On 2012-09-01 08:42, Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
An idea has been floating around for some time, and it was brought up again
on the ports@ mailing list recently, please remove the extraneous header
information from the Makefile, leaving only the $FreeBSD$ id on the first
line.
It is an idea that
[ RW wrote on Sat 1.Sep'12 at 0:49:54 +0100 ]
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:27:14 -0700
Jim Pazarena wrote:
Which is the recommended way to stay PORT current? portsnap or csup?
I will switch to portsnap, but it is pretty slow compared to csup.
In normal use portsnap should be much faster
On Saturday, September 01, 2012 06:42:57 Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
Also bear in mind that Redports/QAT queues a job for every change done to a
Makefile, we do not want to overburden the QAT at this time. It is important
to allow this service to run at peek efficiency at this time to ensure it's
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:02:46 +0200 Alexander Leidinger
alexan...@leidinger.net wrote:
And this one is tested (copypaste, may have lost tabs and add
linebreaks from my mailer):
---snip---
# svn diff
Index: perform.c
===
---
On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 07:27:40AM -0400, Jason E. Hale wrote:
On Saturday, September 01, 2012 06:42:57 Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
Also bear in mind that Redports/QAT queues a job for every change done to a
Makefile, we do not want to overburden the QAT at this time. It is important
to allow
Hi,
According to /usr/ports/UPDATING we are supposed to switch to pkgconf.
20120726:
AFFECTS: users of devel/pkg-config
devel/pkg-config has been replaced by devel/pkgconf
I understand replaced to mean that pkg-config is out.
There does not appear to be a man page for pkgconf at the
Hi all,
I need some testers specially on 9/10-current to test the www/apache22
optionsNG rewrite.
I have a report from a 10-current user where we see a make regression, but
it is not clear if the regression is in make or the ports framework
therefore I need some more testers.
What does the
On 31-08-2012 14:22, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:10:50AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:59:10 am Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:02:06PM -1000, Doug Barton wrote:
I agree with John on all counts here. Further, the idea of a
Olli Hauer oha...@freebsd.org wrote ..
Hi all,
I need some testers specially on 9/10-current to test the www/apache22
optionsNG rewrite.
I have a report from a 10-current user where we see a make regression, but
it is not clear if the regression is in make or the ports framework
On 2012-09-01 19:45, Waitman Gobble wrote:
Olli Hauer oha...@freebsd.org wrote ..
Hi all,
I need some testers specially on 9/10-current to test the www/apache22
optionsNG rewrite.
I have a report from a 10-current user where we see a make regression, but
it is not clear if the regression
On 9/1/2012 7:43 PM, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
On 31-08-2012 14:22, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:10:50AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:59:10 am Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:02:06PM -1000, Doug Barton wrote:
I agree with
Olli Hauer oha...@freebsd.org wrote ..
On 2012-09-01 19:45, Waitman Gobble wrote:
Olli Hauer oha...@freebsd.org wrote ..
Hi all,
I need some testers specially on 9/10-current to test the www/apache22
optionsNG rewrite.
I have a report from a 10-current user where we see a make
On 2012-09-01 20:28, Waitman Gobble wrote:
Olli Hauer oha...@freebsd.org wrote ..
On 2012-09-01 19:45, Waitman Gobble wrote:
Olli Hauer oha...@freebsd.org wrote ..
Hi all,
I need some testers specially on 9/10-current to test the www/apache22
optionsNG rewrite.
I have a report from a
olli hauer oha...@gmx.de wrote ..
On 2012-09-01 20:28, Waitman Gobble wrote:
Olli Hauer oha...@freebsd.org wrote ..
On 2012-09-01 19:45, Waitman Gobble wrote:
Olli Hauer oha...@freebsd.org wrote ..
Hi all,
I need some testers specially on 9/10-current to test the www/apache22
On 2012-09-01 21:06, Waitman Gobble wrote:
olli hauer oha...@gmx.de wrote ..
On 2012-09-01 20:28, Waitman Gobble wrote:
Olli Hauer oha...@freebsd.org wrote ..
On 2012-09-01 19:45, Waitman Gobble wrote:
Olli Hauer oha...@freebsd.org wrote ..
Hi all,
I need some testers specially on
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Bryan Drewery br...@shatow.net wrote:
On 8/31/2012 10:15 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 31 August 2012 09:15, Bryan Drewery br...@shatow.net wrote:
No, because it already knows which you installed and which were pulled
in as dependencies. There's a recent thread on
On 9/1/2012 2:46 PM, Marin Atanasov Nikolov wrote:
Support for plugins which provide new commands in pkgng has been committed.
Very cool!
--
Regards,
Bryan Drewery
bdrewery@freenode/EFNet
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
olli hauer oha...@gmx.de wrote ..
On 2012-09-01 21:06, Waitman Gobble wrote:
olli hauer oha...@gmx.de wrote ..
On 2012-09-01 20:28, Waitman Gobble wrote:
Olli Hauer oha...@freebsd.org wrote ..
On 2012-09-01 19:45, Waitman Gobble wrote:
Olli Hauer oha...@freebsd.org wrote ..
Hi all,
On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 06:42:57AM +, Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
An idea has been floating around for some time, and it was brought up again
on the ports@ mailing list recently, please remove the extraneous header
information from the Makefile, leaving only the $FreeBSD$ id on the first
line.
I had backported denial-of-service fixes from version 3.1,
http://codelabs.ru/fbsd/ports/gatekeeper/gnugk-fix-cve-2012-3534.diff
but I don't use GNU gatekeeper in production.
Patched version contains new configuration knob, MaxStatusClients,
that is 20 by-default and is used to limit the number
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As far as I'm concerned, the commiters will take care of this when
they need to. Leaving current port headers in-tact is the best way to
go regardless of this discussion...
On 09/01/2012 10:00 PM, Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at
21 matches
Mail list logo
