From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Jul 28 00:10:37 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB071C4E7A for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 00:10:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from starikarp@dismail.de) Received: from mx1.dismail.de (mx1.dismail.de [78.46.223.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx1.dismail.de", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DFE073C15 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 00:10:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from starikarp@dismail.de) Received: from dismail.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 9a464cf0 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 02:03:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2.dismail.de (10.240.26.12 [10.240.26.12]) by mx1.dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id cea655a8 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 02:03:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2.dismail.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id c0e3a8a7 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 02:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 0c286a01 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO) for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 02:03:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 20:03:35 -0400 From: To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Massive PORTS_REVISION bump after making gcc-9.1 default Message-ID: <20190727200335.5fa82409@dismail.de> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; amd64-portbld-freebsd12.0) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 3DFE073C15 X-Spamd-Bar: ------- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-7.74 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[dismail.de:s=201701]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; IP_SCORE(-2.76)[ip: (-9.91), ipnet: 78.46.0.0/15(-2.08), asn: 24940(-1.82), country: DE(-0.01)]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:78.46.223.134]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; DWL_DNSWL_LOW(-1.00)[dismail.de.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.1]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[dismail.de:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[dismail.de,reject]; FROM_NO_DN(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[mx2.dismail.de,mx1.dismail.de]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.86)[-0.865,0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:78.46.0.0/15, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[134.223.46.78.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.1] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 00:10:37 -0000 On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 16:26:51 -0700 Kevin Oberman wrote: > Today I was hit with 226 ports needing update. With one exception, > all were the result of the bump or the default gcc version to 9.1. > The problem is that 9.1 was not installed first, so over 43 of these > ports were rebuilt with the exact same compiler it was built with > before the rebuild, eating up 2:45 of time on my build system. I'm > sure if was less for many as my build system is over 8 years old. It > was non-trivial in any case. >=20 > Should an install of gcc9 preceded all updates? Perhaps a note in > UPDATING? I certainly looked there before I started when I saw 226 > ports in the list. >=20 > Should I rebuild the ports that were rebuilt prior to the > installation of gcc-9.1? > -- > Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer > E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com > PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" I had the same problem and some ports I rebuilt again. They should put something in /usr/ports/UPDATING. --=20 =E2=80=9CHungry man, reach for the book: it is a weapon.=E2=80=9D=20 =E2=80=95 Bertolt Brecht From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Jul 28 09:14:34 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53710A6B93 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 09:14:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from hamza.pair.com (hamza.pair.com [209.68.5.143]) (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 5BAD68CEB4 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 09:14:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from hamza.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA2A33F27; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 05:14:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from anthias (unknown [178.114.243.240]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E6A833F26; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 05:14:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 11:14:21 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Kevin Oberman cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Massive PORTS_REVISION bump after making gcc-9.1 default In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5BAD68CEB4 X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of gerald@pfeifer.com designates 209.68.5.143 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gerald@pfeifer.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.31 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.992,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a:hamza.pair.com]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[pfeifer.com]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: mailwash29.pair.com]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[143.5.68.209.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.10.0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.87)[-0.869,0]; IP_SCORE(-2.14)[ip: (-7.85), ipnet: 209.68.0.0/18(-1.68), asn: 7859(-1.11), country: US(-0.05)]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7859, ipnet:209.68.0.0/18, country:US]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 09:14:34 -0000 On Sat, 27 Jul 2019, Kevin Oberman wrote: > Today I was hit with 226 ports needing update. With one exception, all > were the result of the bump or the default gcc version to 9.1. The > problem is that 9.1 was not installed first, so over 43 of these ports > were rebuilt with the exact same compiler it was built with before the > rebuild This feels a bit like a deja vu? Wasn't there a similar issue last year, with the update from GCC 7 to GCC 8 (or an earlier one)? And wasn't one finding back then that there was a bug in the tool you used to update/build your ports tree? I just double checked, and r507371 | gerald | 2019-07-26 20:35:21 +0000 (Fr., 26 Juli 2019) | 7 lines Update the default version of GCC as pulled in via USE_GCC=yes and a myriad of other ways from GCC 8 (8.3 right now) to GCC 9 (9.1 right now). landed in the tree directly before the PORT_REVISION bump you are referring to, so lang/gcc9 *should* have been installed first and then used to rebuild all those bumped ports. > Should an install of gcc9 preceded all updates? Yes. > Perhaps a note in UPDATING? I certainly looked there before I started > when I saw 226 ports in the list. UPDATING is described as This file documents some of the problems you may encounter when upgrading your ports. We try our best to minimize these disruptions, but sometimes they are unavoidable. and the update of the default version of GCC in the ports tree should not be, nor cause, problems worth documenting there. For example, most of the updates to Firefox are not mentioned there, either. > Should I rebuild the ports that were rebuilt prior to the installation > of gcc-9.1? If you want to have a consistent system, and be in line with what the majority of users will have, then yes, I'd recommend that. Gerald From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Jul 28 14:06:08 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CACC2AC242 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:06:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from se@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC6FB96513; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:06:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from se@freebsd.org) Received: from Stefans-MacBook-Pro-402.local (ip-109-41-65-143.web.vodafone.de [109.41.65.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: se/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 338EF7F34; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:06:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from se@freebsd.org) Subject: Re: Massive PORTS_REVISION bump after making gcc-9.1 default To: Kevin Oberman References: From: Stefan Esser Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=se@freebsd.org; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFVxiRIBCADOLNOZBsqlplHUQ3tG782FNtVT33rQli9EjNt2fhFERHIo4NxHlWBpHLnU b0s4L/eItx7au0i7Gegv01A9LUMwOnAc9EFAm4EW3Wmoa6MYrcP7xDClohg/Y69f7SNpEs3x YATBy+L6NzWZbJjZXD4vqPgZSDuMcLU7BEdJf0f+6h1BJPnGuwHpsSdnnMrZeIM8xQ8PPUVQ L0GZkVojHgNUngJH6e21qDrud0BkdiBcij0M3TCP4GQrJ/YMdurfc8mhueLpwGR2U1W8TYB7 4UY+NLw0McThOCLCxXflIeF/Y7jSB0zxzvb/H3LWkodUTkV57yX9IbUAGA5RKRg9zsUtABEB AAG0J1N0ZWZhbiBFw59lciAoRnJlZUJTRCkgPHNlQGZyZWVic2Qub3JnPokBVAQTAQoAPgIb AwULCQgHAwUVCgkICwUWAwIBAAIeAQIXgBYhBKNx6mWcC+zIK3FTE0frte9a/fVEBQJa8u+q BQkLJQETAAoJEEfrte9a/fVEOeMH/icmdK1eZQvB3U8quJo9VMaZsaTuCMbUE4NThyfsIvIm MCd+rb/yULmMYwqNfjyKB1x4ikR4x+94l+yJoz7K0Usks+eNKDmMGJM6pWWssTigaJubFdVd hVVC+C1QJi7JshYSib08uONoPmO4lv5Az0TDYGtsMzsES2sIlc62c9go5WPGYhQFRbX3Lk6y V6m8OHh+G9XGSj3oPO4UteRwu+SzTdOLunZBWG1wu34+IeZm663D+2gOppQLWpLa2qaTerqw THu377ayZ2B2LPJ5JkvkZeHYPkwDQ+b5PGn0UhfkxPnDVYki5F7qKxvQ5uq1/q9YaCX7mmOl H2yO7tgVsrW5AQ0EVXGJEgEIALEj9qCXMZVucjpcd3QxM/TlUr98m5viEd1z4tCnPUyRWcIC EVtj2h5xMH+2iB0q1+KWhq+NsWtvScmEmfHnsr7dJ1K677OdpDhKVaJk61eeRulFY1R4yb6C 1MMxK+WgYB+vvpG0UeyR0M4uBewcPvRsq4yGUHFQKtLAbMdoPTSryJA+ElnmK1vdY+rPcHgi OIMBZM7ahsPXC0C9K4e5SP9clGyIoMpbfHXdx9q+Rp3zVtlbhyk3BS/xccu/+9pk9ICXL6GR js2sNnJ0wxdU1DsAlC59a5MnSruwiZFwRnkQhr3x6wk97Lg7sLS9jjTnCN7LGlVmSmpOEMy6 uq1AWfUAEQEAAYkBPAQYAQoAJgIbDBYhBKNx6mWcC+zIK3FTE0frte9a/fVEBQJa8u+rBQkL JQEZAAoJEEfrte9a/fVEuesH/2DNxGWnHvWwMyiyhlQtafvDKwEn/wAgR8gHJFodB7emf8rA TnukH7MVttCoHtjN5lvv9RSBHjNTZls5wR/ANlwdRuPQHd8ZGxLe3S6IuUB3zDSwFltLGurO N2kOMhs5mTGyypSa+uw3rtQbUAVYf1oPbiR4FLtiM8FLyEvE95hX5fPq9Qvx9FmN79kmCIEw jDKPqDaUf/OR2fEF0LSIbXHEk4tNqCEwx5DIJ0fp5/z5UzICUAmwxyRs5O/Hre1jzPsMVyud Ml9t7UTOJGKVWwRory1PMnOFxN+iz5/d4FhYSKXF7kfMiFgol4LuWaxJRwbBrr71VGBrRy2a L1nw6Bc= Cc: FreeBSD Ports ML , gerald@freebsd.org Message-ID: <8cf76d79-3a08-7703-d2a8-f6605438dd8a@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 16:06:00 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: AC6FB96513 X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.97 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.994,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.97)[-0.974,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11403, ipnet:2610:1c1:1::/48, country:US] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:06:08 -0000 Am 28.07.19 um 01:26 schrieb Kevin Oberman: > Today I was hit with 226 ports needing update. With one exception, all were > the result of the bump or the default gcc version to 9.1. The problem is > that 9.1 was not installed first, so over 43 of these ports were rebuilt > with the exact same compiler it was built with before the rebuild, eating > up 2:45 of time on my build system. I'm sure if was less for many as my > build system is over 8 years old. It was non-trivial in any case. Which port management tool did you use to rebuild the updated ports? I just checked what portmaster does, and it appears to build gcc-9.1 before starting to update ports that depend on it. It was the 78th port out of 653 out-dated ports (most of them due to a bumped port revision because of the gcc update), and I checked with "make all-depends-list" that none of the first 77 ports depended on gcc ... > Should an install of gcc9 preceded all updates? Perhaps a note in UPDATING? > I certainly looked there before I started when I saw 226 ports in the list. Updating required build tools before ports that