From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Sun Jun 5 21:00:33 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3184B6A915 for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2016 21:00:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A360A12E1 for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2016 21:00:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id A2B57B6A913; Sun, 5 Jun 2016 21:00:33 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25F3B6A911 for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2016 21:00:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81CE112DA for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2016 21:00:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u55L01E7043750 for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2016 21:00:33 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <201606052100.u55L01E7043750@kenobi.freebsd.org> From: bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.org To: pkg@FreeBSD.org Subject: Problem reports for pkg@FreeBSD.org that need special attention Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2016 21:00:33 +0000 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2016 21:00:33 -0000 To view an individual PR, use: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=(Bug Id). The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users, which need special attention. These represent problem reports covering all versions including experimental development code and obsolete releases. Status | Bug Id | Description ------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------------- New | 193995 | [PATCH] ports-mgmt/pkg: floating point exception 1 problems total for which you should take action. From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Mon Jun 6 10:08:30 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384F7B46318 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:08:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F7D1BF3 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:08:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 266A9B46316; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:08:30 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 261FDB46313 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:08:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from portscout.freebsd.org (portscout.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A8DF1BF2 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:08:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from portscout.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.123]) by portscout.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u56A8TXo053073 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:08:29 GMT (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from portscout@localhost) by portscout.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u56A8Tqv053072; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:08:29 GMT (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <201606061008.u56A8Tqv053072@portscout.freebsd.org> X-Authentication-Warning: portscout.freebsd.org: portscout set sender to portscout@FreeBSD.org using -f Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:08:29 +0000 From: portscout@FreeBSD.org To: pkg@freebsd.org Subject: FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date X-Mailer: portscout/0.8.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 10:08:30 -0000 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, you can safely ignore the entry. You will not be e-mailed again for any of the port/version combinations below. Full details can be found at the following URL: http://portscout.freebsd.org/pkg@freebsd.org.html Port | Current version | New version ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ ports-mgmt/pkg | 1.8.4 | 1.8.99.5 ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ If any of the above results are invalid, please check the following page for details on how to improve portscout's detection and selection of distfiles on a per-port basis: http://portscout.freebsd.org/info/portscout-portconfig.txt Thanks. From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Tue Jun 7 23:21:51 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54ACBB6DD4E for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:21:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mi+oro@aldan.algebra.com) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4039619DF for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:21:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mi+oro@aldan.algebra.com) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 3F600B6DD4D; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:21:51 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3B1B6DD4C; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:21:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mi+oro@aldan.algebra.com) Received: from vms173019pub.verizon.net (vms173019pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2063019DD; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:21:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mi+oro@aldan.algebra.com) Received: from vz-proxy-m001.mx.aol.com ([64.236.83.14]) by vms173019.mailsrvcs.net (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.32.0 64bit (built Jul 16 2014)) with ESMTPA id <0O8F00IQMA3AV100@vms173019.mailsrvcs.net>; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 17:21:15 -0500 (CDT) X-CMAE-Score: 0 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=btqxfxui