--On 12 November 2018 at 16:20:52 + Matthew Seaman
wrote:
Hi - thanks for your reply, and detailed info on ports / pkg behind the
scenes!
If it's 'quarterly' (which is the default) then you'll not get an update
until the beginning of the next quarter -- which would be the start of
J
Hi All,
How long does it usually take for an updated port (e.g. mysql56-server
which in ports is at 5.6.42) to be available as a pkg? (pkg under FBSD 11.2
is currently 5.6.41).
I had previously thought all of this was mostly automated behind-the-scenes
"magic" kind of stuff - but four week
--On 13 March 2017 13:37 +0100 Torsten Zuehlsdorff
wrote:
Aloha,
Yes: by checking the changelog. I had a fast look at it and found the
following entry from February:
=== start ===
(1) Add USES perl5 and add RUN_DEPENDS for perl modules needed by the
various perl scripts installed b
Hi,
I have two 10.3 systems - I installed opendmarc on the first, a while ago -
'make all-depends-list' shows a small list of dependencies:
/usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg
/usr/ports/mail/libspf2
On the other machine after portsnap fetch/extract it looks like I'm going
to get '1.3.1_4' - but a '
--On 21 November 2015 11:00 + Walter Schwarzenfeld
wrote:
Seems a bug. Use unbound instead of stock_resolver.
I just did that - it pulls in unbound, ldns - builds - and still fails the
install :(
===> Registering installation for opendkim-2.10.3_1
pkg-static: Unable to access fil
--On 21 November 2015 11:00 + Walter Schwarzenfeld
wrote:
Seems a bug. Use unbound instead of stock_resolver.
The only problem with that is that it pulls in and builds, ubound - rather
than using the base copy of unbound - and I'd prefer to keep the base
version (and not have both).
Hi,
I've just installed a fresh 10.2-RELEASE amd64 system,
freebsd-updated/installed (gives me p7) - then portsnap'd and tried to
install opendkim (2.10.3) - with opendbx support.
This seems to build ok - but 'make install' nets:
"
===> Registering installation for opendkim-2.10.3_1
pkg-s
--On 15 August 2014 15:59 +0200 Michael Gmelin wrote:
If it's only about two or three ports and those are leave ports (things
like nginx), mixing pkg and ports works ok in practice.
This is currently the easiest option for us - I was hoping to install the
ports, and just do 'pkg lock' to l
By letting 'pkg upgrade' complete, then running 'pkg info --all -d' I was
able to find out what package upgrade now requires an additional package
"to be INSTALLED".
(In our case memcached-1.4.20_2 pkg now requires cyrus-sasl-2.1.26_8 -
where as it didn't before).
I still can't figure out
--On 15 August 2014 12:52 +0200 Łukasz Wąsikowski
wrote:
You could solve this by using your own poudriere - create repos with
your own port's options and pkg upgrade everything. Your current
approach - mixing packages and ports - is not supported IIRC.
Thanks for the suggestion - and I ta
Hi,
We have a number of 10.x systems now - where we install packages (aka pkg
install) some components, but other components we build from ports (as we
need to add / remove options that the package gives you no choice over).
Initially 'pkg upgrade' wanted to replace the port versions with pk
--On 23 September 2010 16:49 +0400 Ruslan Mahmatkhanov
wrote:
Hi Karl,
sorry about webmail formatting.
Yeah, it certainly mangled the original mail when quoting it!
Try to add this line into port's Makefile, and then reinstall mbuffer:
CFLAGS+=-m64
See if your 'network i/o' test case
--On 22 September 2010 22:02 +0400 Ruslan Mahmatkhanov
wrote:
22.09.2010 18:06, Karl Pielorz пишет:
Please use patch attached. It updates mbuffer to latest version that has
many 64-bit related fixes. Tell if it's now ok for you.
--
Regards,
Ruslan
Hi,
The patch/updated version
Hi,
I've got the port of mbuffer (/usr/ports/misc/mbuffer) installed on a
number of machines (amd64/FreeBSD 6.4-S, 7.2-S and 8.1-R) - but it seems to
have issues...
Firstly - any attempt to use the 'network' options of it, fail miserably
(this is where mbuffer sends the data via tcp, instea
14 matches
Mail list logo