require them should be automatic, if a tool like portmaster, portupgrade or poudriere is used. Regards, STefan From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Jul 28 17:21:00 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E622AFF8C for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 17:21:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ot1-x32e.google.com (mail-ot1-x32e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 555CE6E974; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 17:20:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: by mail-ot1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id s20so60267805otp.4; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 10:20:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fcVbg4I29W4i6JbArTgAg6ytZsCiC4IuGofkabvDSCQ=; b=GaQP3TkmZnBZREZpuyXLUIV6d9/XEZauS5m+QC1LJR4drTSHrfQzFYVtZ1fV1zBeDq dz2yROMrWzkiPukvagixtnXolDnbi/fKX3hpMIevTx8m7Z1+tmowebW0BAEPsf2YrXKe kSGYklQngzPZ+bQWodP9i4xPd4TgYg6PYhM8IiU9nNFFhVF7WXeSq3Sdf8yCUG00xyYz T/cmCL4cAzOKbv1oyaAyxcHFu+wO9hz5qzKBG0/0ujPIYNEeaY0k5PrAbE//g0q/Ug1u g/Sm+wXjxRSaKPwjM07a7M8LIac2AtaLl+UyVqnHOrvfYlYCNYNJnUi3M90ut5+MxMS0 aJkg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fcVbg4I29W4i6JbArTgAg6ytZsCiC4IuGofkabvDSCQ=; b=SD35JaZzFG1SOptV07BOOJP7ihd5Ju5YcjiKd2JQ28l/f7QOR21Teq826yllqnVlca 6TYeJkw6Y5l4snEuLEdMFcLURqZPe/0bhd7Y7QjHnV3d3ofraScsvIl3j0Yt3PVM+cBN +A+qZXNIUXIGAfiJT8EdLc72VA+0VTRjCmMOyDP0n7vBxyp0DQgpT3pAKgMUT+PJC4Eb 5x0sF5RYjPfNZLqUZX6c3v+3sO3mEMf/Eu2nJqx7RxmMHXvcM4x2nTKwHcyBqzT5Ic+T UBc03FX7LbM5kWVkdVGqcm3tllBS0egaoAHMylTP2M32KaP0tCStWFX0fL7I3Ny5OiUp d5bQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWnqMsc5qVqjHdEnpX6RlCqs1UY0+ZTbTqlT4NwgGDUUF4xkuyi StDEXsURBQSZ0TvA1HZa4mAJC6CGJfgTBSB22s6+Uiih X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyd8T+SIEXr8pPUp/xRsJC/bg/HOnnpkI4Q0igHBUjhVtjgcYARSyMWRU9J2tWw8APVUfISB6Vbd3Td4rPb3P0= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4809:: with SMTP id c9mr17734737otf.199.1564334457975; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 10:20:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8cf76d79-3a08-7703-d2a8-f6605438dd8a@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <8cf76d79-3a08-7703-d2a8-f6605438dd8a@freebsd.org> From: Kevin Oberman Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 10:20:39 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Massive PORTS_REVISION bump after making gcc-9.1 default To: Stefan Esser Cc: FreeBSD Ports ML , gerald@freebsd.org X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 555CE6E974 X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=GaQP3Tkm; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of kob6558@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::32e as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kob6558@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.58 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.98)[-0.980,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.96)[-0.962,0]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[gmail.com.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: alt3.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[gmail.com,none]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[e.2.3.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; IP_SCORE(-2.92)[ip: (-9.04), ipnet: 2607:f8b0::/32(-3.09), asn: 15169(-2.44), country: US(-0.05)]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[rkoberman@gmail.com,kob6558@gmail.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[rkoberman@gmail.com,kob6558@gmail.com]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 17:21:00 -0000 On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 7:06 AM Stefan Esser wrote: > Am 28.07.19 um 01:26 schrieb Kevin Oberman: > > Today I was hit with 226 ports needing update. With one exception, all > were > > the result of the bump or the default gcc version to 9.1. The problem is > > that 9.1 was not installed first, so over 43 of these ports were rebuilt > > with the exact same compiler it was built with before the rebuild, eating > > up 2:45 of time on my build system. I'm sure if was less for many as my > > build system is over 8 years old. It was non-trivial in any case. > > Which port management tool did you use to rebuild the updated ports? > > I just checked what portmaster does, and it appears to build gcc-9.1 > before starting to update ports that depend on it. > > It was the 78th port out of 653 out-dated ports (most of them due to > a bumped port revision because of the gcc update), and I checked with > "make all-depends-list" that none of the first 77 ports depended on > gcc ... > > > Should an install of gcc9 preceded all updates? Perhaps a note in > UPDATING? > > I certainly looked there before I started when I saw 226 ports in the > list. > > Updating required build tools before ports that require them should > be automatic, if a tool like portmaster, portupgrade or poudriere is > used. > > Regards, STefan > I used "portmaster -a". The problem is that all ports compiled with gcc had PORTREVISION bumped. Most do not have a run-time dependency on gcc. I am pretty sure that gcc9 was updated prior to the build of any port that did have a run dependency, but that is a tiny minority of the ports that had PORTREVISION bumped. It deems likely that the code generated by gcc9 will be different from that generated by gcc8 and I admit that I lack the expertise to know whether this really justifies a port rebuild. The description of the commit states: This includes ports - with USE_GCC=yes or USE_GCC=any, - with USES=fortran, - using Mk/bsd.octave.mk which in turn features USES=fortran, and - with USES=compiler specifying openmp, nestedfct, c11, c++0x, c++11-lang, c++11-lib, c++14-lang, c++17-lang, or gcc-c++11-lib plus, everything INDEX-11 shows with a dependency on lang/gcc9 now. This would appear to me like it did catch a great many ports which are not build with or any anything to do will gcc, though I am not sure. E.g. I thought that USES=compiler:c11 and similar were asking for c11 semantics from whatever compiler was used but, again, I am not familiar enough with compilers to be clear on this. My days of serious coding ended back to the 80s and were generally focused on assembly language and several languages which have not been used this century. So, do I really need to re-install audio/faac which has "USES=compiler:c11 "? I seriously doubt it, but I'm just not sure, which is why I asked. -- Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683 From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Jul 28 18:04:16 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F4E6B0B1B for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:04:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) Received: from smtp.rcn.com (smtp.rcn.com [69.168.97.78]) (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 BF4936FF43 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:04:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; d=rcn.com; s=20180516; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@rcn.com; t=1564335847; h=From:Subject:Date:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=6NOzroS9tV/9GSqldnd8papVyoU=; b=nsl85APIh4BLdwtZtUSUSDEBvPnF93thKzTIVIj/EFZaEYvVEAARSMhee7wKypyx BYneDchES/J/Ew6iJz3DXTnZccAI9bSO0CfTiQVf+lRp6umLqUg9iJMGN292EV8g dY2kWPV90z12SShW4v++MIKI6IvLbNs8jHoqudu1cs4QJD8lXk+OvTIQ8SjI+WK/ KTIUfad01cHDceeGBpIY8IOGVuDxbJf8p3nGK1QQ/i44oU+aNaFhtSQMyX1EKvOl 9/RnjtUp0KIUGqjKzIfevBEGwRtMBjAKrAL4iFj4LrJBEuuQsNzPoTw7CYnhWiqM NEmMnbqeW2+IWurLpUxytg==; X_CMAE_Category: , , X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=cN+eTWWN c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=9TgA2UwI6Wy+6BV4wQM/cQ==:117 a=9TgA2UwI6Wy+6BV4wQM/cQ==:17 a=jpOVt7BSZ2e4Z31A5e1TngXxSK0=:19 a=KGjhK52YXX0A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=XRQyMpdBKAEA:10 a=0o9FgrsRnhwA:10 a=48faUk6PgeAA:10 a=MxGpSsue1iYi7BuGapYA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 X-CM-Score: 0 X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine X-Authed-Username: cm9iZXJ0aHVmZkByY24uY29t Authentication-Results: smtp01.rcn.cmh.synacor.com header.from=roberthuff@rcn.com; sender-id=softfail Authentication-Results: smtp01.rcn.cmh.synacor.com smtp.user=roberthuff; auth=pass (PLAIN) Received: from [209.6.230.48] ([209.6.230.48:24940] helo=jerusalem.litteratus.org.litteratus.org) by smtp.rcn.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.6.25.56547 r(Core:3.6.25.0)) with ESMTPSA (cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384) id 6F/F4-18345-6EEDD3D5; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 13:44:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <23869.57059.335146.210076@jerusalem.litteratus.org> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 13:44:03 -0400 From: Robert Huff To: Stefan Esser Cc: Kevin Oberman , gerald@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Ports ML Subject: Re: Massive PORTS_REVISION bump after making gcc-9.1 default In-Reply-To: <8cf76d79-3a08-7703-d2a8-f6605438dd8a@freebsd.org> References: <8cf76d79-3a08-7703-d2a8-f6605438dd8a@freebsd.org> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 26.2 (amd64-portbld-freebsd13.0) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: BF4936FF43 X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=rcn.com header.s=20180516 header.b=nsl85API; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=rcn.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of roberthuff@rcn.com designates 69.168.97.78 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=roberthuff@rcn.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.88 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[rcn.com:s=20180516]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.997,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:69.168.97.0/24]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; IP_SCORE(-1.84)[ip: (-9.38), ipnet: 69.168.97.0/24(-0.15), asn: 36271(0.40), country: US(-0.05)]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_LOW(-1.00)[rcn.com.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.1]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[rcn.com:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[rcn.com,none]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[mx.rcn.com]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.93)[-0.934,0]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[78.97.168.69.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.1]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:36271, ipnet:69.168.97.0/24, country:US]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[gmail.com]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:04:16 -0000 Stefan Esser writes: > Am 28.07.19 um 01:26 schrieb Kevin Oberman: > > Today I was hit with 226 ports needing update. With one > > exception, all were the result of the bump or the default gcc > > version to 9.1. The problem is that 9.1 was not installed first, > > so over 43 of these ports were rebuilt with the exact same > > compiler it was built with before the rebuild, eating up 2:45 of > > time on my build system. I'm sure if was less for many as my > > build system is over 8 years old. It was non-trivial in any case. > > Which port management tool did you use to rebuild the updated ports? > > I just checked what portmaster does, and it appears to build gcc-9.1 > before starting to update ports that depend on it. This matches my experience - ports tree updated starting 00:00:01 Saturday, build started eight hours later. Respectfully, Robert Huff From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Jul 28 18:56:49 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BDF4B1995 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:56:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from hamza.pair.com (hamza.pair.com [209.68.5.143]) (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 A813D71CBF; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:56:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from hamza.