c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=MJxOpqxZADbEbEImuSX/mw==:117 a=pD_ry4oyNxEA:10 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=uljofl1MAAAA:8 a=HahfRWzhAAAA:8 a=d38_d_Ez1G1lvoeifw0A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=-FEs8UIgK8oA:10 a=NWVoK91CQyQA:10 a=c1E7vYm72yO_-jsBcW4A:9 a=L-15FuB1TMqBjbY-:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 Received: by 100.1.241.90 with SMTP id 06f0a695; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 22:21:15 GMT To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, pkg@FreeBSD.org From: "Mikhail T." Subject: gem, pip et al vs. pkg Message-id: Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 18:21:12 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.22 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 23:21:51 -0000 The ports tree has thousands of entries, which are simply thin wrappers around Ruby's gem or Perl's and/or Python's pip. Most of these ports conWhy do we need them? Obviously, it is primarily for other ports to be able to depend on them. But why can't we satisfy this need without creating a port for each such little package? If a port declares: RUN_DEPENDS= /foo/:gem//bar/[:/version/] why can't the /bar/-gem (with the latest or specified version) be automatically installed -- and/or registered as a dependency -- without there being a dedicated port for it? The biggest problem here is that neither Python's nor Ruby's packages are normally /signed/ (not sure about Perl's), so simply downloading them is dangerous (not that this stops all people from using them anyway). But this can be side-stepped by us maintaining a checksum file of our own -- it would still be easier and more concise to maintain such a table with one row per package, instead of an entire port-directory with multiple files in it. In the other direction, if someone were to install a Ruby gem using the gem-utility (or pip-perl, or pip-python, or even rpm), why aren't the installed files registered in the pkg's database? We have the sources for all of these utilities -- we can modify them to register the package and its files with the pkg. The changes may even be welcomed upstream, if they are abstract enough to allow registration with the Operating System's package-manager on /all/ OSes, which would bother implementing a custom backend... -mi From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Wed Jun 8 00:50:31 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31E9B6F768 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:50:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matthew@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:151:1:c4ea:bd49:619b:6cb3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk", Issuer "infracaninophile.co.uk" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 877621701 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:50:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matthew@FreeBSD.org) Received: from liminal.local (unknown [38.64.177.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C716D10233 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:50:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk; dmarc=none header.from=FreeBSD.org Authentication-Results: smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk/C716D10233; dkim=none; dkim-atps=neutral Subject: Re: gem, pip et al vs. pkg To: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org References: From: Matthew Seaman Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 20:50:18 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0I9ULP45f3koGD78XquCvOOoNOXHdaAoX" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.1 at smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 00:50:32 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --0I9ULP45f3koGD78XquCvOOoNOXHdaAoX Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="gwh7LUbhXGpp2UHNQOW1lwXhEnPj3kLmK" From: Matthew Seaman To: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: gem, pip et al vs. pkg References: In-Reply-To: --gwh7LUbhXGpp2UHNQOW1lwXhEnPj3kLmK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 07/06/2016 18:21, Mikhail T. wrote: > The biggest problem here is that neither Python's > > nor Ruby's packages are normally= > /signed/ (not sure about Perl's), so simply downloading them is > dangerous (not that this stops all people from using them anyway). But > this can be side-stepped by us maintaining a checksum file of our own -= - > it would still be easier and more concise to maintain such a table with= > one row per package, instead of an entire port-directory with multiple > files in it. Perl packages aren't normally signed either. However in all these cases I believe you can get a package checksum from an HTTPS site authenticated by certificate, which is at least better than nothing. > In the other direction, if someone were to install a Ruby gem using the= > gem-utility (or pip-perl, or pip-python, or even rpm), why aren't the > installed files registered in the pkg's database? We have the sources > for all of these utilities -- we can modify them to register the packag= e > and its files with the pkg. There's no technical reason why this couldn't be done. The lack is more down to no-one taking up the reins and pushing the project through. It used to be done for perl under the old packaging system -- remember BSDPAN? However there are a number of implementation niceties which never could be handled with the old pkg_tools: * There was a hard-wired requirement to be able map packages onto a path in the