Re: The ports@ list is now subscriber-post only

> The po...@freebsd.org (aka freebsd-ports@) mailing list now requires you to > subscribe to the list before posting. This brings us two important benefits: > * This should cut back tremendously on spam coming through the list. > * Users are more likely to find better answers to their que

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On 09/12/2017 04:12, Dave Horsfall wrote: > On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Steve Kargl wrote: > >> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2017-December/018712.html >> > > Well, I saw no reason to subscribe to freebsd-arch (I'm on enough lists > as it is)...  Are there any other lists that we shoul

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 01:21:13PM +, Matthew Seaman wrote: > > Hence the current sendmail in base is neither fish nor fowl: way > overpowered for almost all installations, but with significant > limitations for a machine providing a full-blown mail service. > Personally I agree with his reaso

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 02:23:10 -0800 "Chris H" wrote: > On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 10:25:17 +0100 "Matthieu Volat" said > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 14:18:28 +0100 > > Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:13:09PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > > > Quoting Baptiste Darou

Re: make reinstall does not work

On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Saturday, 9 December 2017 at 12:04:02 +0100, Walter Schwarzenfeld > wrote: > > Thanks, this explains and solved the problem. > > What? And how? > > Greg > Good question. "make reinstall" is, indeed, broken. I have been looking at

Re: The ports@ list is now subscriber-post only

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 1:59 AM, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > The po...@freebsd.org (aka freebsd-ports@) mailing list now requires > you to > > subscribe to the list before posting. This brings us two important > benefits: > > > * This should cut back tremendously on spam coming through the list. >

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Steve Kargl < s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 01:21:13PM +, Matthew Seaman wrote: > > > > Hence the current sendmail in base is neither fish nor fowl: way > > overpowered for almost all installations, but with significant > >

Re: make reinstall does not work

> On 10. Dec 2017, at 6:59 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey > wrote: > >> On Saturday, 9 December 2017 at 12:04:02 +0100, Walter Schwarzenfeld >> wrote: >>> Thanks, this explains and solved the problem. >> >> What? And how? >> >> Greg >> >

Flavor part of package origin?

Shouldn't the FLAVOR be part of the package origin? $ pkg info -o '*setuptools*' py27-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools py36-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools (pkg-1.10.3_1) -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de _

Linux ports tutorial? WPS Office

Hello guys; I would like to attempt a port for WPS Office (AKA Kingsoft Office): http://wps-community.org/ Are there guidelines for linux ports? I couldn't find much details in the handbook. In particular, how do you handle when the pkg-plist is different for i386 and amd64? Some ports us

Re: make reinstall does not work

Look at the link in Shawn Webb's post: bapt (Baptisse Daroussin) wrote *bapt * replied Nov 16, 2017 because it should have always been like that, the re

Re: Linux ports tutorial? WPS Office

11.12.2017 2:22, Pedro Giffuni пишет: > Hello guys; > > I would like to attempt a port for WPS Office (AKA Kingsoft Office): > > http://wps-community.org/ > > Are there guidelines for linux ports? I couldn't find much details in the > handbook. > > In particular, how do you handle when the pkg

Re: Linux ports tutorial? WPS Office

The first step would be to take a look at the source code the .tar file and see a list of dependencies, then check to see if those dependencies already have ports in FreeBSD ports tree. What are the dependencies described in the docs for that office suite? On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Eugene

Re: Flavor part of package origin?

Hi! > Shouldn't the FLAVOR be part of the package origin? > > $ pkg info -o '*setuptools*' > py27-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools > py36-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools Yes, but it seems this works: $ pkg info -o '*setuptools*' py27-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py

Re: Linux ports tutorial? WPS Office

On 12/10/17 14:55, Eugene Grosbein wrote: 11.12.2017 2:22, Pedro Giffuni пишет: Hello guys; I would like to attempt a port for WPS Office (AKA Kingsoft Office): http://wps-community.org/ Are there guidelines for linux ports? I couldn't find much details in the handbook. In particular, how

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 10:10:30 -0800 Kevin Oberman wrote: > Strongly agree! Support ofr some basics like .forward is really a > requirement. It is used for too many "normal" mail operations > including private dropmail or procmail setups as well as forwarding > to a smartmail system. This is actua

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

Am 10.12.17 um 18:47 schrieb Matthieu Volat: > They do... but only if you commit and push something (even if it's only > a personnal clone). If you just keep the changes on your computer, there's > nothing. The GitHub master version has changes, that are not yet in any release. This is irrelevant

RE: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 4:18 PM, RW wrote: > On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 10:10:30 -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > Strongly agree! Support ofr some basics like .forward is really a > > requirement. It is used for too many "normal" mail operations > > including private dropmail or procmail setups as wel

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On 10 Dec, 2017, at 10:11, Steve Kargl wrote: On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 01:21:13PM +, Matthew Seaman wrote: Hence the current sendmail in base is neither fish nor fowl: way overpowered for almost all installations, but with significant limitations for a machine providing a full-blown mail s

