Interesting. I wonder if this repo will get along with the new_xorg repo.
About to find out...
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Bryan Drewery
wrote:
> On 9/21/2013 5:49 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> > Ports now support enabling Stack Protector [1] support on FreeBSD 10
> > i386 and amd64, and ol
On 20 Aug 2014, at 15:59, Adam Weinberger wrote:
> There are a lot of ports failing on -current due to errors from makeinfo. I’m
> assuming that this is due to invalid info markup syntax. My knowledge of info
> is essentially zero. Past rewriting the info file itself, is there a
> workaround to
Am 20.08.2014 um 21:40 schrieb Bryan Drewery:
> I like that idea for a warning. We would have to ensure only ELF files
> are checked and probably exp-run it to avoid other false-positives.
And trivial programs (hello-world-style) will also cause false positives
there because there's nothing to in
On 8/20/2014 2:26 PM, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 20.08.2014 um 18:34 schrieb Bryan Drewery:
>
>> We have not had any feedback on this yet and want to get it enabled by
>> default for ports and packages.
>
> Oops. Sorry about being silent about that;
> I did enable WITH_SSP_PORTS=yes right after
Am 20.08.2014 um 18:34 schrieb Bryan Drewery:
> We have not had any feedback on this yet and want to get it enabled by
> default for ports and packages.
Oops. Sorry about being silent about that;
I did enable WITH_SSP_PORTS=yes right after the original announcement on
my main 9.3-amd64 developmen
Am 20.08.2014 um 20:10 schrieb Adam McDougall:
> I concur with Mark, with my 1400+ packages for workstations and servers,
> I have had zero issues. This seems like a pretty safe change. I just
> confirmed -fstack-protector is in my build logs although less frequently
> than I assumed for ports s
On 08/20/2014 13:20, Mark Martinec wrote:
> 2014-08-20 18:34 Bryan Drewery wrote:
>> On 9/21/2013 5:49 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>> Ports now support enabling Stack Protector [1] support on FreeBSD 10
>>> i386 and amd64, and older releases on amd64 only currently.
>>>
>>> Support may be added for e
On 8/20/2014 12:20 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
> 2014-08-20 18:34 Bryan Drewery wrote:
>> On 9/21/2013 5:49 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>> Ports now support enabling Stack Protector [1] support on FreeBSD 10
>>> i386 and amd64, and older releases on amd64 only currently.
>>>
>>> Support may be added for
For older versions of Freebsd add to /etc/make.conf
SSP_CFLAGS=-fstack-protector-all
SSP_CXXFLAGS=-fstack-protector-all
Should works.
2014-08-20 18:34 GMT+02:00 Bryan Drewery :
> On 9/21/2013 5:49 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> > Ports now support enabling Stack Protector [1] support on FreeBSD 1
2014-08-20 18:34 Bryan Drewery wrote:
On 9/21/2013 5:49 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
Ports now support enabling Stack Protector [1] support on FreeBSD 10
i386 and amd64, and older releases on amd64 only currently.
Support may be added for earlier i386 releases once all ports properly
respect LDFLAG
On 9/21/2013 5:49 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> Ports now support enabling Stack Protector [1] support on FreeBSD 10
> i386 and amd64, and older releases on amd64 only currently.
>
> Support may be added for earlier i386 releases once all ports properly
> respect LDFLAGS.
>
> To enable, just add WIT
There are 2 parts to this notice. One is strictly for those who build
their own packages with poudriere or other means. The other part is for
client-side users of Pkg (including ports users [1]).
Regardless of which version of Pkg you are on now (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, ...,
1.3.4, 1.3.6) it is recommended
On 08/20/14 07:10, René Ladan wrote:
> 2014-08-20 16:00 GMT+02:00 Russell L. Carter :
>
>>
>>
>> On 08/20/14 02:51, Ivan Voras wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> This is chromium-36.0.1985.143_1 on FreeBSD 10.0-RELEASE-p1. Is
>>> anybody running chromium?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm running 36.0.1985.14
2014-08-20 13:37 GMT+02:00 Ivan Voras :
> On 20 August 2014 13:30, René Ladan wrote:
>
> >> This is chromium-36.0.1985.143_1 on FreeBSD 10.0-RELEASE-p1. Is anybody
> >> running chromium?
> >>
> > Yes, but as soon as you sign in the Chromium you'll hit the above error.
> > See also https://bugs.fr
2014-08-20 16:00 GMT+02:00 Russell L. Carter :
>
>
> On 08/20/14 02:51, Ivan Voras wrote:
> > Hello,
>
> [...]
>
> > This is chromium-36.0.1985.143_1 on FreeBSD 10.0-RELEASE-p1. Is
> > anybody running chromium?
> >
> >
>
> I'm running 36.0.1985.143_1 on a somewhat fresh -current, installed from
>
On 08/20/14 02:51, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Hello,
[...]
> This is chromium-36.0.1985.143_1 on FreeBSD 10.0-RELEASE-p1. Is
> anybody running chromium?
>
>
I'm running 36.0.1985.143_1 on a somewhat fresh -current, installed from
a pkg built by poudriere, using the ports protobuf library. No
segfa
There are a lot of ports failing on -current due to errors from makeinfo. I’m
assuming that this is due to invalid info markup syntax. My knowledge of info
is essentially zero. Past rewriting the info file itself, is there a workaround
to these problems? Do these ports need makeinfo invoked in s
On 20 August 2014 13:30, René Ladan wrote:
>> This is chromium-36.0.1985.143_1 on FreeBSD 10.0-RELEASE-p1. Is anybody
>> running chromium?
>>
> Yes, but as soon as you sign in the Chromium you'll hit the above error.
> See also https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192821
FWIW, I've
2014-08-20 11:51 GMT+02:00 Ivan Voras :
> Hello,
>
> Since there are no binary packages (why? I don't see where the Makefile
> prohibits it?), I'm still upgrading chromium by building it with
> portupgrade.
The package builders are catching up ...
> But, it looks like the latest version is brok
Dear port maintainer,
The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your
ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check
each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate,
submit/commit an update. If any ports have already been updated, you
Hello,
Since there are no binary packages (why? I don't see where the Makefile
prohibits it?), I'm still upgrading chromium by building it with
portupgrade. But, it looks like the latest version is broken - it
segfaults in protobuffers:
(gdb) bt
#0 0x00080e26d7d2 in __dynamic_cast () from /l
21 matches
Mail list logo