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33AD834000; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:56:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from anthias (unknown [178.114.243.240]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A4AA33FFF; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:56:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 20:56:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Kevin Oberman cc: Stefan Esser , FreeBSD Ports ML Subject: Re: Massive PORTS_REVISION bump after making gcc-9.1 default In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <8cf76d79-3a08-7703-d2a8-f6605438dd8a@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A813D71CBF X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of gerald@pfeifer.com designates 209.68.5.143 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gerald@pfeifer.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.31 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.993,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a:hamza.pair.com]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[pfeifer.com]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[mailwash29.pair.com]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.83)[-0.831,0]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[143.5.68.209.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.10.0]; IP_SCORE(-2.17)[ip: (-7.93), ipnet: 209.68.0.0/18(-1.74), asn: 7859(-1.14), country: US(-0.05)]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7859, ipnet:209.68.0.0/18, country:US]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:56:49 -0000 On Sun, 28 Jul 2019, Kevin Oberman wrote: > The description of the commit states: > > This includes ports > - with USE_GCC=yes or USE_GCC=any, > - with USES=fortran, > - using Mk/bsd.octave.mk which in turn features USES=fortran, and > - with USES=compiler specifying openmp, nestedfct, c11, c++0x, c++11-lang, > c++11-lib, c++14-lang, c++17-lang, or gcc-c++11-lib > plus, everything INDEX-11 shows with a dependency on lang/gcc9 now. > > This would appear to me like it did catch a great many ports which are > not build with or any anything to do will gcc, though I am not sure. These ports may not use GCC on your system, or even the majority of systems, but there are systems and situations where they do, and bumping PORTREVISION is a global binary decision for each port considered. > E.g. I thought that USES=compiler:c11 and similar were asking for > c11 semantics from whatever compiler was used but Let's look at your example. ports/Mk/Uses/compiler.mk has the following on USES=compiler:c11: .if ${_COMPILER_ARGS:Mc11} .if !${COMPILER_FEATURES:Mc11} .if (defined(FAVORITE_COMPILER) && ${FAVORITE_COMPILER} == gcc) || (${ARCH} != amd64 && ${ARCH} != i386) # clang not always supported on Tier-2 USE_GCC= yes CHOSEN_COMPILER_TYPE= gcc .elif ${COMPILER_TYPE} == gcc That is, if a user has set a preference for GCC or for non x86/x86-64 platforms, GCC is used. And if there is one legitimate configuration on the planet where a PORTREVISION bump is required, we have to perform it in our repository. (This is not saying I may not have made a mistake somewhere, but in general those bumps do appear necessary.) Gerald From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Jul 28 19:12:16 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC4C9B1EA3 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:12:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from phascolarctos@protonmail.ch) Received: from mail2.protonmail.ch (mail2.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.protonmail.ch", Issuer "SwissSign Server Silver CA 2014 - G22" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFAA6726A0 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:12:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from phascolarctos@protonmail.ch) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:11:58 +0000 To: FreeBSD Ports From: Lorenzo Salvadore Reply-To: Lorenzo Salvadore Subject: Re: Massive PORTS_REVISION bump after making gcc-9.1 default Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <8cf76d79-3a08-7703-d2a8-f6605438dd8a@freebsd.org> Feedback-ID: X6az_D2smWSR8MT5MHqXnWF0upxehDyHia7Id1cbayHNBUkRu3CIeusDsZHiivIIjmaKB1_OofpALrRUYjNz3w==:Ext:ProtonMail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=7.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on mail.protonmail.ch X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: DFAA6726A0 X-Spamd-Bar: ------- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-7.48 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[phascolarctos@protonmail.ch]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[protonmail.ch:s=default]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:185.70.40.0/24]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; IP_SCORE(-3.71)[ip: (-9.70), ipnet: 185.70.40.0/24(-4.90), asn: 19905(-3.91), country: US(-0.05)]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.986,0]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[mailsec.protonmail.ch,mail.protonmail.ch]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[protonmail.ch:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[protonmail.ch,quarantine]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.68)[-0.675,0]; RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[22.40.70.185.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.1]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:19905, ipnet:185.70.40.0/24, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[protonmail.ch.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:12:16 -0000 =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me= ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 On Sunday 28 July 2019 20:56, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > > The description of the commit states: > > This includes ports > > > > - with USE_GCC=3Dyes or USE_GCC=3Dany, > > - with USES=3Dfortran, > > - using Mk/bsd.octave.mk which in turn features USES=3Dfortran, and > > - with USES=3Dcompiler specifying openmp, nestedfct, c11, c++0x, c++1= 1-lang, > > c++11-lib, c++14-lang, c++17-lang, or gcc-c++11-lib > > plus, everything INDEX-11 shows with a dependency on lang/gcc9 now. > > > > > > This would appear to me like it did catch a great many ports which are > > not build with or any anything to do will gcc, though I am not sure. > > These ports may not use GCC on your system, or even the majority of > systems, but there are systems and situations where they do, and bumping > PORTREVISION is a global binary decision for each port considered. > > > E.g. I thought that USES=3Dcompiler:c11 and similar were asking for > > c11 semantics from whatever compiler was used but > > Let's look at your example. ports/Mk/Uses/compiler.mk has the following > on USES=3Dcompiler:c11: > > .if ${_COMPILER_ARGS:Mc11} > .if !${COMPILER_FEATURES:Mc11} > .if (defined(FAVORITE_COMPILER) && ${FAVORITE_COMPILER} =3D=3D gcc) || > (${ARCH} !=3D amd64 && ${ARCH} !=3D i386) # clang not always supported on= Tier-2 > USE_GCC=3D yes > CHOSEN_COMPILER_TYPE=3D gcc > .elif ${COMPILER_TYPE} =3D=3D gcc > > That is, if a user has set a preference for GCC or for non x86/x86-64 > platforms, GCC is used. > > And if there is one legitimate configuration on the planet where a > PORTREVISION bump is required, we have to perform it in our repository. > > (This is not saying I may not have made a mistake somewhere, but in > general those bumps do appear necessary.) > > Gerald It might be useful to add a command to pkg that bumps PORTREVISION for installed packages without really building them again, for those cases when users know that they are not affected by the bump. I think at the moment this is possible only by manually modifying /var/db/pkg/local.sqlite (I never tried). Lorenzo Salvadore. From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Jul 28 20:04:42 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F0D1B2C65 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 20:04:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ot1-x334.google.com (mail-ot1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::334]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF172747E4 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 20:04:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: by mail-ot1-x334.google.com with SMTP id j11so3195090otp.10 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 13:04:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hwQPW6EXdazedUCY8LPlcSS84/9KU/tHVSaDdFPzkn4=; b=pPDL4uh1H/clDRINuZywi70fny3L747qAHUuhwgHT/diuKTgtSJe0skS6sJgcTGrg5 WTHuPK9L7emHjp1LO4Lr7XPUpJudQZcD/QrOs4X41UKTPQE3Ch+sOQtd4gm7rm6NJeKn At9ooxYBL6utW2TAgl/WWFm3wNY0H7q+WEmTSjx5vOU2aQeKgTX305yEbMAn40ty+p2o 0kzNnA36BUviSdNIifgevM3OoC1VqEN8gg1h4RaUDph31CfX/QJ3Gacpy+0/cysbG9U1 NMBTavV2TUtajipnjYlxauncWIxdRT6HndTFNTc2auC0keZNjmhSvVjH2QCC1ytVUKwc 3HYA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hwQPW6EXdazedUCY8LPlcSS84/9KU/tHVSaDdFPzkn4=; b=KeZxLKsxK5wX16NPI8ispBEZ/dA4JYg0rKPO/555kt/rksHywyHZE9MSehgIxCbTT2 iDRLVrnv+618quMpJevRYTa+Xfr9ukGqOZDv11tjiTMosPz2DUN7Uf38qNx4xku4ui1u dZpiDFATEZ6MC2MW8ef1n19mBc7sciQ8oY2Ag+RhRwavThPP0No8LseCCcm31ciFmfO/ A8TE20oLmz/FfIQyL1wBEuiMyczFguNezj0XfN/RyLSJD3gGEsqK/UHRtoQckKoG6fTd h7h+FxzldUrtPv2Scevf5JY1TRL7QyHQVsi/BjjF15glKNQZjb5SKg7HvPW2Ls6KAqcD 1H1Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXLMcA6BFCMp9mg0ULZSkrZsafmpKP52lDHOijECUtgSShUkodf xB2Eyi7VLRlVDLXlCi1opFe9yDlIjX95XVigFLc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwMTjDy8LOeOQWoARlnJA1mlOT0pTOT99z6pJ7odJgRq7083VQ33+BNQTrGvxDstFKXY75lATZ/dqbxr8OXHIo= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:390:: with SMTP id f16mr23905825otf.93.1564344279097; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 13:04:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8cf76d79-3a08-7703-d2a8-f6605438dd8a@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: From: Kevin Oberman Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 13:04:22 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Massive PORTS_REVISION bump after making gcc-9.1 default To: Lorenzo Salvadore Cc: FreeBSD Ports X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: AF172747E4 X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=pPDL4uh1; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of kob6558@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::334 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kob6558@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.59 / 15.00]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[gmail.com,none]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: alt3.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[rkoberman@gmail.com,kob6558@gmail.com]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[rkoberman@gmail.com,kob6558@gmail.com]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[gmail.com.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.992,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.95)[-0.947,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[4.3.3.