Re: svn commit: r432796 - in head/graphics: rawtherapee rawtherapee-devel

On 2/4/2017 16:24, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Fri, 3 Feb 2017, John Marino wrote: AFAIK it's not documented, but it's been spoken here quite a few times and the result was "try to be nice and if you must use OSVERSION, guard it with OPSYS". Anything else is a bug because OSVERSION

Re: svn commit: r432796 - in head/graphics: rawtherapee rawtherapee-devel

On 2/3/2017 14:55, Matthias Andree wrote: Am 29.01.2017 um 20:22 schrieb John Marino: Author: marino Date: Sun Jan 29 19:22:47 2017 New Revision: 432796 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/432796 Log: graphics/rawtherapee(-devel): Fix OSVERSION, use with OPSYS The OSVERSION

what's the deal with portsmon? and beefy?

(resent, diff address) It seems to me that portsmon has stopped showing error logs since the new year. Additionally the build environments seem outdated (84 and 93). Probably related, I can't seem to connect to beefy* anymore to search for build logs manually. Finally, the "Active Problem

what's the deal with portsmon? and beefy?

It seems to me that portsmon has stopped showing error logs since the new year. Additionally the build environments seem outdated (84 and 93). Probably related, I can't seem to connect to beefy* anymore to search for build logs manually. Finally, the "Active Problem Reports" has been

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/21/2016 01:23, Jim Trigg wrote: No, that's not what I'm saying. I can't find anything online showing that this problem has been reported. I've see this reported before, probably on this list, maybe by you. I can't reproduce it using the tool that I've been using for years (portmaster).

Re: Subscription for committer

On 12/20/2016 18:39, Warren Block wrote: On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, John Marino wrote: On 12/19/2016 20:22, Mark Linimon wrote: On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 07:07:06PM -0600, John Marino wrote: It's a natural reaction to stop attempting to contribute when previous contributions don't get "atte

Re: Subscription for committer

On 12/19/2016 20:22, Mark Linimon wrote: On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 07:07:06PM -0600, John Marino wrote: It's a natural reaction to stop attempting to contribute when previous contributions don't get "attention they deserve". Which some people (including me) see as odds with: the

Re: Subscription for committer

On 12/19/2016 18:36, Warren Block wrote: On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, John Marino wrote: On 12/19/2016 04:18, Boris Samorodov wrote: 17.12.2016 22:40, John Marino пишет: I am not subscribed to the mail list A port's committer is not subscribed to the ports@ ML? Is it a joke? I don't want

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/18/2016 23:42, Jim Trigg wrote: On 12/18/2016 02:24 AM, John Marino wrote: 2) portmaster's dirty build method is inferior to clean environment builds (true) 3) There is better and official alternative (true) Maybe. I have a case where portmaster (on my current production box) builds

Re: Subscription for committer

On 12/19/2016 04:18, Boris Samorodov wrote: 17.12.2016 22:40, John Marino пишет: I am not subscribed to the mail list A port's committer is not subscribed to the ports@ ML? Is it a joke? I don't want to participate in this list. The only reason I'm stuck on this topic is because Warren

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/19/2016 00:48, Peter Jeremy wrote: On 2016-Dec-17 20:16:12 -0600, John Marino <freebsd.cont...@marino.st> wrote: On 12/17/2016 19:35, Peter Jeremy wrote: $ cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/synth/ && make [ about an hour of grinding away elided ] ===> ini_file_manager-03_2 depe

The ports collection has some serious issues

Grzegorz Junka wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:51, John Marino wrote: On 12/17/2016 12:34, abi wrote: 2. It doesn't provide dialog for port options, so 2.1 I don't receive information if port options have changed. I don't know what else will be pulled to my system after port tree update. which

The ports collection has some serious issues

David wrote On 12/16/2016 04:06 PM, John Marino wrote: Starting with a clean system: 1) install synth from binary package from official freebsd builder (a single package) What about just building synth from ports? Then the OP have everything built from ports. -- David In the example

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/18/2016 00:43, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: On Saturday, 17 December 2016 at 20:16:12 -0600, John Marino wrote: On 12/17/2016 19:35, Peter Jeremy wrote: $ cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/synth/ && make [ about an hour of grinding away elided ] ===> ini_file_manager-03_2 depends on

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/17/2016 19:35, Peter Jeremy wrote: $ cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/synth/ && make [ about an hour of grinding away elided ] ===> ini_file_manager-03_2 depends on file: /usr/local/gcc6-aux/bin/ada - not found ===> gcc6-aux-20160822 is only for amd64 i386, while you are running armv6.

