From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 17 20:41:30 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20526C for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 20:41:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rfg@tristatelogic.com) Received: from outgoing.tristatelogic.com (segfault.tristatelogic.com [69.62.255.118]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BA42140 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 20:41:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from segfault-nmh-helo.tristatelogic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.tristatelogic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86123ACD8; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:41:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" To: Ruslan Makhmatkhanov Subject: Re: Port build failure -- security/hydra In-Reply-To: <525C183F.7010901@yandex.ru> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:41:22 -0700 Message-ID: <2125.1382042482@server1.tristatelogic.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 20:41:30 -0000 In message <525C183F.7010901@yandex.ru>, you wrote: >Ronald F. Guilmette wrote on 06.10.2013 01:34: >> >>> make -V FETCH_CMD >> >> Results: >> >> /usr/bin/fetch -AFpr >> >>> on your system? What FreeBSD version you are using? >> >> FreeBSD segfault.tristatelogic.com 9.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE #0 r24382 >5: Tue Dec 4 09:23:10 UTC 2012 root@farrell.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/ >src/sys/GENERIC amd64 > >Yes, I now see the issue. If I understand correctly /usr/bin/fetch got >SSL support since FreeBSD 9.2, so is why it isn't work to you. Thank you for the follow-up. I know that there is always a rational explanation for everything, but it is nice to have someone independently confirm that fact from time to time. >>> PS. Yes, packetstorm has different distifile at the moment. >> >> No no. As I said, *all* of the mirrors appear to have the tarball that is >> 681552 bytes long, and only just the thc.org copy fo teh tarball has the >> size 681784. > >Packetstorm just updated the distfile on their mirrors, so now all >should work. OK. Good. Once again, thank youf or the follow-up. Regards, rfg