Hi!
> Why does our work have so little value that portmgr@ is unwilling
> to keep us all in the loop, or consider our opinions on such matters?
The portmgr@ role is a huge task and all the reasons (limited time,
dayjobs, etc) ares valid for those folks from portmgr as for
the rest of the ports
There have been a great many comments on this matter on the
mailing list. All the replies are valuable. But (this) original
post has been trimmed in all those replies. So in an effort to
maintain context to the original statement. I'm making my reply
here. Which reflects the attitude of most all
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ports appears to be out of date.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,
On Thu, 25 Mar 2021, George Mitchell wrote:
[...] it is really not for everybody to use overlays in current state
(overlays are poor documented at least). [...]
Until this thread I had never heard of them. -- George
I can't remember the last time I used overlays (certainly
The doc and src tree git migrations are complete, and the git working
group is preparing the ports tree transition in advance of the 2021Q2
quarterly branch.
The proposed schedule is available at https://wiki.freebsd.org/git and
the status will be updated throughout the process, and important
On 26/03/2021 9:25 am, George Mitchell wrote:
> On 3/25/21 6:06 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
>> [...] it is really not for
>> everybody to use overlays in current state (overlays are poor
>> documented at least).
>> [...]
>
> Until this thread I had never heard of them. -- George
On 3/25/21 6:06 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
[...] it is really not for
everybody to use overlays in current state (overlays are poor documented
at least).
[...]
Until this thread I had never heard of them. -- George
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital
On 25/03/2021 16:03, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
I will only here answer about the quality of the communication of portmgr, yes
there is room of improvement in general in the current portmgr team as of how we
do communicate about plans and policy and we are working on it.
"There is room of
I find this announcement very much disappointing, because the situation for
ports that need Python 2.7 or similar to build doesn't seem to have changed at
all. In short, we are just told (again) that they should disappear.
Many end-users who maintain python2 code, both application and install
Am 24.03.21 um 23:11 schrieb Matthias Andree:
> Am 24.03.21 um 22:50 schrieb Dan Mahoney (Ports):
>
>> There are packages for mailman3 but they’re incomplete and don’t
> result in a working install the way the 2.x build does. You also need
> mysql, django, etc etc.
>
> Dan, please check if we
Am 25.03.21 um 16:03 schrieb Baptiste Daroussin:
>
> I really think we should as a project move forward to that direction, it does
> not even need to be driven by protmgr or even drive by any @freebsd.org
>
> I would argue here that it is even more interesting to go the gentoo way try
> to
>
On 25/03/21 15:43, Adriaan de Groot wrote:
On Thursday, 25 March 2021 13:00:02 CET freebsd-ports-requ...@freebsd.org
wrote:
The idea is to try to have www/qt5-webengine fixed before the expiration
time, saving with it a bunch of innocent ports depending on it, correct?
In the sense of "have
I meant to send this reply to the list. I beg for @bapt's forgiveness
for the inbox echo.
On 3/25/21 8:03 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:02:29PM +0100, Olivier Certner wrote:
>>
>> 2. Leverage overlays to provide additional repos, a bit like AUR for Arch.
>> Here I'm
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:02:29PM +0100, Olivier Certner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maintainer of Tauthon here, and of Pale Moon (for the few hours it lived in
> the tree in February; but I'm still pushing updates to PR 251117).
>
> I find this announcement very much disappointing, because the situation
On Thursday, 25 March 2021 13:00:02 CET freebsd-ports-requ...@freebsd.org
wrote:
> The idea is to try to have www/qt5-webengine fixed before the expiration
> time, saving with it a bunch of innocent ports depending on it, correct?
In the sense of "have one guy take a stab at it over the weekend
Hi,
Maintainer of Tauthon here, and of Pale Moon (for the few hours it lived in
the tree in February; but I'm still pushing updates to PR 251117).
I find this announcement very much disappointing, because the situation for
ports that need Python 2.7 or similar to build doesn't seem to have
On 25/03/2021 07:26, Dewayne Geraghty wrote:
On 25/03/2021 4:01 am, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
I really appreciate the work of ports team, committers and maintainers
but I dislike double standards. All ports requiring Python 2.7 were
marked deprecated the last year almost all of them removed
On 24/3/21 22:50, Dan Mahoney (Ports) wrote:
> There are packages for mailman3 but they’re incomplete and don’t
result in a working install the way the 2.x build does. You also need
mysql, django, etc etc.
>
> Needing django is almost as bad as saying “sure, the web UI depends
on WordPress”.
On 25/03/2021 4:01 am, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> I really appreciate the work of ports team, committers and maintainers
> but I dislike double standards. All ports requiring Python 2.7 were
> marked deprecated the last year almost all of them removed according to
> expiration date 2020-12-31 but
19 matches
Mail list logo