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/17/2016 13:47, Alphons van Werven wrote: Needless to say, not being a committer myself, whether/that said folks are required to use Poudriere and/or Synth for their QA checking is ipso facto none of my concern. However, I'm pretty sure I know what comes next. When maintainers need to

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/17/2016 13:35, Mark Linimon wrote: This is the sixth "top of thread" post. Could you please arrange to stop breaking email threading? Thanks. mcl I have to assume you're talking to me. Mark: 1) I am not subscribed to the mail list 2) FreeBSD chooses not to store the raw email content

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/17/2016 12:34, abi wrote: 2. It doesn't provide dialog for port options, so 2.1 I don't receive information if port options have changed. I don't know what else will be pulled to my system after port tree update. which of course is a false statement. If you set port options which then

The ports collection has some serious issues

abi wrote: I tried to switch from portmaster to synth yesterday. Tests was sponsored by zfs snapshots. I still have strong opinion that synth IS NOT replacement for portmaster and not usable at all. Yes, synth build ports, however it's just builds them. I don't receive information: 1. Why it

The ports collection has some serious issues

From Thomas Mueller: From John Marino: Starting with a clean system: 1) install synth from binary package from official freebsd builder (a single package) 2) Configure synth if necessary 3) command synth to build itself 4) pkg delete synth (system is once again clean) 5) pkg add -F /path

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/17/2016 01:49, Hrant Dadivanyan wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote: On 2016-Dec-15 19:31:22 +0100, list-freebsd-ports at jyborn.se wrote: Interestingly, the most vocal proponent of deleting portmaster and portupgrade is the author/maintainer of synch. It's not

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/17/2016 07:55, Michael Gmelin wrote: On 17 Dec 2016, at 14:26, Alphons van Werven <free...@skysmurf.nl> wrote: John Marino wrote: In fact, anyone that updates ports should use either poudriere testport or synth test. Then consider these relinquished: /usr/ports/archivers/zi

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/16/2016 10:09, Roger Marquis wrote: I never understood why people went ape- over it, unless they don't understand what "deprecated without expiration" actually means. Perhaps then this is the crux of the issue. From my experience "deprecated" means only that something will not

The ports collection has some serious issues

Roger Marquis wrote It is every week. Consider the FreeBSD forums as well. "misuse" and "misunderstanding" failures are attributed to the tool. Let's stop making excuses for portmaster. It is what it is and we've had years to evaluate it. If portmaster was part of base I'd agree that it

The ports collection has some serious issues

From Kevin Oberman: Just to add another voice of those who use portmaster on a regular basis. I moved to portmaster about seven years ago and have has very few issues with it. I have had issues building ports from time to time, but it's been a long time since i hit one that was not a problem

The ports collection has some serious issues

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote: On 2016-Dec-15 19:31:22 +0100, list-freebsd-ports at jyborn.se wrote: Interestingly, the most vocal proponent of deleting portmaster and portupgrade is the author/maintainer of synch. It's not interesting at all. Synth was in a large part

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/15/2016 10:31, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: On 15.12.2016 17:00, John Marino wrote: It is every week. Consider the FreeBSD forums as well. No, it isn't. Lets check the history. This is just a general statement. portmaster was added 2006 and the portstree startet in 1994. Can you agree

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/15/2016 09:49, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: On 15.12.2016 16:29, John Marino wrote: Although portmaster is not releated to the FreeBSD project and is an outside tool, there aren't any alternatives from the project itself. So use it or die. Not a nice situation. People have been trying