ports tree. This is no longer a big deal with pkg(8), and it may even be feasible to supply eg. an arbitrary URL as a package origin. * Recognizing that eg. a ported perl module and a module from CPAN (mutatis mutandis for other languages) are interchangeable. * Coping with dependencies other than additional modules from the same language. The ports handles this: most language specific / OS agnostic package collections do not. Functionally that means that modules with external dependencies should always be added to and installed from the ports. * Knowing how to detect the availability of updates for each of these different language specific modules. Ports doesn't at the moment have a sufficiently flexible means of specifying exactly what dependency versions could be used. For instance you can't say 'any version 1.2.x greater than 1.2.2 except for version 1.2.13 or else any version from 1.3.0 -- 1.3.x' There's more than just the three languages you mention which could benefit from this sort of treatment. Don't forget PHP/Pear modules; npm; and, not least, the granddaddy of all archive networks: TeX. Cheers, Matthew --gwh7LUbhXGpp2UHNQOW1lwXhEnPj3kLmK-- --0I9ULP45f3koGD78XquCvOOoNOXHdaAoX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJXV2vRXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2NTNBNjhCOTEzQTRFNkNGM0UxRTEzMjZC QjIzQUY1MThFMUE0MDEzAAoJELsjr1GOGkATLWcP/14XAS9D6Qsh3nB9HY42Ffe2 EC648483kEmDDTTz/zVqIqeLFQu5W3Be4kBGvWisGmFfaZydwAcgEc2/jnxdFtXF dejWKYaXnUwztgNIy52WbQP6OkU2xZBRkC7IAlBZaW6jOIW6iLNmQrsK+6PHqL30 xIpOBybfEWZD5z39CJ+9Uv6/VBn45/Y7vxEm8BpBQ+ZipgrFrv0iugeEBgP9OLgM hyi8Xt0nHvRlK2TwGt4JubA9NlWyBqAoi7CbbU2YOKayY/VLrRrherpK1zToj3vK 1zE7UAgfcHN58GYWllb9DYTPGaIfJmaj8MHN0aY4Efi1T4bJIVsy7vMq9jPD8xkz X1GkHCHaJRiF5gnLq+UhcDZUF47xJxkO5zEgcl9/2HPxVixv2yh1fzQN4k5sZNgF K8i6woQQqPT2CooSqrqb+M6o3R1Dm041vMp/Yh+27cQ5/vqlOZi3o5L4cMiU0gmp KqvxzTh5vY5VBO+XA87NiDWPoohlwHcJ5VRZXxNer4B7YKNN7Bk8emmmW5vzTDB7 BydxefVB+Ly9u8PcCpkFcYH54i+R0deiRFLZBQ2Sm4cBFU3nivFm1Keo5Ri4KSfa APL3psbcyLRzqjf2COktI0fl4xiSom6hPeOujs0cbN5mgu99Uq1LSP3QyZ19XrJF NEDg+OBVtG3YUlr3WA83 =GN96 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0I9ULP45f3koGD78XquCvOOoNOXHdaAoX-- From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Wed Jun 8 00:53:16 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E607FB6F887 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:53:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@opsec.eu) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6FDD19FF for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:53:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@opsec.eu) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id D23F3B6F886; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:53:16 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0CCB6F885; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:53:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@opsec.eu) Received: from home.opsec.eu (home.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 923DD19FE; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:53:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@opsec.eu) Received: from pi by home.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.87 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1bARkH-0003eC-1e; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 02:53:21 +0200 Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 02:53:21 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger To: "Mikhail T." Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, pkg@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: gem, pip et al vs. pkg Message-ID: <20160608005320.GQ41922@home.opsec.eu> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 00:53:17 -0000 Hi! > The ports tree has thousands of entries, which are simply thin wrappers > around Ruby's gem or Perl's and/or Python's pip. Thanks again for asking the right questions. Please add go to that list 8-} > Why do we need them? Obviously, it is primarily > for other ports to be able to depend on them. But why can't we satisfy > this need without creating a port for each such little package? Because right now the mechanism we use is the only one we have. > If a port declares: > > RUN_DEPENDS= /foo/:gem//bar/[:/version/] > > why can't the /bar/-gem (with the latest or specified version) be > automatically installed -- and/or registered as a dependency -- without > there being a dedicated port for it? We would need to mirror the language-specific dependency tracking in the ports system. While doable, it's definitly non-trivial. > In the other direction, if someone were to install a Ruby gem using the > gem-utility (or pip-perl, or pip-python, or even rpm), why aren't the > installed files registered in the pkg's database? We have the sources > for all of these utilities -- we can modify them to register the package > and its files with the pkg. > > The changes may even be welcomed upstream, if they are abstract enough > to allow registration with the Operating System's package-manager on > /all/ OSes, which would bother implementing a custom backend... Sounds valid, now someone has to implement this -- and send it upstream for each language. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 4 years to go ! From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Wed Jun 8 15:10:52 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A516B6F262 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:10:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mailinglists@toco-domains.de) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08EC61740 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:10:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mailinglists@toco-domains.de) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 0451EB6F261; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:10:52 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E1EB6F260; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:10:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mailinglists@toco-domains.de) Received: from toco-domains.de (mail.toco-domains.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:150:50a5::6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C36F8173F; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:10:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mailinglists@toco-domains.de) Received: from [0.0.0.0] (mail.toco-domains.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:150:50a5::6]) by toco-domains.de (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D00D71AAF017; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:10:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: gem, pip et al vs. pkg To: Kurt Jaeger , "Mikhail T." References: <20160608005320.GQ41922@home.opsec.eu> Cc: pkg@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org From: Torsten Zuehlsdorff Message-ID: <822149db-ba15-fa14-d5b8-530ef287bd63@toco-domains.de> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:10:49 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160608005320.GQ41922@home.opsec.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 15:10:52 -0000 On 08.06.2016 02:53, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > >> The ports tree has thousands of entries, which are simply thin wrappers >> around Ruby's gem or Perl's and/or Python's pip. > > Thanks again for asking the right questions. Please add go to that > list 8-} > >> Why do we need them? Obviously, it is primarily >> for other ports to be able to depend on them. But why can't we satisfy >> this need without creating a port for each such little package? > > Because right now the mechanism we use is the only one we have. > >> If a port declares: >> >> RUN_DEPENDS= /foo/:gem//bar/[:/version/] >> >> why can't the /bar/-gem (with the latest or specified version) be >> automatically installed -- and/or registered as a dependency -- without >> there being a dedicated port for it? > > We would need to mirror the language-specific dependency tracking > in the ports system. While doable, it's definitly non-trivial. Also it is not always language specific. Some rubygems for example requires other non-ruby software to be installed. This is handled by the ports very good - but if there is no such requirement a port is overhead. Also gems allow/need sometime specific versions - which is hard to track and keep right in the ports tree. Greetings, Torsten From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Wed Jun 8 22:33:25 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17851B6F28A for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 22:33:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (unknown [IPv6:2602:304:b010:ef20::f2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "gw.catspoiler.org", Issuer "gw.catspoiler.org" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBB4F1EB0 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 22:33:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2]) by gw.catspoiler.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u58MXHWk010878 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:33:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <201606082233.u58MXHWk010878@gw.catspoiler.org> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:33:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis Subject: pkg 1.8.4 seems to want to reintall lots of packages To: freebsd-pkg@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 22:33:25 -0000 All of the sudden, pkg seems to want to reinstall lots of packages, but it doesn't say why. # pkg upgrade Updating myrepo repository catalogue... Fetching meta.txz: 100% 260 B 0.3kB/s 00:01 Fetching packagesite.txz: 100% 363 KiB 371.4kB/s 00:01 Processing entries: 100% myrepo repository update completed. 1508 packages processed. Checking for upgrades (3 candidates): 100% Processing candidates (3 candidates): 100% The following 72 package(s) will be affected (of 0 checked): Installed packages to be UPGRADED: xterm: 324 -> 325 gnutls: 3.4.12 -> 3.4.13 chromium: 49.0.2623.112_1 -> 51.0.2704.84 Installed packages to be REINSTALLED: libXpm-3.5.11_4 xproto-7.0.28 libXext-1.3.3_1,1 libX11-1.6.3,1 libXfixes-5.0.1_3 gtk-update-icon-cache-2.24.29 pango-1.38.0_1 freetype2-2.6.3 libXft-2.3.2_1 libXrender-0.9.9 libXmu-1.1.2_3,1 libXt-1.1.5,1 libICE-1.0.9_1,1 libxml2-2.9.3 glib-2.46.2 gettext-runtime-0.19.7 indexinfo-0.2.4 expat-2.1.1 jpeg-turbo-1.4.2 gdk-pixbuf2-2.32.3_1 png-1.6.21 harfbuzz-1.2.3 cairo-1.14.6,2 fontconfig-2.11.1_2,1 desktop-file-utils-0.22_3 libdrm-2.4.66,1 libpci-3.5.1 gtk2-2.24.29_2 libXdamage-1.1.4_3 libxslt-1.1.28_8 libgcrypt-1.7.0 dbus-glib-0.104 dbus-1.8.20 icu-55.1 libXtst-1.2.2_3 libXi-1.7.6,1 libXaw-1.0.13,2 libXcursor-1.1.14_3 xdg-utils-1.1.1 libXrandr-1.5.0 gconf2-3.2.6_4 atk-2.18.0 cups-2.1.3_2 ORBit2-2.14.19_1 libIDL-0.8.14_2 nspr-4.12 libXcomposite-0.4.4_3,1 ca_root_nss-3.22.2 p11-kit-0.23.2 libtasn1-4.8 nss-3.24 snappy-1.1.3 libXScrnSaver-1.2.2_3 libgnome-keyring-3.12.0_2 nettle-3.2 libexif-0.6.21_4 dconf-0.24.0_1 flac-1.3.1_1 speech-dispatcher-0.8.3_1 speex-1.2.r2,1 webp-0.5.0 trousers-0.3.13 libidn-1.31 