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; IP_SCORE(-2.94)[ip: (-9.14), ipnet: 2607:f8b0::/32(-3.09), asn: 15169(-2.44), country: US(-0.05)]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 20:04:42 -0000 Gerald, Thanks for our excellent explanation. I must admit that I did not think about various archs. So, now I understand why the PORTREVISION was bumped and that I don't need to go back and build the ports that were rebuilt prior to the gcc9-9.1 upgrade. I trust tat portmaster did hte right thing. (Yes, I suppose that there is a slight risk, but I'll take it!) Now, why the heck do rust and llvm both have packages that require samba47. I don't see why they require samba at all, let alone a deprecated version that will expire in about a week. Since I'm trying to upgrade a package for amd64, I can't see archs being an issue, so I'm baffled. But that's a different thread. -- Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683 On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:12 PM Lorenzo Salvadore via freebsd-ports < freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> wrote: > > =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original = Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 > On Sunday 28 July 2019 20:56, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > > > > The description of the commit states: > > > This includes ports > > > > > > - with USE_GCC=3Dyes or USE_GCC=3Dany, > > > - with USES=3Dfortran, > > > - using Mk/bsd.octave.mk which in turn features USES=3Dfortran, and > > > - with USES=3Dcompiler specifying openmp, nestedfct, c11, c++0x, > c++11-lang, > > > c++11-lib, c++14-lang, c++17-lang, or gcc-c++11-lib > > > plus, everything INDEX-11 shows with a dependency on lang/gcc9 no= w. > > > > > > > > > This would appear to me like it did catch a great many ports which ar= e > > > not build with or any anything to do will gcc, though I am not sure. > > > > These ports may not use GCC on your system, or even the majority of > > systems, but there are systems and situations where they do, and bumpin= g > > PORTREVISION is a global binary decision for each port considered. > > > > > E.g. I thought that USES=3Dcompiler:c11 and similar were asking for > > > c11 semantics from whatever compiler was used but > > > > Let's look at your example. ports/Mk/Uses/compiler.mk has the following > > on USES=3Dcompiler:c11: > > > > .if ${_COMPILER_ARGS:Mc11} > > .if !${COMPILER_FEATURES:Mc11} > > .if (defined(FAVORITE_COMPILER) && ${FAVORITE_COMPILER} =3D=3D gcc) || > > (${ARCH} !=3D amd64 && ${ARCH} !=3D i386) # clang not always supported = on > Tier-2 > > USE_GCC=3D yes > > CHOSEN_COMPILER_TYPE=3D gcc > > .elif ${COMPILER_TYPE} =3D=3D gcc > > > > That is, if a user has set a preference for GCC or for non x86/x86-64 > > platforms, GCC is used. > > > > And if there is one legitimate configuration on the planet where a > > PORTREVISION bump is required, we have to perform it in our repository. > > > > (This is not saying I may not have made a mistake somewhere, but in > > general those bumps do appear necessary.) > > > > Gerald > > It might be useful to add a command to pkg that bumps PORTREVISION > for installed packages without really building them again, for those case= s > when users know that they are not affected by the bump. > I think at the moment this is possible only by manually modifying > /var/db/pkg/local.sqlite (I never tried). > > Lorenzo Salvadore. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Jul 29 01:02:16 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37867B974E for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 01:02:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: from mail-oi1-x22d.google.com (mail-oi1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACC9487519 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 01:02:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: by mail-oi1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id w79so44140700oif.10 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:02:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=xDGQbyto61MwXwp76HXLGEW/lMp2NIZlgbI2GrxMH2k=; b=p0TR0ZSZfk6ufXjVmIsg0undWTSIXG6fCEGDk6zudlLfr5/nhqgHJ3iOO4TNDWtTp8 sDuAHnH563ETqa2Xsq3EEjtxi2Ru3X6du3WV79Ho5tggQuHYhE2pzmQ+S34plQtnuP4R 4fTd/2f22eDW3Zov8bhG9AMHfeh9kogET+xQY7HYXZljG3ib7SkM/mh/8rNX72wCCqWQ whGoS7pBoG76DY/tv7T06OqCp1ayUq2ikO4Q2A2feD9OI+oRyNtSOVzxL9Bl1uae8ulZ jdhOqbNC7FneLwdHwQIF8gTXhAuzPEYGE6PpPIG+E7Lvmm9f4H785ARL5/J+KvEYDvss uZOA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=xDGQbyto61MwXwp76HXLGEW/lMp2NIZlgbI2GrxMH2k=; b=nnR4j1ZePN1NvWGczTzfyZ5hPoDIH8QCc0n5Ta00jlW9LwhGgG6DG/P/Y3v+HIZBsh 7dpZ1gKfVG4VoPvm0qPvFezuy8dqDbHOas8d9R8dnlA7sxkqMf/iT1+Nw86xebRBdsTa 6PjwUdTHKx58vwGhgmyRy9Ldce8Va6aRHTUCwa8bndw8iE0smMqtUjvpQpvr8CTvTcZN s+lyPRjkOFgMQd3DQnTMf4bci5IJIx3/SwgOjX4x4w33GJP1kY/pv/l8O0p9sfqeqkfW h6KLHTAo1GE2UweGxPlwOhpSW/KxGUw/46jAFZStR4gAQrYXxGEAfZLYkSLZrQg9uROe HYtQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXRuLi74qJnXGNW1mh8HhIwbw7X7dxd9sNwENM+8n3IcMHp5/eU Tq7jl3a2TOMf9ccAWhSGyNZKZ4TbeaH781H2UjraOeYU X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz9K9mPGkww7Im0XdkgKw144ImAwdcdKKWAyf0wDTdWgZ7oKnZauZpmRdnVFNRxFTrMqGspCKi/kfC6FUnbutQ= X-Received: by 2002:aca:4806:: with SMTP id v6mr17425960oia.133.1564362133381; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:02:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Kevin Oberman Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:01:56 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Latest packages being built with stale dependencies? To: FreeBSD Ports ML X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: ACC9487519 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=p0TR0ZSZ; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of kob6558@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kob6558@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.75 / 15.00]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: alt3.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[gmail.com,none]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.17)[-0.170,0]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[rkoberman@gmail.com,kob6558@gmail.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[rkoberman@gmail.com,kob6558@gmail.com]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[gmail.com.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.994,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; IP_SCORE(-2.88)[ip: (-8.80), ipnet: 2607:f8b0::/32(-3.09), asn: 15169(-2.44), country: US(-0.05)]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[d.2.2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 01:02:16 -0000 On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:52 AM Kevin Oberman wrote: > Today I tried updating llvm80 to the newest version, 8.0.1, using pkg. I > discovered that the package for llvm80 is built using the deprecated and > soon to expire sambe47. Last week, in preparation for the expiry , I > updated to samba48 and I assumed that any ports that were being packaged > for "latest" would also be built with the default versions of dependencies. > SAMBA_DEFAULT was changed to samba48 back on June 8, so why are "LATEST" > packages still being built with samba47? > Thanks to David's nudge I just learned something new about pkg upgrade. If there are any installed ports, whether built from source or installed from packages, that are missing dependencies, pkg will try to install them for any package upgrade even if the package being upgraded has no dependency on that port. Perhaps the --force option would have bypassed this. The man page is not clear. In any case, that was the problem and re-installing the two packages that the use of "portmaster -o" missed when updating samba47 to samba48. I probably did something wrong. I'm still confused, but things are now working and everything seems clean. -- > Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer > E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com > PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683 > From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Jul 29 07:00:42 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1394BF548 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 07:00:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marklmi@yahoo.com) Received: from sonic316-13.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com (sonic316-13.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com [74.6.130.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04CF06A9E5 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 07:00:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marklmi@yahoo.com) X-YMail-OSG: 6PK9makVM1koOqL4zG7Ptxx5eu1lfZjqiRauAmh0dFcySCnVg_rWSZGA8nWMjpc JpzFheMixO.NFtMWc9oJl87vvqSl47hSGCnMzCYq68UcYESqCJ8nfwfyO9YSTtP_TsmKfm7dVK1n JkomQWCmXx6Rc8e7whG1HLyIfaeuP7nm_0wkad4UVJW0xbLwQCcVaRBPERT4EtEPQTqC3vfXp2x. GO33GFkxn4ZeBAUGi2wG9GHO9wyrDNnjrdQrc5Mi5FDm17mrMKTX4VZODZQ9X253sYnl4ko5fXzi fs1g_hr23uYPTD7OFx7GZXRMmfi4GnTqaO22gGWU4T5k39_6MDLxNq8V5WbE_b8XT9YVdT_1NotV 0YMV1POXGueAiZj.oYSW_ZeyyYTI4yG72lH90wqJ7E9DU9Hz_Vqadjgd6e2JSDi8c0_YEvz2ZRmi vaiPGNlKcHJygsCzcou.7MxmaUsYVysmDiAYxwsCwqjuZNOjko._hPSB0rZPKml2Ba7LM9OYYXwv .R8XkEdeJ.2A7Btc4yBsg1fQIIREiE1fyXXkVQaMAOZJntrr78B7BbVGZEZxQr0VBjH4uqM6Oen5 19mVTweo3fg._ioGdH10E8sms4OYEQQn5GWK3JQz0DCxSBVPWXpcMsW2nHPquM0TuW4NGpTS7Mf1 V97Owi_sYcZAHwJSB_oRi1.1MeYE91c__.NLPrZ03917wBrWtmfY7586J._k.h4uzDw0EUnK3cXK PzajML0X9kRqlNplhIrnNWHMsSjbRLl6yWFyghEOGmkjWPjwD1UdnTPg6yQZvNDry.4vQV2HkG98 nuR5zjSafgkJhk6XlmBTf4Vkf4z6L5s1xBR7i8q1dmdejn29AGe6YSkbNqC2vyzQNibd0Tzz1pJC O1xr63jiGzfZQdwFWlUJfVUI1XEeNVm58hyT5c6CR06X12Wr9KyxDpaF0qDYJfR7gmwZAkUlaj_O fRQTShCkmdn_3udS9ZdOjChMZpveL3WfSa.g0FAKgZ_xR1fLbLU9aUHzBDz_AGk2qcyPHXJQsNM4 t6R3912cV7w8Z9gMB9RI7D7bY6JmVnsNXisrQQc_3sSCdpYJSYeum5CS7yhmTpfksUDQMkA1aVZM 8mlakqX2tMqUGx91xzN0imkeOEQj8UxcHTeReuw.CdYpdxe6hilNRD8TnLNh3JzGqe2tphD3q_UC koRQK6z6EfEARdOBDXmGWuJGdPIeZ.KJWtXULBuZICaAgHEUptLqCx9wkehHYgw-- Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic316.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 07:00:35 +0000 Received: by smtp428.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (Oath Hermes SMTP Server) with ESMTPA ID 4f9e347d3daad2bf1e36cab6d1a33599; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 07:00:32 +0000 (UTC) From: Mark Millard Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Subject: Re: Massive PORTS_REVISION bump after making gcc-9.1 default Message-Id: <2DAEDD69-9797-424A-BDE5-3B18CF116830@yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 00:00:29 -0700 Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org To: Kevin Oberman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 04CF06A9E5 X-Spamd-Bar: ++++ X-Spamd-Result: default: False [4.62 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ptr:yahoo.com]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[yahoo.com]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: mta6.am0.yahoodns.net]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[yahoo.com:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[yahoo.com,reject]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[yahoo.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:26101, ipnet:74.6.128.0/21, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[yahoo.com.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FAKE_REPLY(1.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[yahoo.com:s=s2048]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.87)[0.873,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; IP_SCORE(1.29)[ip: (3.93), ipnet: 74.6.128.0/21(1.42), asn: 26101(1.13), country: US(-0.05)]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.98)[0.976,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(1.00)[0.999,0]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[123.130.6.74.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 07:00:42 -0000 Kevin Oberman rkoberman at gmail.com wrote on Sun Jul 28 17:21:00 UTC 2019 : > I used "portmaster -a". The problem is that all ports compiled with gcc had > PORTREVISION bumped. Most do not have a run-time dependency on gcc. Going in different direction than other responses that I saw . . . # pkg info gcc9 gcc9-9.1.0 . . . Shared Libs provided: libcc1.so.0 libssp.so.0 libobjc.so.4 libcc1plugin.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libitm.