The ports collection has some serious issues

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Matt Smith wrote: On Dec 08 05:16, Daniil Berendeev wrote: Although portmaster is not releated to the FreeBSD project and is an outside tool, there aren't any alternatives from the project itself. So use it or die. Not a nice situation. People have been trying to get

Re: Remove options from poudriere option files for ports which were removed in the port

On 7/5/2016 11:26, John Marino wrote: On 7/5/2016 10:36, Matthias Fechner wrote: Am 04.07.2016 um 22:03 schrieb John Marino: sorry, the correct invocation is "synth status-everything". There is a man page (man 1 synth) as well. thanks for this tip. As I have to check my poudr

Re: Remove options from poudriere option files for ports which were removed in the port

On 7/5/2016 10:36, Matthias Fechner wrote: Am 04.07.2016 um 22:03 schrieb John Marino: sorry, the correct invocation is "synth status-everything". There is a man page (man 1 synth) as well. thanks for this tip. As I have to check my poudriere build environment (I do not build m

Re: Remove options from poudriere option files for ports which were removed in the port

On 7/4/2016 12:06, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 5:31 PM, John Marino <freebs...@marino.st <mailto:freebs...@marino.st>> wrote: On 7/3/2016 19:26, John Marino wrote: Kimmo Paasiala gmail.com <http://gmail.com>> writes: On Fri, J

Re: Remove options from poudriere option files for ports which were removed in the port

On 7/3/2016 19:26, John Marino wrote: Kimmo Paasiala gmail.com> writes: On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Matthias Fechner fechner.net> wrote: > Dear all, > > it seems that poudriere can only add new options to its own options > tracking, but cannot remove options that

Re: Remove options from poudriere option files for ports which were removed in the port

Kimmo Paasiala gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Matthias Fechner fechner.net> wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > it seems that poudriere can only add new options to its own options > > tracking, but cannot remove options that where removed from the Makefile > > of the port.

security/tor-devel and Maintainer Timeout

Hi! > I have posted patches for updated versions of security/tor-devel, but > the maintainer,bf at freebsd.org does not seem to be looking at the > Bugzilla requests, nor are the ports being updated. > > A

Re: synth package for 11-CURRENT amd64

Matthias Apitz wrote: I see. The above 1794 ports are result of a file of some ~300 ports which I passed to poudriere to build them. I should just use the same file as input. Does 'synth prepare-system' expect a file? I did not saw this in the git pages and have no manual until now. As you

Re: synth package for 11-CURRENT amd64

On 2016-02-27 10:50, Matthias Apitz wrote: From where could I fetch a pre-build package of synth for my 11.0-CURRENT r292778 (amd64)? Thanks in advance. I'm used to poudriere for my ~1800 packages and want to give it a try without building ada before. According to portsmon, synth package is

Re: PHP7 + Synth issue

Matt wrote: > I'll search bugzilla to see if there are any bug reports for this and if > not I'll raise one then. > > I know php70 is very new so I was expecting problems. Synth is pretty > new as well though so I thought I would let people know in case they > were not aware of this type of

Re: PHP7 + Synth issue

On 2/17/2016 2:44 PM, Martin Wilke wrote: > Hi, > > The long term solution will be switching to mysqli or pdo_mysql which is > provided by php70 (and php55/56), I am working right now on cleaning up > the pecl ports, after that I'll go and check which port can switch already. > The problem

Re: PHP7 + Synth issue

On 2/17/2016 2:24 PM, Matt Smith wrote: > The problem is that it isn't just that port. I've also seen it on > databases/mysqldumper for example. It's going to affect all ports which > have USE_PHP=mysql within them of which I suspect there are quite a > lot. It might be impractical to do what you

Re: PHP7 + Synth issue

On 2/17/2016 2:10 PM, Matt Smith wrote: > Hi guys, I'm using the ports-mgmt/synth package builder to build my > packages. I just tried to build all of the packages for PHP7 from the > new ports and came across an issue. If I set php=7.0 in DEFAULT_VERSIONS > in the LiveSystem-make.conf