jsoncpp-1.7.2_1 alsa-plugins-1.1.1 alsa-lib-1.1.1_1 libevent2-2.0.22_1 droid-fonts-ttf-20131024_3 re2-20151101 It did the same thing a few days ago, when there were also only a handful of packages that needed to be upgraded. I'm using my own private repository. From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Wed Jun 8 23:04:28 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24250B6FCF2 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:04:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rcarter@pinyon.org) Received: from quine.pinyon.org (quine.pinyon.org [65.101.5.249]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01A6211E0 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:04:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rcarter@pinyon.org) Received: by quine.pinyon.org (Postfix, from userid 122) id DCB8916025B; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:56:01 -0700 (MST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on quine.pinyon.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from feyerabend.n1.pinyon.org (h5.esturion.net [65.101.5.253]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by quine.pinyon.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A33C16019D for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:55:59 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: pkg 1.8.4 seems to want to reintall lots of packages To: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org References: <201606082233.u58MXHWk010878@gw.catspoiler.org> From: "Russell L. Carter" Message-ID: <2eea4a3e-50b6-aff2-5b71-76e9734bd547@pinyon.org> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:55:59 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201606082233.u58MXHWk010878@gw.catspoiler.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 23:04:28 -0000 On 06/08/16 15:33, Don Lewis wrote: > All of the sudden, pkg seems to want to reinstall lots of packages, but > it doesn't say why. Earlier today I was having the monitor power off and then on every 30s or so under fvwm, but this pkg upgrade which I applied about an hour ago seems to have fixed it. (My upgrade list was very similar to yours.) So whatever pkg/poudriere is doing, seems not bad. YMMV, Russell > > # pkg upgrade > Updating myrepo repository catalogue... > Fetching meta.txz: 100% 260 B 0.3kB/s 00:01 > Fetching packagesite.txz: 100% 363 KiB 371.4kB/s 00:01 > Processing entries: 100% > myrepo repository update completed. 1508 packages processed. > Checking for upgrades (3 candidates): 100% > Processing candidates (3 candidates): 100% > The following 72 package(s) will be affected (of 0 checked): > > Installed packages to be UPGRADED: > xterm: 324 -> 325 > gnutls: 3.4.12 -> 3.4.13 > chromium: 49.0.2623.112_1 -> 51.0.2704.84 > > Installed packages to be REINSTALLED: > libXpm-3.5.11_4 > xproto-7.0.28 > libXext-1.3.3_1,1 > libX11-1.6.3,1 > libXfixes-5.0.1_3 > gtk-update-icon-cache-2.24.29 > pango-1.38.0_1 > freetype2-2.6.3 > libXft-2.3.2_1 > libXrender-0.9.9 > libXmu-1.1.2_3,1 > libXt-1.1.5,1 > libICE-1.0.9_1,1 > libxml2-2.9.3 > glib-2.46.2 > gettext-runtime-0.19.7 > indexinfo-0.2.4 > expat-2.1.1 > jpeg-turbo-1.4.2 > gdk-pixbuf2-2.32.3_1 > png-1.6.21 > harfbuzz-1.2.3 > cairo-1.14.6,2 > fontconfig-2.11.1_2,1 > desktop-file-utils-0.22_3 > libdrm-2.4.66,1 > libpci-3.5.1 > gtk2-2.24.29_2 > libXdamage-1.1.4_3 > libxslt-1.1.28_8 > libgcrypt-1.7.0 > dbus-glib-0.104 > dbus-1.8.20 > icu-55.1 > libXtst-1.2.2_3 > libXi-1.7.6,1 > libXaw-1.0.13,2 > libXcursor-1.1.14_3 > xdg-utils-1.1.1 > libXrandr-1.5.0 > gconf2-3.2.6_4 > atk-2.18.0 > cups-2.1.3_2 > ORBit2-2.14.19_1 > libIDL-0.8.14_2 > nspr-4.12 > libXcomposite-0.4.4_3,1 > ca_root_nss-3.22.2 > p11-kit-0.23.2 > libtasn1-4.8 > nss-3.24 > snappy-1.1.3 > libXScrnSaver-1.2.2_3 > libgnome-keyring-3.12.0_2 > nettle-3.2 > libexif-0.6.21_4 > dconf-0.24.0_1 > flac-1.3.1_1 > speech-dispatcher-0.8.3_1 > speex-1.2.r2,1 > webp-0.5.0 > trousers-0.3.13 > libidn-1.31 > jsoncpp-1.7.2_1 > alsa-plugins-1.1.1 > alsa-lib-1.1.1_1 > libevent2-2.0.22_1 > droid-fonts-ttf-20131024_3 > re2-20151101 > > It did the same thing a few days ago, when there were also only a > handful of packages that needed to be upgraded. > > I'm using my own private repository. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pkg > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pkg-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Thu Jun 9 10:48:54 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F17AAEF7FE for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:48:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vas@mpeks.tomsk.su) Received: from relay2.tomsk.ru (mail.sibptus.tomsk.ru [212.73.124.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF821AF6 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:48:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vas@mpeks.tomsk.su) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamd daemon 0.98.5_1 for FreeBSD at relay2.tomsk.ru Received: from [212.73.125.240] (HELO admin.sibptus.transneft.ru) by relay2.tomsk.