems to be picky about exactly what version of
>> autoconf it works with:
>>
> I did not encounter that one. My postgresql-server-84 builds fine.
I did.
I guess that you are NOT building it W
INDEX build failed with errors:
Generating INDEX-6 - please wait.."Makefile", line 36: Could not find
/local0/portmgr/tindex/ports/math/metis-edf/../../french/aster/bsd.aster.mk
make: fatal errors encountered -- cannot continue
===> math/metis-edf failed
*** Error code 1
*** Error code 1
Stop in
Dominic Fandrey writes:
> On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
>> * Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
>>> dependency?
>>>
>>> I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any
>>> /running/ softwa
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:44, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
>
> Is I understand, to comply with license, we need to prohibit
> distribution of software into "(or to a national or resident of)
> any country to which the United States has embargoed goods", which
> we likely won't do thus we should not mi
___
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"
On 9/16/2010 3:35 PM, Anonymous wrote:
Dominic Fandrey writes:
On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
* Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
dependency?
I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any
On 9/16/2010 6:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 9/16/2010 3:35 PM, Anonymous wrote:
Dominic Fandrey writes:
On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
* Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
dependency?
I don't think an aut
* Anonymous (swel...@gmail.com) wrote:
> My guess is to uncover *early* build failures that exp-run didn't catch.
> Example is the breakage of databases/postgresql84-server + WITH_ICU.
I never thought we make all users uselessly rebuild stuff just to test
whether it builds.
--
Dmitry Marakasov
On 17/09/2010 00:35, Anonymous wrote:
> Dominic Fandrey writes:
>
>> On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
>>> * Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
>>>
Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
dependency?
I don't think an autoconf update s
On 17/09/2010 06:41, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 9/16/2010 6:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 9/16/2010 3:35 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> Dominic Fandrey writes:
>>>
On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> * Dominic Fandrey (kamik...@bsdforen.de) wrote:
>
>> Just out of curiosity, wh
31 matches
Mail list logo