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/15/2016 9:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > Yeah, I'd agree with this... except... > > pkg_* tools don't exist on 10.x only pkgng... that makes it base os > thing.. even if it's downloaded in/via ports.. > > So sorry don't claim it's only part of the ports system, because whilst > it maybe

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/15/2016 6:31 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > Actually it made perfect sense... (for a change) ... make pkgng the > default on 10.x and allow people to use either on 8.4 and 9.x ... this > made perfect sense... Make base packaging using similar/same tools as > part of 11+ makes perfect

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/15/2016 6:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote: >> This makes no sense. Ports are not tied to base releases. >> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason? > > There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know. The issue was > with ports and by extension pkgng (and

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/15/2016 5:59 PM, Roger Marquis wrote: > It was actually worse than that. Those of us who questioned the wisdom > of such disruptive and backwards-incompatible changes being implemented > mid-release instead of at a release boundry were A) ignored, B) told that > there were not enough

Removing documentation

Michelle wrote: > The way it was forced down everyone's necks pushed it to 8.4 and 9.x > systems as well as 10.x, this was a bad decision. It was a decision > made by someone who doesn't live in the real world of production servers > and production services... Michelle, I sympathize, but you're

FreeBSD Port: deskutils/calibre

Guido wrote: > On 02/13/16 03:53, Alex V. Petrov wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Last port freezed install with: >> >> > > Hi, > > What do you mean by "freeze" that it just stays there? > > > Unluckily there are no error message or any useful diagnostics in this > snippet. > > Could yo reproduce the

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/14/2016 8:07 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > ery update to the port going back to the version when the options file > was created, 1.9a_1. Comparing that to the current version, there have > been no options changes at all. Not to the options offered nor to the > defaults. I am baffled as to what

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/12/2016 1:26 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 12.02.2016 03:22, Royce Williams wrote: > >> As long as the ports system exists (and I think it should!), the >> management of compilation requirements -- especially for something >> that

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/12/2016 1:29 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 12.02.2016 03:41, John Marino wrote: > >> THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT SOMETHING THAT BUILDS PORTS NEEDS THAT >> ITSELF IS BUILT FROM PORTS. You responded to so

ports/pkg/OS integration 2.0

Royce wrote: > It would be nice to be asked at the point of installing the system > what kind of software management you want: > > [X] Install software from binary packages only > [ ] Install software from ports only (compiling everything locally) > [ ] Prefer packages, prompting me when default

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/11/2016 8:25 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 07.02.2016 17:28, John Marino wrote: > >> ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing >> portmaster can do that Synth can't. (honestly) > B

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/11/2016 9:08 PM, Royce Williams wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, John Marino <freebs...@marino.st> wrote: >> >> On 2/11/2016 8:25 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>> Hash: SHA512 >>> >>> On

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/12/2016 1:22 AM, Royce Williams wrote: > Is the abstraction is happening at the equivalent level here? The > platforms that I'm thinking of -- that appear to have already solved > this entire class of problem long ago -- feature wrappers around > apt-get, not wrappers around dpkg. I'm not a

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/11/2016 10:32 PM, Matt Smith wrote: > Remember that before portmaster we had cvsup which was written in > Modula-3 and portupgrade which is written in Ruby. Whilst it is nice > that portmaster is just a simple shell script with no dependancies > that's a relatively new thing. I'm familiar

don't fork portmaster source

> I'm asking myself how to manage the code. Should i create a new GitHub > repository? Fork the existing from freebsd/portmaster? How to handle the > LOCAL Master-Site? Talk to Bryan Drewery. "If someone else would like to maintain this please discuss with me and I will get you access to the

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/10/2016 11:31 PM, Alphons van Werven wrote: > ???Between all the question marks (sorry, I just can't help myself) I > can reveal that Portmaster detects at least some of the above kinds of > changes. Perhaps not all four, but at least some (if not most). > > I suspect it's probably not

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/10/2016 10:15 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > The stale configuration file issue has me a bit confused. The man page > does not make it clear just what makes a config "stale". All of my ports > are up to date as of 11:00 UTC this morning. As far as I know, all of > the configs are "current",