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On 8 Dec, 2017, at 20:11, Chris H wrote: On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 02:59:28 +0100 "Kurt Jaeger" said Hi! > > > First, there is movement afoot to remove sendmail from FreeBSD and > > > replace it with dma(1). > Hmm. This does not come as good news to me. I've been working on an antispam > system

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, Adam Weinberger wrote: DMA is a phenomenal program and is totally sufficient for a large percentage of our user-base. I wasn’t aware of the lack of .forward support, and I completely agree that that’s a very detrimental omission. What about its spam filtering, such as /et

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:33:25 +0100 Stefan Esser wrote: > Am 10.12.17 um 18:47 schrieb Matthieu Volat: > > They do... but only if you commit and push something (even if it's only > > a personnal clone). If you just keep the changes on your computer, there's > > nothing. > The GitHub master versi

Re: make reinstall does not work

On Sunday, 10 December 2017 at 20:32:38 +0100, Walter Schwarzenfeld wrote: > Look at the link in Shawn Webb's post: > > bapt (Baptisse Daroussin) wrote > > *bapt * replied Nov 16, 2017 > >

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:49:02 -0700 "Adam Weinberger" said > On 10 Dec, 2017, at 10:11, Steve Kargl > wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 01:21:13PM +, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> Hence the current sendmail in base is neither fish nor fowl: way >> overpowered for almost all installations, but

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:54:54 -0700 "Adam Weinberger" said > On 8 Dec, 2017, at 20:11, Chris H wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 02:59:28 +0100 "Kurt Jaeger" said > >> Hi! >> > > > First, there is movement afoot to remove sendmail from FreeBSD and >> > > > replace it with dma(1). >> > Hmm. This

Doc update for java/jdk8-doc

Hi, Any committer willing to review and commit the java/jdk8-doc PR: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223172 It's been on the queue for almost 2 months now. Cheers. -- Jonathan Chen ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://

RE: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

from Carmel NY: > On Sunday, December 10, 2017 4:18 PM, RW wrote: > > On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 10:10:30 -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > > Strongly agree! Support ofr some basics like .forward is really a > > > requirement. It is used for too many "normal" mail operations > > > including private dropmai

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Matthias Apitz wrote: El día viernes, diciembre 08, 2017 a las 03:13:02p. m. -0700, Warren Block escribió: Hmm, why -d ${USER} if this is already known who I am from the ~/.forward file location? Because as a sysadmin, then you can copy it to another user without having

License and adopting software

I like some old software that's <= GPL2 but it seems like the original developer is not and have not done any work on the software sine mid 2000. I'd like to pick up the project, fix bugs BUT i'd like to migrate from GPL to BSD license. How does one go about doing that? I have seen the GPL code b

Re: License and adopting software

On 11 December 2017 at 17:17, blubee blubeeme wrote: > I like some old software that's <= GPL2 but it seems like the original > developer is not and have not done any work on the software sine mid 2000. > > I'd like to pick up the project, fix bugs BUT i'd like to migrate from GPL > to BSD license

Re: License and adopting software

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Jonathan Chen wrote: > On 11 December 2017 at 17:17, blubee blubeeme wrote: > > I like some old software that's <= GPL2 but it seems like the original > > developer is not and have not done any work on the software sine mid > 2000. > > > > I'd like to pick up th

Re: License and adopting software

On Monday, 11 December 2017 at 12:24:53 +0800, blubee blubeeme wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Jonathan Chen wrote: > >> On 11 December 2017 at 17:17, blubee blubeeme wrote: >>> I like some old software that's <= GPL2 but it seems like the >>> original developer is not and have not don

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

On Monday, 11 December 2017 04:56:04 CET, Warren Block wrote: On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Matthias Apitz wrote: El día viernes, diciembre 08, 2017 a las 03:13:02p. m. -0700, Warren Block escribió: Hmm, why -d ${USER} if this is already known who I am from the ~/.forward file location? Because as

Re: make reinstall does not work

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Sunday, 10 December 2017 at 20:32:38 +0100, Walter Schwarzenfeld wrote: > > Look at the link in Shawn Webb's post: > > > > bapt (Baptisse Daroussin) wrote > > > > *bapt * replied Nov 16, 2017 > >

Re: make reinstall does not work

Hi! > On Sunday, 10 December 2017 at 20:32:38 +0100, Walter Schwarzenfeld wrote: > > Look at the link in Shawn Webb's post: > > > > bapt (Baptisse Daroussin) wrote > > > > *bapt * replied Nov 16, 2017 > > > >

Re: make reinstall does not work

> On 11. Dec 2017, at 7:34 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > > Hi! > >> On Sunday, 10 December 2017 at 20:32:38 +0100, Walter Schwarzenfeld wrote: >>> Look at the link in Shawn Webb's post: >>> >>> bapt (Baptisse Daroussin) wrote >>> >>> *bapt * replied Nov 16, 2017 >>>

Re: License and adopting software

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:24:53 +0800 "blubee blubeeme" said On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Jonathan Chen wrote: > On 11 December 2017 at 17:17, blubee blubeeme wrote: > > I like some old software that's <= GPL2 but it seems like the original > > developer is not and have not done any work o