On 3 November 2015 at 18:24, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> --- describe.databases ---
>> make[5]: "/usr/ports/databases/tarantool/Makefile" line 56: Malformed
>> conditional (defined(USE_GCC) && ${USE_GCC} == yes && ${GCC_DEFAULT}
>> == 4.8)
>> make[5]: Fatal errors encountered -- cannot continue=
On 3/11/2015 3:53 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
>
>> Have you tried deleting pkg, making sure you're grabbing the latest
>> packages, and reinstalling pkg?
>>
>> a) pkg should not be segfaulting
>> b) if you're not on the latest pkg version, the bug could hav
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> Have you tried deleting pkg, making sure you're grabbing the latest
> packages, and reinstalling pkg?
>
> a) pkg should not be segfaulting
> b) if you're not on the latest pkg version, the bug could have already
> been fixed
OK, I did a bit more diggin
Hi,
I've just updated to revision 400683 on a 10.2-STABLE/amd64 host , and
a "make index" is currently failing with:
--- describe.databases ---
make[5]: "/usr/ports/databases/tarantool/Makefile" line 56: Malformed
conditional (defined(USE_GCC) && ${USE_GCC} == yes && ${GCC_DEFAULT}
== 4.8)
make[5
On 3/11/2015 2:11 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
>> Can you attach `pkg version -v` output please.
>
> Child process pid=74392 terminated abnormally: Segmentation fault: 11
>
> Hmmm...
>
> To be honest, I think my ports area is a little scrambled
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
Hi!
> Can you attach `pkg version -v` output please.
Child process pid=74392 terminated abnormally: Segmentation fault: 11
Hmmm...
To be honest, I think my ports area is a little scrambled right now, due
to some sort of a mistake when going to the new
On 3/11/2015 11:10 AM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> Anyone like to comment? I don't know Python, nor am I familiar with the
> more subtle aspects of the ports area.
>
Hi Dave,
I can't reproduce the issue building/testing security/py-fail2ban with
poudriere.
The error included in your original post
Hi, I was trying to install seafile from ports on FreeBSD 10.2-RELEASE
machine, but I'm stuck at texinfo installation.
Is there any way around to get it installed? Thanks
:/usr/ports/www/seahub # make install
===> Staging for seahub-4.0.5_1
===> seahub-4.0.5_1 depends on file:
/usr/local/www/
Anyone like to comment? I don't know Python, nor am I familiar with the
more subtle aspects of the ports area.
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer."
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:02:20 +1100 (EST)
From: Dave Horsfa
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 03:19:15PM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
> On 2 Nov, Lars Engels wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:35:10AM +0100, Xavier wrote:
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> I noticed that some ports are complaining in daily check that a checksum
> >> has changed.
> >>
> >> Example : f-prot wh
On 2 Nov, Lars Engels wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:35:10AM +0100, Xavier wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I noticed that some ports are complaining in daily check that a checksum
>> has changed.
>>
>> Example : f-prot which checksums virus definitions, which obviously changes.
>>
>> Is there s
Lev Serebryakov writes:
> Hello Freebsd-ports,
>
> I'm confused, should I use "arm64" or "aarch64" and how to spell
> mips(el?)(64?32?) properly.
${ARCH} ~ ${MACHINE_ARCH} (uname -p). As the ports framework doesn't
expose ${MACHINE} (uname -m) you're stuck listing every supported
arm/mips fla
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:35:10AM +0100, Xavier wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I noticed that some ports are complaining in daily check that a checksum
> has changed.
>
> Example : f-prot which checksums virus definitions, which obviously changes.
>
> Is there some macro/option in Makefile to not chec
Hello Lev,
I'm confused, should I use "arm64" or "aarch64" and how to spell
mips(el?)(64?32?) properly.
That is a good question. I scanned through /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.ports.mk.
ARCH is documented as:
"The architecture of the target machine, such as would be returned by
"uname -p"."
I t
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:35:10AM +0100, Xavier wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I noticed that some ports are complaining in daily check that a checksum
> has changed.
>
> Example : f-prot which checksums virus definitions, which obviously changes.
>
> Is there some macro/option in Makefile to not chec
15 matches
Mail list logo