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/10/2016 10:37 AM, Lars Engels wrote: > On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 06:28:11PM +0100, John Marino wrote: >> On 2/9/2016 4:15 PM, Lars Engels wrote: >>> >>> root@fbsd01:~ # synth status >>> Querying system about current package installations. >>> S

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/10/2016 11:09 AM, Lars Engels wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:40:44AM +0100, John Marino wrote: >> On 2/10/2016 10:37 AM, Lars Engels wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 06:28:11PM +0100, John Marino wrote: >>>> On 2/9/2016 4:15 PM, Lars Engels wrote: >

Re: Moving to synth

On 2/10/2016 12:10 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > There are still issues moving to synth on non-Tier1 architectures: This limitation has been known and published from the beginning (bapt@ recently iterated it for those that weren't aware). It would actually be possible to support ARM fairly easily,

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/9/2016 9:27 PM, John Marino wrote: > On 2/9/2016 9:20 PM, Warren Block wrote: >> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote: >> >>> On 2/9/2016 7:20 PM, Warren Block wrote: >>>>> If you have the build log, I'd like to see it. Dewayne G. got an error &g

Re: synth documentation

On 2/10/2016 2:57 AM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > I installed the synth package a couple of days ago, mainly to take a > look. And yes, I agree, if you're happy with the package (I would > be), the Ada dependencies and long build times aren't an issue. I'm racking my brains and I can't find a

Re: synth documentation

On 2/10/2016 10:01 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > >> I'm racking my brains and I can't find a single rational reason why >> somebody would refuse the package (especially if building it on an Atom >> is the alternative). > > The famous paper from Ken Thompson: Reflections on trusting trust > >

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/9/2016 7:20 PM, Warren Block wrote: >> If you have the build log, I'd like to see it. Dewayne G. got an error >> after overriding CPUTYPE (do you do that too?) and I'm thinking it's >> sensitive to CPU and I'd like to know more. > > Yes, I use > > CPUTYPE?=core-avx2 What happens when you

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/9/2016 11:52 AM, Hrant Dadivanyan wrote: > It's fine that there is such an excellent tool as synth, but in server > environment, when only a few ports are installed, having a management port > with 17 dependencies is not reasonable. Rather that parroting this phrase, I would like to see

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/9/2016 2:46 PM, Jim Ohlstein wrote: > After all of this "discussion" I decided to give synth a try. I have no > pony in this race as I use neither portmaster nor portupgrade. Both may > still be in my repo, but they are not installed. Thanks for trying it! > > The build time of "like 20-30

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/9/2016 12:45 PM, Hrant Dadivanyan wrote: >> 1) As was just stated earler this morning, having synth installed is 2 >> packages: Synth itself and ncurses. These "17 dependences" are build >> requirements and not installed. So what is "unreasonable" about that? > > So will require any

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/9/2016 5:00 PM, Warren Block wrote: > 2:20, that's two hours and twenty minutes, to build and install here on > an Atom N270 system. 2:06 for gcc6-aux, most of the rest for ncurses. > That does not include distfile download time. Disk space used was 252M, > again not counting the distfiles.

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/9/2016 9:20 PM, Warren Block wrote: > On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote: > >> On 2/9/2016 7:20 PM, Warren Block wrote: >>>> If you have the build log, I'd like to see it. Dewayne G. got an error >>>> after overriding CPUTYPE (do you do that too?)

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/9/2016 4:15 PM, Lars Engels wrote: > > root@fbsd01:~ # synth status > Querying system about current package installations. > Stand by, comparing installed packages against the ports tree. > Stand by, building pkg(8) first ... Failed!! (Synth must exit) > Unfortunately, the system upgrade

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/8/2016 10:30 AM, Mathias Picker wrote: > Am Montag, den 08.02.2016, 08:35 +0100 schrieb John Marino: > While I like the ideas of synth, and hoped I could use it to just build > my 3-8 ports with modified options, on first look I found many things > suggesting that it's n

Removing documentation

> Then allow me to be the second. But then, I find poudriere > unusable on my build system (I don't use ZFS and my memory is > apparently too limited). Portmaster just does the right thing. > > We get that you don't like portmaster. So please don't use it. > But don't deprive the rest of us.