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1 libquadmath.so.0 libcp1plugin.so.0 liblto_plugin.so.0 libgomp.so.1 libatomic.so.1 libgfortran.so.5 . . . # ls -c1 /usr/local/lib/gcc9/*.so /usr/local/lib/gcc9/libatomic.so /usr/local/lib/gcc9/libcc1.so /usr/local/lib/gcc9/libgcc_s.so /usr/local/lib/gcc9/libgfortran.so /usr/local/lib/gcc9/libgomp.so /usr/local/lib/gcc9/libitm.so /usr/local/lib/gcc9/libobjc.so /usr/local/lib/gcc9/libquadmath.so /usr/local/lib/gcc9/libssp.so /usr/local/lib/gcc9/libstdc++.so Anything linked with any of those .so libraries does have a runtime (library) dependency on gcc9, even if it does not run a gcc9/gcc9++ compiler. How many libraries and programs in ports are compiled/built by gcc9 but that do not use any of those .so libraries? (This may be roughly: how many have a static-linking context?) === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com ( dsl-only.net went away in early 2018-Mar) From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Jul 29 23:31:03 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6380B9AC1 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:31:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A3858254B for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:31:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 99B39B9AC0; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:31:03 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9979BB9ABF for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:31:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78DF78254A; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:31:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1354) id 4FEAFD0A5; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:31:03 +0000 (UTC) From: Jan Beich To: "Willem Jan Withagen \(Nefos\)" Cc: "ports\@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Using Boost 1.7.0 and trying to get boost_python References: Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 01:30:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Willem Jan Withagen's message of "Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:07:15 +0200") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 78DF78254A X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.98 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.992,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.99)[-0.989,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11403, ipnet:96.47.64.0/20, country:US]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:31:04 -0000 "Willem Jan Withagen (Nefos)" writes: > Hi, > > I'm trying to get Ceph to build with Boost 1.70 but have limitted success. > First I needed to fight with static and shared libs, got that to work a bit. > > But now it also fails on > |find_package( Boost COMPONENTS python REQUIRED ) > or > ||find_package( Boost COMPONENTS python3 REQUIRED ) > or > ||find_package( Boost COMPONENTS python36 REQUIRED ) Outside of ports only fully-qualified component name (e.g., python27, python36) are supported with Boost >= 1.67. As FreeBSD Ports never used distribution-specific suffixes with Boost < 1.67 the CMake package is patched to *deterministically* translate "python" component to "pythonXY" according to USES=python. > -- Found Boost 1.70.0 at /usr/local/lib/cmake/Boost-1.70.0 > -- Requested configuration: QUIET REQUIRED COMPONENTS python > -- BoostConfig: find_package(boost_headers 1.70.0 EXACT CONFIG > REQUIRED QUIET HINTS /usr/local/lib/cmake) > -- BoostConfig: find_package(boost_python 1.70.0 EXACT CONFIG REQUIRED > QUIET HINTS /usr/local/lib/cmake) > CMake Error at /usr/local/lib/cmake/Boost-1.70.0/BoostConfig.cmake:95 > (find_package): > Could not find a package configuration file provided by "boost_python" > (requested version 1.70.0) with any of the following names: > > boost_pythonConfig.cmake > boost_python-config.cmake > > Add the installation prefix of "boost_python" to CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH or set > "boost_python_DIR" to a directory containing one of the above files. If > "boost_python" provides a separate development package or SDK, be sure it > has been installed. > Call Stack (most recent call first): > /usr/local/lib/cmake/Boost-1.70.0/BoostConfig.cmake:124 > (boost_find_dependency) > cmake/modules/FindBoost.cmake:264 (find_package) > CMakeLists.txt:654 (find_package) I can't reproduce. Can you share minimal CMakeLists.txt? > But I cannot find anything resembling: > || boost_pythonConfig.cmake > boost_python-config.cmake Check /usr/local/share/cmake/Modules/FindBoost.cmake defines Boost_NO_BOOST_CMAKE. Native CMake integration is currently disabled due to bugs. From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Tue Jul 30 20:07:46 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13548ABCCF for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:07:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA55E6F300 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:07:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id D9872ABCC4; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:07:45 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D93C0ABCC2 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:07:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B24316F2FC for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:07:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from portscout.nyi.freebsd.org (portscout.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CE7C1E436 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:07:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from portscout.nyi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.10]) by portscout.nyi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x6UK7icl014650 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:07:44 GMT (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from portscout@localhost) by portscout.nyi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x6UK7iAE014647; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:07:44 GMT (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <201907302007.x6UK7iAE014647@portscout.nyi.freebsd.org> X-Authentication-Warning: portscout.nyi.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: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:07:44 +0000 From: portscout@FreeBSD.org To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date X-Mailer: portscout/0.8.1 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B24316F2FC X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.97 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[FreeBSD.org]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.97)[-0.970,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11403, ipnet:2610:1c1:1::/48, country:US]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:07:46 -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/ports@freebsd.org.html Port | Current version | New version ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ databases/mysql-connector-odbc | 5.3.13 | 8.0.17 ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ games/odamex | 0.7.0 | 0.8.1 ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ net/freeswitch | 1.8.5 | 1.8.7 ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ net-mgmt/py-pdagent | 1.5 | v1.6 ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ science/metaf2xml | 2.2 | 2.5 ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ security/spass | 3.0 | v3.1 ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ 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-ports@freebsd.org Thu Aug 1 06:06:13 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C03A4B17 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 06:06:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ot1-x333.google.com (mail-ot1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::333]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45zftY0wxmz4FfG for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 06:06:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: by mail-ot1-x333.google.com with SMTP id b7so22817931otl.11 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 23:06:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Tj3PrI+xUaxkoGVwuJ44qaV354HjMOP9oigeJEasfz4=; b=UePUYLMh9+9nt2tlAh1nZDXZ7PEOgIYxRBjz/vl/FaRblUaMD7OgZEoKIAC3qoZIvJ 1S8ZjUayFC63mU5Rlyl1MGBQabTCuIsW44vAVdXXmkMswS1vgInc2BPjVHIA0OKMgQ5r hzXz99UCvbgNvHWdZ++g2I8uLdgVEABvx95le+TmyiG02LOi8VuOHms9mjcobwtPYOuG Eyob47ljORyx98FC6yHd9Vo6snxEMkK5G+D2AOAAt1yPwPKaU33KvZ4+C9yAXMn3n/9A OQCjRQUKX5H0/A5LNgbOxXQK6eVkOFjvllB6Y/jqR8Bdf5ZKlOpkXxioIpkghlB7afL2 ugtQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Tj3PrI+xUaxkoGVwuJ44qaV354HjMOP9oigeJEasfz4=; b=o3/+n/dqgnh4FDCcU3puLjz+KyMx9XEeUi4U5laKZRbFiVf/y1Y6ccSopz9mB0/WUI yvw5cGQOadWbc4yxlXml+ZxEgOxMauAVfR3xCxRpMVOLt98R9c8j1oKkSqzueLswalEi YefvEMttdVWFelRhQVSx72Sj8oNMOKkjakxI7wzE31/CA4BZDLQAYUOhtOwefPe11mth mq5RFiV+WK5v1PzdAz1+hMcmVq1oLvajK/rnpw7P/tlxLeSKgfZuZQ9Ku7nxzIpVZGtt bObYznZtI62ULtO9jikoag566tXT4Wgx1EDzOmiXm/1hOLHh+wkVLGboTl++YrRgV3ZN A+VA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWfOiGuFu1aym+QV98T4i15hsl5NGS06rZ+FzLTuoV5Eh4rOe7Z 8Zu7X4dQertsTtVqA/yCUu32ovEzcXi9f52zAk08MFm7 X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz9/YfO/C+trA6nMmbINBKGciEWPi9eujT31nQKgnPkIdzASYJq5UzPmvLEYheolc2VSYSSzbZ6qrNY9Q5RDDI= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:460c:: with SMTP id y12mr93247951ote.358.1564639571264; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 23:06:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Kevin Oberman Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 23:05:54 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Possible issues with FreeBSD ports ML? To: FreeBSD Ports ML X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 45zftY0wxmz4FfG X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=UePUYLMh; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of kob6558@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::333 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kob6558@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.70 / 15.00]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36:c]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: alt3.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[gmail.com,none]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.99)[-0.990,0]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[rkoberman@gmail.com,kob6558@gmail.com]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[rkoberman@gmail.com,kob6558@gmail.com]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[gmail.com.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.997,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org]; IP_SCORE_FREEMAIL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; IP_SCORE(0.00)[ip: (-8.77), ipnet: 2607:f8b0::/32(-3.09), asn: 15169(-2.45), country: US(-0.05)]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[3.3.3.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 06:06:13 -0000 Over the past dy and a half there have been no posts on the ports list. The last user-posted message was on July 29 at 23:30:51. There was a message from portscout about 14 yours later, but nothing else. This is based on the contents of the ML archive, not just what I have been seeing. Others of the dozen FreeBSD lists I read have also been a bit quiet with only a very small number of posts. postmaster@freebsd.org is aware of what I have seen but have not been able to confirm a problem. If this message actually got to you and you have sent a message to ports or some other list after 16:00 UTC on July 30, please DO NOT reply to the list, but send me a note with the ML to which the post was sent and the time the post was sent (or your best guess) and/or postmaster@freebsd.org. Mail log entries would be especially useful. Perhaps nothing is wrong, but to go two days with only about a dozen messages from several normally active lists like ports, current, stable, and x11. As I may be wrong and everyone who normally would post have all taken summer vacation at the same time. If so, I do apologize for wasting your time. Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683 From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Aug 1 06:59:59 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7ACB59BA for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 06:59:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from philip@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45zh4b3ZqVz4JxK for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 06:59:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from philip@freebsd.org) Received: from weatherwax.trouble.is (weatherwax.trouble.is [IPv6:2a00:dd80:3c::62e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "weatherwax.trouble.is", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: philip/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 443F910014 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 06:59:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from philip@freebsd.org) Received: from rincewind.trouble.is (rincewind.trouble.is [IPv6:2a01:4f9:2a:1715::1:1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client CN "rincewind.trouble.is", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by weatherwax.trouble.is (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45zh4Z3jngz4fYZ for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 06:59:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by rincewind.trouble.is (Postfix, authenticated sender philip) id 45zh4Y2mFVz23KK; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 06:59:57 +0000 (UTC) From: "Philip Paeps" To: "FreeBSD Ports ML" Subject: Re: Possible issues with FreeBSD ports ML? Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 12:29:46 +0530 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.5r5643) Message-ID: <7F62AAA6-972F-47FA-992D-3A3BD094B089@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 45zh4b3ZqVz4JxK X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.55 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.59)[-0.594,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.96)[-0.955,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11403, ipnet:2610:1c1:1::/48, country:US] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 06:59:59 -0000 On 2019-08-01 11:35:54 (+0530), Kevin Oberman wrote: > Over the past dy and a half there have been no posts on the ports > list. The last user-posted message was on July 29 at 23:30:51. There > was a message from portscout about 14 yours later, but nothing else. > This is based on the contents of the ML archive, not just what I have > been seeing. Others of the dozen FreeBSD lists I read have also been a > bit quiet with only a very small number of posts. > postmaster@freebsd.org is aware of what I have seen but have not been > able to confirm a problem. > > If this message actually got to you and you have sent a message to > ports or some other list after 16:00 UTC on July 30, please DO NOT > reply to the list, but send me a note with the ML to which the post > was sent and the time the post was sent (or your best guess) and/or > postmaster@freebsd.org. Mail log entries would be especially useful. > > Perhaps nothing is wrong, but to go two days with only about a dozen > messages from several normally active lists like ports, current, > stable, and x11. > > As I may be wrong and everyone who normally would post have all taken > summer vacation at the same time. If so, I do apologize for wasting > your time. As far as postmaster can tell, mail is flowing normally. If your messages to FreeBSD mailing lists are bouncing or being delayed, please try to reach out to postmaster@FreeBSD.org so we can investigate. Given the volume of mail that goes through FreeBSD.org, debugging problems is difficult without at least some details about specific messages or hosts to grep for. Philip [hat: postmaster] -- Philip Paeps Senior Reality Engineer Alternative Enterprises From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Aug 1 09:15:30 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54CEEB84C2 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 09:15:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-ports@itsacon.net) Received: from lipwig.itsacon.net (lipwig.itsacon.net [212.78.185.42]) (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 45zl4x2pQDz4Qwf for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 09:15:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-ports@itsacon.net) Received: by lipwig.itsacon.net (Postfix, from userid 58) id 96EEB4EADC; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 11:12:44 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=itsacon.net; s=20180202; t=1564650764; bh=jOpJDakhm9fnhVEPwCrHYgngwmEFZQBI85XJo6UKjgg=; h=To:From:Subject:Date; b=pEocAV+10icjiGr1OYwxNBf/qhQwUZ133gkRLpPZVmEpG3ZQvxyg5CdoKSFDxGEw5 lVjksq7KHDQwNZuDqK/WlQ15uBbYW8i7dSHjF/Cf1O/CZdflrm7UAQL/q3agxnvk8z i5MMRnOuEqT0I6owF2SrfGo/YddfnKFpnSYcvM0w= X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.101.2 at lipwig.itsacon.net X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on lipwig.itsacon.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 Received: from [10.80.100.42] (D57DFE2D.static.ziggozakelijk.nl [213.125.254.45]) by lipwig.itsacon.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C8274E6FC for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 11:12:44 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=itsacon.net; s=20180202; t=1564650764; bh=jOpJDakhm9fnhVEPwCrHYgngwmEFZQBI85XJo6UKjgg=; h=To:From:Subject:Date; b=pEocAV+10icjiGr1OYwxNBf/qhQwUZ133gkRLpPZVmEpG3ZQvxyg5CdoKSFDxGEw5 lVjksq7KHDQwNZuDqK/WlQ15uBbYW8i7dSHjF/Cf1O/CZdflrm7UAQL/q3agxnvk8z i5MMRnOuEqT0I6owF2SrfGo/YddfnKFpnSYcvM0w= X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.101.2 at lipwig.itsacon.net To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org From: "B.J.Scharp" Subject: Reviving a deleted port (pecl-inotify) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 11:15:33 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 45zl4x2pQDz4Qwf X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=itsacon.net header.s=20180202 header.b=pEocAV+1; dkim=pass header.d=itsacon.net header.s=20180202 header.b=pEocAV+1; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd-ports@itsacon.net designates 212.78.185.42 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd-ports@itsacon.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.09 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[itsacon.net:s=20180202]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.04)[0.045,0]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[itsacon.net]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[itsacon.net:+]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[lipwig.itsacon.net,thunderflare.itsacon.net]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.58)[-0.578,0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; IP_SCORE(-0.04)[ip: (-2.19), ipnet: 212.78.160.0/19(-1.10), asn: 8220(3.16), country: GB(-0.08)]; ASN(0.00)[asn:8220, ipnet:212.78.160.0/19, country:GB]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 09:15:30 -0000 Hi all, Back in december when PHP 5.6 went eol, a lot of PECL ports got deleted, many of which weren't updated or required with PHP 7.x However, some of them actually had updates to get them going with PHP 7 An example of this is pecl-inotify (https://www.freshports.org/devel/pecl-inotify/) Version 2.0.0 was released way back in 2016 for PHP 7, but never ported for FreeBSD, which only had version 0.1.6. Updating the port to version 2.0.0 is as simple as changing the version in the Makefile, and leaving everything else (including the patch) as-is. I've been running it in production for several months now. What is the preferred way to get this port back? Revive the old one, or create a new port 'pecl-inotify2' ? On that note, I've no experience submitting ports, just modifying/creating them for my own servers. I'll probably be able to figure it out with the Handbook, but if the current maintainer wants to do it, I'll be happy to shoot him/her a diff or tar with my setup. Regards, Bernard From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Aug 1 09:22:05 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A657BB86C5 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 09:22:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from koobs.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pg1-x52e.google.com (mail-pg1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45zlDX4CpFz4RKW for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 09:22:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from koobs.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: by mail-pg1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id o13so33813554pgp.12 for ; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 02:22:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:reply-to:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Omir6DW4slXZ+Zs3bKmVfkYfUt0AlchPHpwVe4PnpZc=; b=GUhxyIaHaiJ97RiM0PZ0LKHfibn+eriQlXI46G3yD3Odoye4eTARYWWFoC0kMwLTE8 71yf9yyVNuqmanLUZ19Ryg24Qa7ZTGl4xjEXOvVTUSPjYyhIc07P0AJNoRl5jwIzarC2 pwkj//9E6rVBr74SWNCNo0AU2OQQvDrhYazX4a5qB7+yoW3HlN1JKp7wMFDoxCKZYldl iPcHrMAbML/yq2Goo3FXCu41SrGkfuTcCxTZe1dBtV85kwkus9gxrVHoX/K0QnyA+u5/ +rKpvmUYkHMKxmRsGZ4/NtP/sCH6D7efM9CA6qxphOu1k3DDeYdXX6XN0fsvOqH3z2ns gJww== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:reply-to:subject:to:references:from :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Omir6DW4slXZ+Zs3bKmVfkYfUt0AlchPHpwVe4PnpZc=; b=MvlQRHfwWRkdd1Hhtc4wEOj7MYHXITGwE8qpInJrEjbcR6D+5hcZvufLy0JnZa60GI 1sepmAbv/ULZPi6e+GCefVNtwoUudEOJ/sPFXJd699KR5SnLbxVin5L9zdc5NcriuPzK OTt73bXyrfFhQXfpKWGwDyjSd6BJ3pggcqRKfSQGOA/5f5T7m6Ep70NSbLGO//9Ms5vF Gv80ux7q/MopIdVf56gZnHGW9tQO7raAY9XS5uxis0qIqwDWMZW+sq5lfPVTYRZcZjsg F7O+Tx0ssQB0HilYsFSHAgZTNUzpY76GhK1UHBHTbi8fGF5MEo58SXL7kjRPdICmsOP/ ZHtQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWwtFKkzjeDiYBwL7THELYjaAdjgrpwuEUi9rMu9uYfpqy/x2Zh dbmHyoF4lYpua5BEK9Xk7hSdiHhB X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwuz9jg4KYbir0+1qtU4G/Vx0fbrMpGkZA+ZGXY0ZlP5+GNsjRe9Kixd4v5U1LWWlzwmvaWTA== X-Received: by 2002:a62:e315:: with SMTP id g21mr53725647pfh.225.1564651322447; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 02:22:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.109] (180-150-68-130.b49644.syd.nbn.aussiebb.net. [180.150.68.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i14sm110484282pfk.0.2019.08.01.02.22.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Aug 2019 02:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Kubilay Kocak Reply-To: koobs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Reviving a deleted port (pecl-inotify) To: "B.J.Scharp" , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: From: Kubilay Kocak Message-ID: <6a63b766-3252-1fad-254a-0ab172e9ae94@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 19:21:58 +1000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:69.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/69.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 45zlDX4CpFz4RKW X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=GUhxyIaH; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of koobsfreebsd@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::52e as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=koobsfreebsd@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.23 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[koobs@FreeBSD.org]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36]; REPLYTO_ADDR_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: alt3.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.996,0]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[koobs@FreeBSD.org,koobsfreebsd@gmail.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.998,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[koobs@FreeBSD.org,koobsfreebsd@gmail.com]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[FreeBSD.org]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[e.2.5.