On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:42:00 +0400
Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
> Erwin Lansing wrote on 27.10.2011 14:21:
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:44:34PM +0300, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> > What, on the other hand, makes sense is to have the fix that
> > should include:
> > a) a KNOB (WITH_FBSD10
Erwin Lansing wrote on 27.10.2011 14:21:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:44:34PM +0300, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
What, on the other hand, makes sense is to have the fix that
should include:
a) a KNOB (WITH_FBSD10_FIX or similar),
b) that only is run from bsd.port.mk when OSVERSION>100
c) runs the l
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:44:34PM +0300, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> > > > What, on the other hand, makes sense is to have the fix that
> > > > should include:
> > > > a) a KNOB (WITH_FBSD10_FIX or similar),
> > > > b) that only is run from bsd.port.mk when OSVERSION>100
> > > > c) runs the late
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
Erwin is currently running a build on i386-10 with this and the
following patches:
- bsd.port.mk patch from beat (based on ed@, jilles@ and stas@ patches)
- python patch from beat
- python patch from linimon
- WITH_FBSD10_FIX in:
- textproc/expa
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:31:36 +0300
Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:04:20 -0700
> Stanislav Sedov wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:59:38 +0300
> > Ion-Mihai Tetcu mentioned:
> >
> > > Unfortunately we don't seem to have any other way to go, for the
>
> (and yes, I hate the
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:04:20 -0700
Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:59:38 +0300
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu mentioned:
>
> > Unfortunately we don't seem to have any other way to go, for the
(and yes, I hate the idea)
> > big majority of the ports. The fix is basically identical, so it
>
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:59:38 +0300
Ion-Mihai Tetcu mentioned:
> Unfortunately we don't seem to have any other way to go, for the
> big majority of the ports. The fix is basically identical, so it
> doesn't make sense to have a zillion of patch files in a zillion of
> ports.
> What, on the other h
[ slightly reordered ]
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:31:46 +1100
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> [trimming cc list]
>
> On 2011-Oct-17 13:51:30 -0700, Stanislav Sedov
> wrote:
> >ones (like GCC). So why not commit that patch as a KNOB to
> >bsd.port.mk like it was initially proposed and let people use it in
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:01:00 -0700
Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:50:48 +0300
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu mentioned:
>
> >
> > Did you do a full run with the patch? Can you provide the list of
> > ports that aren't fixed by the patch and the exact patch you used?
> > Thanks.
> >
>
> D
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:31:46 +1100
Peter Jeremy mentioned:
> [trimming cc list]
>
> On 2011-Oct-17 13:51:30 -0700, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> >ones (like GCC). So why not commit that patch as a KNOB to bsd.port.mk like
> >it was initially proposed and let people use it in individual ports makefi
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> Once hackish work-arounds get committed, it is extremely difficult to
> root them out. The last time the project included a temporary hack to
> assist with a similar problem (the aout to ELF migration in FreeBSD
> 3), it took more than a deca
[trimming cc list]
On 2011-Oct-17 13:51:30 -0700, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
>ones (like GCC). So why not commit that patch as a KNOB to bsd.port.mk like
>it was initially proposed and let people use it in individual ports makefiles
>to fix them (and portmgr@ can commit the initial bunch of these kn
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:50:48 +0300
Ion-Mihai Tetcu mentioned:
>
> Did you do a full run with the patch? Can you provide the list of ports
> that aren't fixed by the patch and the exact patch you used? Thanks.
>
Did you? I'm not the one sitting on the cluster...
Several people provided the pat
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:50:48 +0300
Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:52:54 +
> "Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote:
>
> > On 17. Oct 2011, at 20:51 , Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I shrinked that Cc: list dramatically.
>
> Thanks; I Cc'ed all maintainers of those high-pro
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:52:54 +
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote:
> On 17. Oct 2011, at 20:51 , Stanislav Sedov wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I shrinked that Cc: list dramatically.
Thanks; I Cc'ed all maintainers of those high-profile ports.
As a new update, we're now running an other -exp with jpeg fixed.
>
On 17. Oct 2011, at 20:51 , Stanislav Sedov wrote:
Hi,
I shrinked that Cc: list dramatically.
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:35:51 +0300
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu mentioned:
>
>>
>>
>> Here's a little status update:
>> We iterated through a few -exp runs (basically for ports/161404 --
>> committed and por
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:35:51 +0300
Ion-Mihai Tetcu mentioned:
>
>
> Here's a little status update:
> We iterated through a few -exp runs (basically for ports/161404 --
> committed and ports/161431 -- skv@ any problem with it?). With those two
> we can build around 7k packages. The majority of t
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:36:03 +0200
Erwin Lansing wrote:
> Since the release has been pushed back some more since the last mail,
> we do have some time to test a possible fix for the issues we're
> seeing with libtool on FreeBSD 10.0. However, fixing libtool is only
> part of the problem as hundr
On Oct 11, 2011 5:07 PM, "Erwin Lansing" wrote:
>
> Since the release has been pushed back some more since the last mail, we
> do have some time to test a possible fix for the issues we're seeing
> with libtool on FreeBSD 10.0.
[snip]
> to move forward. Other options include the big find/grep/a
Since the release has been pushed back some more since the last mail, we
do have some time to test a possible fix for the issues we're seeing
with libtool on FreeBSD 10.0. However, fixing libtool is only part of
the problem as hundreds, if not thousands, of ports roll their own
detection and need
20 matches
Mail list logo