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/8/2016 8:34 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2016-Feb-08 01:53:06 +0100, John Marino <freebs...@marino.st> wrote: > There's nothing in that statement that makes Synth "clearly superior" > to portmaster. It suggests that Synth might be an alternative to > pou

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/8/2016 7:43 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2016-Feb-07 15:28:56 +0100, John Marino <freebs...@marino.st> wrote: >> Please do an honest "fly-off" between ports-mgmt/portmaster and >> ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing portmaster >>

Moving to synth (was: Removing documentation)

Sorry, I'm not subscribed to the list so I have to recreate emails when I I'm not included in the reply. Michel Talon wrote: > Needless to say, no port named ada under lang, finally found it was > gcc5-aux. Downloaded the packages for gcc5-aux and ncurses the port for synth > from SVN

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/8/2016 2:40 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:21:49PM +0100, John Marino wrote: >> Anybody proposing to be maintainer, in my opinion, should first be >> required to take over every open PR in bugzilla > > thus ensuring that no one would ever take

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/8/2016 11:07 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > I think you're missing the point. If this were the criterion for > becoming maintainer, there's a good chance that nobody would > volunteer. Your suggestion would work in a corporate environment, but > that's not us. I have said repeatedly that

Discussions in closed PRs

Geez, talk about being misrepresented. "that marino@ wants to remove portmaster and replace it with synth. This PR was just preparing the way." What part of this is accurate? Nothing. I wanted to remove THE DOCUMENTATION *if* portmaster remains in the current state. I tried to DEPRECATE it

Re: Moving to synth

On 2/8/2016 11:53 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > So how would things improve in this respect if we change to synth? > There we need a maintainer who understands Ada. OK, at the moment > that's you. But what happens when you relinquish maintainership for > whatever reason? Another thing I've

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/8/2016 7:43 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2016-Feb-07 15:28:56 +0100, John Marino <freebs...@marino.st> wrote: >> Please do an honest "fly-off" between ports-mgmt/portmaster and >> ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing portmaster >>

Removing documentation

>> 1. Remove all mention of portmaster. That's what this PR recommends. >> 2. Do nothing. >> 3. Update the documentation to indicate the current status, >> recommending alternatives if possible. > > Number 4 is missing: find a maintainer for it. > > I would volunteer for this. But

Removing documentation (was: [Bug 206922] Handbook: Chapter 4.5+ changes)

> I am not portmgr, but do use portmaster for updating ports on systems > running STABLE or HEAD. I still see no tool which provides the features of > portmaster. I also realize that this is far from a universal opinion. Please do an honest "fly-off" between ports-mgmt/portmaster and

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/8/2016 1:29 AM, Warren Block wrote: > portmaster's one big feature has always been that it has no > dependencies. That was and is important. One of the motivators for > portmaster was portupgrade's Ruby and ruby-bdb dependencies, which often > broke upgrades. 1) poudriere is exactly the

Re: Removing documentation

On 2/8/2016 1:47 AM, Warren Block wrote: > On Sun, 7 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote: > > It is a little early to assign ulterior motives to a non-existent > maintainer for something that has not actually happened. I've seen it happen several times. I'm not accusing Torsten of thinking

Re: squid 3.5 plans

Hi Pavel, When we had 3 unmaintained squid ports, the idea was the get down to one, www/squid. The only reason www/squid33 is still in ports is because you requested an extension on it's removal due to the FreeBSD 10.1 RC issues. I personally don't want to see that contraction reversed.