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; IP_SCORE(-3.02)[ip: (-9.52), ipnet: 2607:f8b0::/32(-3.09), asn: 15169(-2.45), country: US(-0.05)]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 09:22:05 -0000 On 1/08/2019 7:15 pm, B.J.Scharp wrote: > Hi all, > > Back in december when PHP 5.6 went eol, a lot of PECL ports got deleted, > many of which weren't updated or required with PHP 7.x > > However, some of them actually had updates to get them going with PHP 7 > > An example of this is pecl-inotify > (https://www.freshports.org/devel/pecl-inotify/) > > Version 2.0.0 was released way back in 2016 for PHP 7, but never ported > for FreeBSD, which only had version 0.1.6. > > Updating the port to version 2.0.0 is as simple as changing the version > in the Makefile, and leaving everything else (including the patch) > as-is. I've been running it in production for several months now. > > What is the preferred way to get this port back? Revive the old one, or > create a new port 'pecl-inotify2' ? Revive + modifications The committer assigning themselves the (bugzilla) issue will take care of reviving the port from the last revision prior to deletion using svn. If you have an SVN ports repository and would like to do that to produce your diff, see: https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/committers-guide/ports.html#ports-qa-re-adding > On that note, I've no experience submitting ports, just > modifying/creating them for my own servers. I'll probably be able to > figure it out with the Handbook, but if the current maintainer wants to > do it, I'll be happy to shoot him/her a diff or tar with my setup. SDince the port has been deleted, there's no maintainer by definition, but feel free to CC the previous maintainer on any issue you create in bugzilla If you have any porting questions or need help, #freebsd-ports @ freenode IRC -- Regards, koobs From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Aug 1 23:24:26 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D26EFA4338 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 23:24:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: from mail-oi1-x229.google.com (mail-oi1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4605wT5rL7z4NNQ; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 23:24:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: by mail-oi1-x229.google.com with SMTP id 65so55350535oid.13; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 16:24:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vU8gTiuJQf5TVybDOZuR9JSy5kLAXboNlgl7hueMVKU=; b=akmvQ6/O/eoUFxg7EpawzTiusGXOz0h+j9fxxrTq7eatbGUOmRj+HgyqawmE0bi8M1 qiiOjbF14mZ5HaWzJ13duXTtvXTS3aAZW9kOqkvEju3ZLxs1h/S/tEJ9by12EtHVuj2O Z1h60vx76czcq+gbuQv6j6YdrHhwTVB2NwYXZt83umPna32sYZ8LnyFyRumBZWV+j5ka 78rgOEAAil7/loTcmCRkKHY4i1LbuIXagU/7TllU+Ho5l2VtIQlZqsBNqEIkXoFbv9vG gSrrerIuGij/Jvo2/sImfkxhkwfai6PFUF3e+ue37VRUxovZKqQ+qLkgYOUIdO9tdghb BXOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vU8gTiuJQf5TVybDOZuR9JSy5kLAXboNlgl7hueMVKU=; b=B2vT0YNBDT2oze2cTnPdf6PWZIQgn25LmjcelJgxZqJTcfDj+KH4EySlR43rqgz69A 8tPXsBaOoC/wQR8p8z4NZ/JykdwbsSe1hh8ljyDiKZ4Obn+vc3lB+TOX5O4RpVj4DuPU RfvWOfHGMJKE2bmFHvfyCGlej2fyNodK+m2bDgpm4E5ReueTX+Wa4yA1s9PIjMNUuuRA ZzacDEfS6QWliM40u2FyvKgCSj8Yvx0GnWSHiQuMBPD+lVY1zzx1pHXnJOYyy2rW/uqL VlD3Ik8yVZfzTeo+q72cd3eEL/mxZK/36UQazhDszMpjdWW1gVNDxA7fWjWEYV3ok5ej dazw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW3T922nknI7fdThXZv+apQc6kwnKEwhbIyNUCPhBAsf9qItKBo pXK7ny8xGSsasVxMJ7FpTUPFx6l4tHlSo4pknMYJIR51 X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxxRkHBXyfE4QHFQRw7tQVvF/zCjLGaYDhYuOhv1oBlxYe7Ant0Ax6LHgsDQYtjYbKSQpCSzV/0qYmFWAR9O7c= X-Received: by 2002:aca:4e89:: with SMTP id c131mr867517oib.57.1564701863595; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 16:24:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7F62AAA6-972F-47FA-992D-3A3BD094B089@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <7F62AAA6-972F-47FA-992D-3A3BD094B089@freebsd.org> From: Kevin Oberman Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 16:24:07 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Possible issues with FreeBSD ports ML? To: Philip Paeps Cc: FreeBSD Ports ML X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4605wT5rL7z4NNQ X-Spamd-Bar: + Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=akmvQ6/O; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of kob6558@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::229 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kob6558@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [1.30 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[gmail.com.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; IP_SCORE_FREEMAIL(0.00)[]; URI_COUNT_ODD(1.00)[3]; IP_SCORE(0.00)[ip: (-9.18), ipnet: 2607:f8b0::/32(-3.09), asn: 15169(-2.46), country: US(-0.05)]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[9.2.2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[rkoberman@gmail.com,kob6558@gmail.com]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[gmail.com,none]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[rkoberman@gmail.com,kob6558@gmail.com]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 23:24:26 -0000 Philip, Thanks so much for your time. I don't know if anything was ever wrong or almost everyone on mailing lists just took a couple of days off, but traffic volume on the lists now looks completely normal and I received no responses of lost posts to ports. Thanks so much for taking the time to look at it and sorry for the noise. -- Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683 On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:00 AM Philip Paeps wrote: > On 2019-08-01 11:35:54 (+0530), Kevin Oberman wrote: > > Over the past dy and a half there have been no posts on the ports > > list. The last user-posted message was on July 29 at 23:30:51. There > > was a message from portscout about 14 yours later, but nothing else. > > This is based on the contents of the ML archive, not just what I have > > been seeing. Others of the dozen FreeBSD lists I read have also been a > > bit quiet with only a very small number of posts. > > postmaster@freebsd.org is aware of what I have seen but have not been > > able to confirm a problem. > > > > If this message actually got to you and you have sent a message to > > ports or some other list after 16:00 UTC on July 30, please DO NOT > > reply to the list, but send me a note with the ML to which the post > > was sent and the time the post was sent (or your best guess) and/or > > postmaster@freebsd.org. Mail log entries would be especially useful. > > > > Perhaps nothing is wrong, but to go two days with only about a dozen > > messages from several normally active lists like ports, current, > > stable, and x11. > > > > As I may be wrong and everyone who normally would post have all taken > > summer vacation at the same time. If so, I do apologize for wasting > > your time. > > As far as postmaster can tell, mail is flowing normally. > > If your messages to FreeBSD mailing lists are bouncing or being delayed, > please try to reach out to postmaster@FreeBSD.org so we can investigate. > Given the volume of mail that goes through FreeBSD.org, debugging > problems is difficult without at least some details about specific > messages or hosts to grep for. > > Philip [hat: postmaster] > > -- > Philip Paeps > Senior Reality Engineer > Alternative Enterprises > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Aug 2 06:14:45 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62ECBAADAA for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 06:14:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460H1x1z6nz3C4J for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 06:14:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 43893AADA6; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 06:14:45 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42292AADA5 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 06:14:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 460H1x133Wz3C4B for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 06:14:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from portscout.nyi.freebsd.org (portscout.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06E9C264E4 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 06:14:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from portscout.nyi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.10]) by portscout.nyi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x726EiZt002669 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 06:14:44 GMT (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from portscout@localhost) by portscout.nyi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x726EiIC002662; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 06:14:44 GMT (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <201908020614.x726EiIC002662@portscout.nyi.freebsd.org> X-Authentication-Warning: portscout.nyi.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, 2 Aug 2019 06:14:44 +0000 From: portscout@FreeBSD.org To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date X-Mailer: portscout/0.8.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 06:14:45 -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/ports@freebsd.org.html Port | Current version | New version ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ math/emc2 | 2.16d | 2.17 ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ 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-ports@freebsd.org Fri Aug 2 13:35:55 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44FB0B3587 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 13:35:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from msa1.earth.yoonka.com (yoonka.com [88.98.225.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "msa1.earth.yoonka.com", Issuer "msa1.earth.yoonka.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 460Spy18Mwz45bR for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 13:35:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from [10.70.7.24] ([10.70.7.24]) (authenticated bits=0) by msa1.earth.yoonka.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x72DZjTA011295 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 13:35:45 GMT (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Subject: Re: Possible issues with FreeBSD ports ML? To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <7F62AAA6-972F-47FA-992D-3A3BD094B089@freebsd.org> From: Grzegorz Junka Message-ID: <0881bdf7-b4bb-7e9c-9567-932e9c566bcf@gjunka.com> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 14:35:40 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 460Spy18Mwz45bR X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of list1@gjunka.com designates 88.98.225.149 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=list1@gjunka.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.91 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:88.98.225.149]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.998,0]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[gjunka.com]; IP_SCORE(-3.61)[ip: (-9.46), ipnet: 88.98.192.0/18(-4.73), asn: 56478(-3.78), country: GB(-0.08)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:56478, ipnet:88.98.192.0/18, country:GB]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 13:35:55 -0000 On 02/08/2019 00:24, Kevin Oberman wrote: > Philip, > > Thanks so much for your time. I don't know if anything was ever wrong or > almost everyone on mailing lists just took a couple of days off, but > traffic volume on the lists now looks completely normal and I received no > responses of lost posts to ports. > > Thanks so much for taking the time to look at it and sorry for the noise. > -- > Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer > E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com > PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683 > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:00 AM Philip Paeps wrote: > >> On 2019-08-01 11:35:54 (+0530), Kevin Oberman wrote: >>> Over the past dy and a half there have been no posts on the ports >>> list. The last user-posted message was on July 29 at 23:30:51. There >>> was a message from portscout about 14 yours later, but nothing else. >>> This is based on the contents of the ML archive, not just what I have >>> been seeing. Others of the dozen FreeBSD lists I read have also been a >>> bit quiet with only a very small number of posts. >>> postmaster@freebsd.org is aware of what I have seen but have not been >>> able to confirm a problem. >>> >>> If this message actually got to you and you have sent a message to >>> ports or some other list after 16:00 UTC on July 30, please DO NOT >>> reply to the list, but send me a note with the ML to which the post >>> was sent and the time the post was sent (or your best guess) and/or >>> postmaster@freebsd.org. Mail log entries would be especially useful. >>> >>> Perhaps nothing is wrong, but to go two days with only about a dozen >>> messages from several normally active lists like ports, current, >>> stable, and x11. >>> >>> As I may be wrong and everyone who normally would post have all taken >>> summer vacation at the same time. If so, I do apologize for wasting >>> your time. >> As far as postmaster can tell, mail is flowing normally. >> >> If your messages to FreeBSD mailing lists are bouncing or being delayed, >> please try to reach out to postmaster@FreeBSD.org so we can investigate. >> Given the volume of mail that goes through FreeBSD.org, debugging >> problems is difficult without at least some details about specific >> messages or hosts to grep for. >> >> Philip [hat: postmaster] >> >> -- >> Philip Paeps >> Senior Reality Engineer >> Alternative Enterprises >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> I was once told that in the beginning of each month there is a huge queue of monthly emails to be sent out and the mailserv is overloaded. If it's around that time then don't panic, wait 2-3 days and only worry if the issue persists after that. GrzegorzJ From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Aug 2 14:08:52 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F96AB3F11 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 14:08:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from meta@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460TY00sTRz46sW for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 14:08:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from meta@FreeBSD.