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.16) with ESMTPS id 39250326 for freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 16:48:43 +0600 Received: from admin.sibptus.transneft.ru (sudakov@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by admin.sibptus.transneft.ru (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u59Amooi020263 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 17:48:50 +0700 (KRAT) (envelope-from vas@mpeks.tomsk.su) Received: (from sudakov@localhost) by admin.sibptus.transneft.ru (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id u59AmmER020262 for freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 17:48:48 +0700 (KRAT) (envelope-from vas@mpeks.tomsk.su) X-Authentication-Warning: admin.sibptus.transneft.ru: sudakov set sender to vas@mpeks.tomsk.su using -f Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 17:48:48 +0700 From: Victor Sudakov To: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Subject: Ignored: License Microsoft-exFAT needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined Message-ID: <20160609104848.GA19813@admin.sibptus.transneft.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Organization: AO "Svyaztransneft", SibPTUS X-PGP-Key: http://www.dreamwidth.org/pubkey?user=victor_sudakov X-PGP-Fingerprint: 10E3 1171 1273 E007 C2E9 3532 0DA4 F259 9B5E C634 User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 10:48:54 -0000 Dear Colleagues, Can I override this in my poudriere? Finished build of sysutils/fusefs-exfat: Ignored: License Microsoft-exFAT needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined Finished build of sysutils/exfat-utils: Ignored: License Microsoft-exFAT needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined I have already agreed to the License and am ready to sell my soul to Microsoft, now I would like to have a ready package strictly for my very own personal computers. BTW the link given in the Makefile: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/IPLicensing/Programs/exFATFileSystem.aspx is broken. -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN sip:sudakov@sibptus.tomsk.ru From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Thu Jun 9 16:58:38 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82A3B7067F for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:58:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from guru@unixarea.de) Received: from ms-10.1blu.de (ms-10.1blu.de [178.254.4.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F2871D44 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:58:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from guru@unixarea.de) Received: from [88.217.115.61] (helo=localhost.unixarea.de) by ms-10.1blu.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1bB3Ho-0005F2-Kx; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 18:58:28 +0200 Received: from localhost.my.domain (c720-r292778-amd64 [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.unixarea.de (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPS id u59GwRa1003427 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Jun 2016 18:58:27 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from guru@unixarea.de) Received: (from guru@localhost) by localhost.my.domain (8.15.2/8.14.9/Submit) id u59GwRkx003426; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 18:58:27 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from guru@unixarea.de) X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.my.domain: guru set sender to guru@unixarea.de using -f Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 18:58:27 +0200 From: Matthias Apitz To: Victor Sudakov Cc: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ignored: License Microsoft-exFAT needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined Message-ID: <20160609165827.GA3387@c720-r292778-amd64> Reply-To: Matthias Apitz References: <20160609104848.GA19813@admin.sibptus.transneft.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20160609104848.GA19813@admin.sibptus.transneft.ru> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT r292778 (amd64) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Con-Id: 51246 X-Con-U: 0-guru X-Originating-IP: 88.217.115.61 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 16:58:38 -0000 El día Thursday, June 09, 2016 a las 05:48:48PM +0700, Victor Sudakov escribió: > Dear Colleagues, > > Can I override this in my poudriere? > > Finished build of sysutils/fusefs-exfat: Ignored: License Microsoft-exFAT needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined > Finished build of sysutils/exfat-utils: Ignored: License Microsoft-exFAT needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined > Hello, You could solve this with DISABLE_LICENSES=yes in the jails make.conf matthias PS: Btw, interesting to know that the TLD .su still exists. -- Matthias Apitz, ✉ guru@unixarea.de, ⌂ http://www.unixarea.de/ ☎ +49-176-38902045 "Die Verkaufsschlager des Buchmarkts geben Auskunft über den Zustand einer Gesellschaft bzw. sind, was diese Zeiten angeht, Gradmesser fortschreitenden Schwachsinns. ..." (jW 19.05.2016) From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Fri Jun 10 09:58:18 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20813B709B8 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:58:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EA661698 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:58:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 0DFECB709AF; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:58:18 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9D9B709AE for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:58:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from portscout.freebsd.org (portscout.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0189E1697 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:58:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from portscout.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.123]) by portscout.