Searchable database (grok) for ports package lists

A DragonFly developer (Antonio Huete, aka tuxillo) has added dports package lists to our grok application several weeks ago: http://grok.dragonflybsd.org/ As most of you know, a large percentage of ports have their package lists automatically generated, so you can't reliably grep for installed

Re: [Bug 144203] textproc/refdb: network clients loop indefinitely when hitting Ctrl-D while client asks for passowrd

On 9/9/2014 13:49, O. Hartmann wrote: In the strain of a bug I reported I also tried to fix this port, since the prior maintainer seems to have abandonded this great port. I'm a bit pissed off about the rude tune I feel treated! I don't know why you brought the contents of a PR to the

Re: Return ports www/sams

On 8/25/2014 17:55, Chris Rees wrote: On 08/25/14 14:56, zlopi wrote: Hi Bring to your attention the correct port www / sams that has all the necessary corrections for its work. Check and send to the ports. Thank you. Hello-- did you mean to send a patch? I suspect he means the

Re: Return ports www/sams

On 8/25/2014 18:40, zlopi wrote: many of my friends use sams 1.0.5 (www / sams) - but not so long ago it was deleted. Previously stated that it requires php 4 - because of what was deleted. I tested to optimize it for php 5.4 and mysql 5.5. Therefore I would like to get it back - if it is

Re: Return ports www/sams

On 8/25/2014 19:06, zlopi wrote: Are you sure that it works properly? As far as I know sams2 and did not releases. Is for developers. === Installing for sams2-2.0.0 === Checking if sams2 already installed === Registering installation for sams2-2.0.0 pkg-static:

Re: Return ports www/sams

On 8/25/2014 19:10, John Marino wrote: On 8/25/2014 19:06, zlopi wrote: Are you sure that it works properly? As far as I know sams2 and did not releases. Is for developers. === Installing for sams2-2.0.0 === Checking if sams2 already installed === Registering installation for sams2

Re: Return ports www/sams

in recent years FreeBSD - not for the better. New packages - it's good. But! Stable packages replaced by new unstable version - this is wrong. Thanks for taking your time on me. 2014-08-25 21:26 GMT+04:00 John Marino freebsd.cont...@marino.st: On 8/25/2014 19

Re: Who was the mental genius

On 6/7/2014 18:52, Paul Schmehl wrote: I've searched. There's no notice in UPDATING. There was no announcement on the ports list. I found NOTHING to warn me of this problem except other people complaining of the same problem. 8.4 went EOL in September 2012. This problem was introduced with

Re: Who was the mental genius

On 6/6/2014 05:37, Paul Schmehl wrote: Something like that would have been more than adequate. As I pointed out, the warning you get about pkgng and the 9/1/2014 deadline is perfect. It's been there for a couple of months, and it pops up ever time you do a port. If you miss that and don't

Re: Eclipse, git and source bundles

On 6/6/2014 09:31, Jonathan Chen wrote: Hi, There's an outstanding PR which brings Eclipse up to 4.3.2: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188659 Unfortunately, this has been rejected as it clones a git-repo in order to run a build. I've had a look around the 'Net, and I

Re: Who was the mental genius

On 6/6/2014 10:18, Alfred Perlstein wrote: Sure, but really a couple of lines to warn people and wave them towards next steps is probably advisable next time. Maybe we can alter the uname -a string to show the EOL so that every time the machine boots you see it on top of the MOTD. :) Of

Re: Who was the mental genius

On 6/6/2014 16:19, Paul Schmehl wrote: --On June 6, 2014 at 8:35:06 AM +0200 John Marino I have no idea why you've decided to assume the role of preacher and tell me what to do, but I can assure you that you are completely ignorant of the circumstances behind my complaints. They have

Re: Who was the mental genius

On 6/5/2014 23:43, Paul Schmehl wrote: --On June 5, 2014 at 11:18:31 PM +0200 A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven free...@skysmurf.nl wrote: Paul Schmehl wrote: That decided it was a good idea to completely break ports to force people to upgrade? You couldn't come up with a warning system instead of

Re: [FreeBSD-Announce] FreeBSD bug tracking moves from GNATS to Bugzilla

On 6/4/2014 02:34, Mark Linimon wrote: On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 01:50:23PM -0700, Eitan Adler wrote: I don't concede killing anonymous means killing trivial bug reporting, but if that was the case: Oh well, I guess we have to focus on non-trivial bugs. Trivial bugs are important too. I'll

  1   2   3   4   >