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 1D6FEB3F10; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 14:08:52 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D209B3F0F for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 14:08:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from meta@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 460TXz71tHz46sV; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 14:08:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from meta@FreeBSD.org) Received: from icepick.vmeta.jp (unknown [IPv6:2405:6586:2280:1200:42a:39e6:a2db:9cce]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: meta/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 674CA1E2C2; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 14:08:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from meta@FreeBSD.org) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 23:08:45 +0900 From: Koichiro Iwao To: Mathieu Arnold Cc: Adam Weinberger , Mateusz Piotrowski <0mp@freebsd.org>, ports@freebsd.org, Kurt Jaeger Subject: Re: category for VPN softwares? Message-ID: <20190802140845.ylnuhvds5a6awzg4@icepick.vmeta.jp> References: <20190402032434.i5tvmzjrti6bz44s@icepick.vmeta.jp> <20190402044151.GG72200@home.opsec.eu> <20190402054219.pbibp2jxqhtwqkru@icepick.vmeta.jp> <954df870-50bb-c7c0-f559-94dd92fce3a6@freebsd.org> <20190402134543.mrx4z4lyq4omzmgn@ogg.in.absolight.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190402134543.mrx4z4lyq4omzmgn@ogg.in.absolight.net> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 12.0-STABLE amd64 User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 14:08:52 -0000 On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 03:45:43PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > And in any case, see our documentation: > > https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/committers-guide/ports.html#ports-qa-new-category I've raised bug 239395. I'd appreciate if someone tell me I need to get who's approval to commit this. [1] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239395 -- meta From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sat Aug 3 07:02:04 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFA16A9012 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 07:02:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460w2459Rgz40dD for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 07:02:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id B178BA900F; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 07:02:04 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B142DA900E for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 07:02:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 460w244Gd6z40d9 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 07:02:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: from portscout.nyi.freebsd.org (portscout.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74914F643 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 07:02:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from portscout@localhost) by portscout.nyi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x73724xh024289; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 07:02:04 GMT (envelope-from portscout@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <201908030702.x73724xh024289@portscout.nyi.freebsd.org> X-Authentication-Warning: portscout.nyi.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: Sat, 3 Aug 2019 07:02:04 +0000 From: portscout@FreeBSD.org To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date X-Mailer: portscout/0.8.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 07:02:04 -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/ports@freebsd.org.html Port | Current version | New version ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ sysutils/procenv | 0.50 | 0.51 ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ 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-ports@freebsd.org Sat Aug 3 14:09:25 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C011EB2424 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 14:09:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from msa1.earth.yoonka.com (yoonka.com [88.98.225.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "msa1.earth.yoonka.com", Issuer "msa1.earth.yoonka.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4615W83J0Nz4LQF for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 14:09:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from crayon2.yoonka.com (crayon2.yoonka.com [10.70.7.20]) (authenticated bits=0) by msa1.earth.yoonka.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x73E9FXG036500 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 14:09:16 GMT (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org From: Grzegorz Junka Subject: Speeding-up poudriere options Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2019 14:09:15 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB-large X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4615W83J0Nz4LQF X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of list1@gjunka.com designates 88.98.225.149 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=list1@gjunka.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.83 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:88.98.225.149]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[gjunka.com]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.92)[-0.919,0]; IP_SCORE(-3.61)[ip: (-9.46), ipnet: 88.98.192.0/18(-4.73), asn: 56478(-3.78), country: GB(-0.08)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:56478, ipnet:88.98.192.0/18, country:GB]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 14:09:25 -0000 I have a file with a list of packages to compile with poudriere. Every time I update ports I execute "poudriere options -j ... -f some_file" in order to update options of new packages or whenever something changed. The issue is that it takes about an hour for poudriere to go through the list and try to configure options for each package. If the package was renamed or removed poudriere throws an error and stops. Then I need to update the list and restart the command. Is there any better way of updating options than "poudriere options..."? Can I speed it up by having the ports tree in ram (tmpfs)? If yes, what would be the easiest way for setting that up? GrzegorzJ From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sat Aug 3 19:29:42 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85246B88A9 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 19:29:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cy.schubert@cschubert.com) Received: from smtp-out-so.shaw.ca (smtp-out-so.shaw.ca [64.59.136.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "Client", Issuer "CA" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 461Dcj2k6mz4bCh for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 19:29:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cy.schubert@cschubert.com) Received: from spqr.komquats.com ([70.67.125.17]) by shaw.ca with ESMTPA id tzijhYRPPSrVctzikhbogL; Sat, 03 Aug 2019 13:29:39 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=L5ZjvNb8 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=VFtTW3WuZNDh6VkGe7fA3g==:117 a=VFtTW3WuZNDh6VkGe7fA3g==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=FmdZ9Uzk2mMA:10 a=YxBL1-UpAAAA:8 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=2fdmOLyvre_FifJvlK4A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=Ia-lj3WSrqcvXOmTRaiG:22 a=IjZwj45LgO3ly-622nXo:22 Received: from slippy.cwsent.com (slippy [10.1.1.91]) by spqr.komquats.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4B8C11C for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slippy.cwsent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slippy.cwsent.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x73JTa8J007523 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:29:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com) Received: from slippy (cy@localhost) by slippy.cwsent.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id x73JTal0007520 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:29:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com) Message-Id: <201908031929.x73JTal0007520@slippy.cwsent.com> X-Authentication-Warning: slippy.cwsent.com: cy owned process doing -bs X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.7.1 Reply-to: Cy Schubert From: Cy Schubert X-os: FreeBSD X-Sender: cy@cwsent.com X-URL: http://www.cschubert.com/ To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: sysutils/flashrom Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 12:29:36 -0700 X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfAOyGtJGzP6+rd1xeM/zT7qXY5TyrWL1zXgLloA+UsvelaR0+KhvM1rXcR+lV7RkQFvl8fHnM/CefiXZqC3gG9vRelBogl0uz21glaXc2FWhKxHM0mGo RwrDbYwhJnJONQImtuuZfX9s3a17FfaRotB2Kpy++B8kFHRi407JdRFhM1wfA/56iEeWEiJAuA1ewQ== X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 461Dcj2k6mz4bCh X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of cy.schubert@cschubert.com has no SPF policy when checking 64.59.136.137) smtp.mailfrom=cy.schubert@cschubert.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.95 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.99)[-0.993,0]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[137.136.59.64.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:6327, ipnet:64.59.128.0/20, country:CA]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(-2.36)[ip: (-6.05), ipnet: 64.59.128.0/20(-3.19), asn: 6327(-2.49), country: CA(-0.09)]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[17.125.67.70.khpj7ygk5idzvmvt5x4ziurxhy.zen.dq.spamhaus.net : 127.0.0.11] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 19:29:42 -0000 Just a quick warning to folks out there who might want to use sysutils/flashrom to update their BIOS. I did two of my Asus MBs. They flashed ok but all NICs, two on one MB and the one on the other all had the same default MAC of 04:4b:80:80:80:03. Thankfully the backup of my BIOSes restored the old MAC addresses in NVRAM while restoring the old BIOSes. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert FreeBSD UNIX: Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.