On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:17 PM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> as the setup of your own package builder box
> is simple enough -- wouldn't that be an alternative for you ?
Simple and even done. Yet being local, that wouldn't cover others out
there who might have found or thought of similar or additional r
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:48 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:
> This was discussed in a long thread last June:
>
> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2017-June/109126.html
>
> Short answer: we don't have enough resources.
The OP there titles and suggests opening more development
branches,
Hi!
> > I've asked for this but the answer is
> > "no we don't do that.. and have no plans to".
>
> What is the rationale?
I don't know, but as the setup of your own package builder box
is simple enough -- wouldn't that be an alternative for you ?
--
p...@freebsd.org +49 171 3101372
> I've asked for this but the answer is
> "no we don't do that.. and have no plans to".
What is the rationale? Or is another model of pkg build,
distribution, and archiving coming?
It seems no more would be needed than
- an update to release / handbook / mirror info noting their status
as "final
[I also ran into the issue for sysutils/u-boot-pine64 builds in
my context (WITHOUT_BINUTILS).]
On 2018-Aug-1, at 3:08 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
> On 2018-Aug-1, at 1:29 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>
>> On 7/29/18 9:02 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
It looks like configure uses objdump (without a path
12.0-CURRENT has added a user "ntpd" 123:123 to base, usurping the
numerical UID/GID of the "_ntp" ports user required by net/openntpd.
Given the different privilege models, I don't think it makes sense
to reuse "ntpd" for openntpd. (See also
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22993