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u5A9wHkY028004 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:58:17 GMT (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from portscout@localhost) by portscout.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u5A9wH3A028003; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:58:17 GMT (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <201606100958.u5A9wH3A028003@portscout.freebsd.org> X-Authentication-Warning: portscout.freebsd.org: portscout set sender to portscout@FreeBSD.org using -f Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:58:17 +0000 From: portscout@FreeBSD.org To: pkg@freebsd.org Subject: FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date X-Mailer: portscout/0.8.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:58:18 -0000 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, you can safely ignore the entry. You will not be e-mailed again for any of the port/version combinations below. Full details can be found at the following URL: http://portscout.freebsd.org/pkg@freebsd.org.html Port | Current version | New version ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ ports-mgmt/pkg | 1.8.5 | 1.8.99.6 ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ If any of the above results are invalid, please check the following page for details on how to improve portscout's detection and selection of distfiles on a per-port basis: http://portscout.freebsd.org/info/portscout-portconfig.txt Thanks. From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Fri Jun 10 16:46:31 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98658AD9530 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:46:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vas@mpeks.tomsk.su) Received: from relay2.tomsk.ru (mail.sibptus.tomsk.ru [212.73.124.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128E72466 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:46:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vas@mpeks.tomsk.su) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamd daemon 0.98.5_1 for FreeBSD at relay2.tomsk.ru Received: from [212.73.125.240] (HELO admin.sibptus.transneft.ru) by relay2.tomsk.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.16) with ESMTPS id 39252233; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 22:46:19 +0600 Received: from admin.sibptus.transneft.ru (sudakov@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by admin.sibptus.transneft.ru (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u5AGkQVo047124; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 23:46:26 +0700 (KRAT) (envelope-from vas@mpeks.tomsk.su) Received: (from sudakov@localhost) by admin.sibptus.transneft.ru (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id u5AGkN4p047123; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 23:46:23 +0700 (KRAT) (envelope-from vas@mpeks.tomsk.su) X-Authentication-Warning: admin.sibptus.transneft.ru: sudakov set sender to vas@mpeks.tomsk.su using -f Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 23:46:23 +0700 From: Victor Sudakov To: Matthias Apitz Cc: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ignored: License Microsoft-exFAT needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined Message-ID: <20160610164623.GA47037@admin.sibptus.transneft.ru> References: <20160609104848.GA19813@admin.sibptus.transneft.ru> <20160609165827.GA3387@c720-r292778-amd64> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160609165827.GA3387@c720-r292778-amd64> Organization: AO "Svyaztransneft", SibPTUS X-PGP-Key: http://www.dreamwidth.org/pubkey?user=victor_sudakov X-PGP-Fingerprint: 10E3 1171 1273 E007 C2E9 3532 0DA4 F259 9B5E C634 User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:46:31 -0000 Matthias Apitz wrote: > > > > Can I override this in my poudriere? > > > > Finished build of sysutils/fusefs-exfat: Ignored: License Microsoft-exFAT needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined > > Finished build of sysutils/exfat-utils: Ignored: License Microsoft-exFAT needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined > > > > > You could solve this with > > DISABLE_LICENSES=yes > > in the jails make.conf Hello Matthias, Thank you, it worked. > > matthias > > PS: Btw, interesting to know that the TLD .su still exists. With all the ridiculous new TLDs, there is no reason to kill .su They probably make good money out if it. Would you like a name in the tomsk.su zone for free? :-) -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN sip:sudakov@sibptus.tomsk.ru From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Fri Jun 10 19:15:07 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB348AD9631 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:15:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from baptiste.daroussin@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wm0-x241.google.com (mail-wm0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 709242C4B; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:15:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from baptiste.daroussin@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wm0-x241.google.com with SMTP id r5so799153wmr.0; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:15:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Ws46OLLwNSPdyBQagRHalN5O/5bula5gklsLRCuf9eU=; b=gHnIslOUWPJEizoi0Oynttos+8AjcTKlzBSTLIa1tbtpcHStPKcd1o8O3ry9xhYYLG dUmsp4td4BUbNvvkJwCYP+0nfb3S6j4Y9GSOXAnCBpFYcrrhD9xVDqY/glogU4fDt6nk a3k8LY1OmkwQSIbhLjNwlNGHA1twPQeGTQDc15gtMfBXjPcJvGqgOg/peOiL7phJLX4Y X9aPY5UxzPjp7SYofSSCFeFKTxhbPhN/YI+XABOelsfUBMutoSKmxC1snx2GJ3JWdreU lnYkUNRV2IXr5/GTUOi9j4TT4rVkeeB4hMDRjkQNUzX9LUe1HjZyEUZeFE/30Xornyqm PKDQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Ws46OLLwNSPdyBQagRHalN5O/5bula5gklsLRCuf9eU=; b=iqKUmW1mN7+aLc1aVjm+9lGR94KppGqmpWR2eSj+AAoUlshQDSJ8vq1xKDZNssYvvb dI8Ntcl8sM4hiSH3ouFivXSG7p/yHIxAwBw0fHbXDrEqe4QIHilxAhQ9OLzsxIEvE3p8 MLF8T7oUb/q/z6MLOg7l3fBTjoT59dYz2SeD2TfYOu5kPtpdE5dKYKyu1LDai12fGKI1 yQETqx1gJNIGygCRerQaxUlK39txN9HfzSZhLzAkfLHRpJwmhpQ2d1Oi0QEKcOF+kM95 J+mhOuCsyOUTX87K1b59K5MzD5JmUjQ0u86lBDNtO+/+7j3yFYNXE7bgh7vqz+8YhNbc J60A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKE0NKYbjNutJsJDvYlZX59H1Qf+tvb2PP5qhYaOgu7Afl3xhh4NgfLGPSfINAPiw== X-Received: by 10.28.37.195 with SMTP id l186mr500541wml.23.1465586105828; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ivaldir.etoilebsd.net ([2001:41d0:8:db4c::1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id dd7sm13720271wjb.22.2016.06.10.12.15.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Baptiste Daroussin Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 21:15:04 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Don Lewis Cc: freebsd-pkg@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: pkg 1.8.4 seems to want to reintall lots of packages Message-ID: <20160610191504.mkkcufwes426pt7f@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> References: <201606082233.u58MXHWk010878@gw.catspoiler.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="y6i5t24hf4nli3b6" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201606082233.u58MXHWk010878@gw.catspoiler.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1-neo (2016-05-23) X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:15:08 -0000 --y6i5t24hf4nli3b6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 03:33:17PM -0700, Don Lewis wrote: > All of the sudden, pkg seems to want to reinstall lots of packages, but > it doesn't say why. >=20 > # pkg upgrade > Updating myrepo repository catalogue... > Fetching meta.txz: 100% 260 B 0.3kB/s 00:01 =20 > Fetching packagesite.txz: 100% 363 KiB 371.4kB/s 00:01 =20 > Processing entries: 100% > myrepo repository update completed. 1508 packages processed. > Checking for upgrades (3 candidates): 100% > Processing candidates (3 candidates): 100% > The following 72 package(s) will be affected (of 0 checked): >=20 Fixed in 1.8.5, it was reinstalling some reverse dependencies sorry about t= hat Bapt --y6i5t24hf4nli3b6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXWxG2AAoJEGOJi9zxtz5aI/0QALHl0ucfXJYmtyBG1QPicZhP 3DvBH2bNeGkTU/gENGfJR1twTqXNcyrrZatjomrNzJJRwu5SvwOicjJ3DS5aeHh4 txFm4kcDNrb5APg3vjyrTYc5n+KNxmsBiOrKgiUHGgDn7shuhE5BKf6IwAiMf8Fu whQqNkAs2eu92y+ijJey2HXV/x5BQNRGW29MfZw1ytD1403vXSljCQ29AoTz760T 27FTevRkeq4L4mxGEEUzTSgFkCzqBRaqW1muQ06MtDSTw44pXQUtdYRyzQeooqEB ajpLH3oQghhHxplp/Yx4kPHcmeqEAlcGhl/R+I0M9uJMHy87ZiKMiJPTr46hJR40 rkEfvdvwP5RUduumCi6vI1qEVQstnoolL8DrjYGeIKpCF+PJE9hhytjNi3ufVyey HBkPEERdevTq4V17U8mUqPLKXvLvRv+kJBPFV7hE4Bw16kS7iued9paHnvhHWIAK UWt7fbVAwKLxGHgCgHwnCf31UfPPEpS2sj/j2dg8gIcN9hRIEUQjJGo0fnCLAdSl f4ggRF1Ze0d2WlJXYb078K16eKJKtZmj2MLGDhszACdQMuUyHcVd9wEe1bBF/kck KQuxO853VNHshu3aBGyOEV1HTCYHsd6GLPjCqaRpgVYiB8wDJJoCTZcQlA36dSdP +UH8vF7TT22I7binlev4 =A1V9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --y6i5t24hf4nli3b6-- From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Sat Jun 11 03:31:10 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D5FAEF012; Sat, 11 Jun 2016 03:31:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lifanov@mail.lifanov.com) Received: from mail.lifanov.com (mail.lifanov.com [206.125.175.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76A1A22C0; Sat, 11 Jun 2016 03:31:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lifanov@mail.lifanov.com) Received: from app.lifanov.com (chat.lifanov.com [206.125.175.13]) by mail.lifanov.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id AB55323AA3B; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 23:24:46 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 23:24:46 -0400 From: Nikolai Lifanov To: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Cc: owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org, freebsd-pkg-request@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ignored: License Microsoft-exFAT needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75d009d72d1a2a1a02ce11c7a6c257e7@mail.lifanov.com> X-Sender: lifanov@mail.lifanov.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.1.5 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 03:31:10 -0000 On 2016-06-09 08:00, freebsd-pkg-request@freebsd.org wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > Can I override this in my poudriere? > > Finished build of sysutils/fusefs-exfat: Ignored: License > Microsoft-exFAT needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined > Finished build of sysutils/exfat-utils: Ignored: License > Microsoft-exFAT needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined > > I have already agreed to the License and am ready to sell my soul to > Microsoft, now I would like to have a ready package strictly for my > very own personal computers. > > BTW the link given in the Makefile: > http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/IPLicensing/Programs/exFATFileSystem.aspx > is broken. > I'm not sure if anyone got back to you yet. You can use LICENSES_ACCEPTED in poudriere make.conf snippets. For example, I have this for my workstation: LICENSES_ACCEPTED=Microsoft-exFAT EULA > -- > Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN > sip:sudakov@sibptus.tomsk.ru > >