On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 06:12:54PM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> We need some sort of policy how to deal with software written in
> Java. We have a number of ports that are basically just wrappers
> that install pre-compiled Java byte code.
Please have the java source in the ports tree, an
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:22:13 +0200, "Martin Schröder"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 2006/7/20, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Leave installing the source as an option to the user, and install
> > > binaries as a default.
> >
> > And in 5 years noone will make source available.
>
> Better:
Please test.
>From the port's HOMEPAGE:
"All known vulnerabilities are fixed in Zip 2.32"
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/archivers/zip/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.33
diff -p -u -u -r1.33 Makefile
--- Makefile4 Dec
On Friday 21 July 2006 02:36, Holger Mauermann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is anybody working on an updated port of rrdtool?
Yes, I am. It is pretty much working and I was waiting for a response from the
maintainer (danh@). However, I sent my patches to him weeks ago and I haven't
heard anything back so I
That wasn't really meant to be inline, apologies. Also the URL for
GIMPShop is http://www.gimpshop.net/
James Wright wrote:
This is a patch for gimp 2.2.11 and 2.2.12 which modifies it to
have the GIMPShop menus and dialogs instead of the traditional
Gimp ones. A port could be made quite easil
Hi Pedro,
On 7/18/06, Pedro Martelletto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wonder if we should still keep the PWM port now that Ion has
incorporated all of its functionalities, builds and installs a PWM
binary, and is officially considered its successor?
I think it still makes sense for people that
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 12:14:23AM +0200, Jon Olsson wrote:
> Here's the latest diff.
# make lib-depends-check
/usr/ports/packages/i386/all/darcs-1.0.8.tgz:
Extra: readline.3
Extra: ncurses.10
Extra: pthread.6
After removing the extra libs, it compiles and passes regress on
i3
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 06:50:11PM +0200, Martin Schröder wrote:
> Installing from source also needs a jdk, while installing binaries
> only needs the runtime environment.
This only means that those who build from ports also need a complete
jdk. Ordinary users can (and should) just install package
It seems like there are a number of questions to answer in this discussion.
I can find (or think of myself) at least the following ones:
1. Shall each port be able to fetch the source for all its bytecode?
(given that this is both legal and technically possible to implement)
2. Shall each por
* Marc Balmer [2006-07-20]:
> I am against ports that download pieces of code that do not have their
> source form in /usr/ports/distfiles.
I completely disagree. The question boils down to what our ports tree is
supposed to be. You want it to be a packaging system for open source
software. I want
Holger Mauermann [2006-07-20, 20:36:22]:
> Hi,
>
> is anybody working on an updated port of rrdtool? There is still
> rrdtool-1.0.49 in ports, so I tried to compile rrdtool-1.2.15 from
> source. However, configure complains about missing ftheader.h from
> freetype2.
>
> xbase39.tgz is installed a
> It's pervert to have a STOP BLOB release theme and then importing
> exactly BLOBS in the ports tree. There is absolutely no need to do so,
> nothing suffers from going throught the source, besides, maybe these
> ports are a little bit harder to do.
Please do not misuse the term BLOB like this.
I was - as naddy pointed out - very outspoken on this issue during c2k6.
And I still am.
I am against ports that download pieces of code that do not have their
source form in /usr/ports/distfiles.
I want at least to be able to see what the program does by inspecting
the sources. And I do not wan
It was already commited. However, as pointed by Bruno Bigras 2.32 is
already out...
Regards,
Rui Reis
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:54:46 +0100
Jonathan Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I sent this diff to the maintainer more than one month ago (6/6/2006),
> > he said he was still interest
Hi,
is anybody working on an updated port of rrdtool? There is still
rrdtool-1.0.49 in ports, so I tried to compile rrdtool-1.2.15 from
source. However, configure complains about missing ftheader.h from
freetype2.
xbase39.tgz is installed and ft2build.h is in /usr/X11R6/include.
Any hints how to
I sent this diff to the maintainer more than one month ago (6/6/2006),
he said he was still interested in maintaining the port. However it
seems he totally forgot about it.
I have not forgot about this but my current job left no time for a
deeper look on you diff. Hopefully I will be able to
Wow, that is totally off-topic.
Yes, it was. It's about open source.
In case anybody mis-read my hasty wording, that was meant to be an
agreement that it was off-topic, and assent that yes, the discussion is
about open source. It was NOT a suggestion that Ken's article was on topic.
On Thursday 20 July 2006 12:12 pm, you wrote:
> We need some sort of policy how to deal with software written in
> Java. We have a number of ports that are basically just wrappers
> that install pre-compiled Java byte code. Additional ports in this
> style have been proposed. Actual Java source
> P.S. Good time to re-read Ken's paper Reflections on Trusting
> Trust (online at http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/), before you decide
> where to put your foot down.
Wow, that is totally off-topic.
The discussion is about how we can use some of our clout to encourage
source availability in th
Wow, that is totally off-topic.
Yes, it was. It's about open source.
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
We need some sort of policy how to deal with software written in
Java. We have a number of ports that are basically just wrappers
that install pre-compiled Java byte code. Additional ports in this
style have been proposed. Actual Java source may or may not be
availa
+--
| On Thursday, Jul 20, 2006 at 06:12:54PM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
|
| To: ports@openbsd.org
| From: Christian Weisgerber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:12:54 +0200
| Subject: Java ports: sou
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 06:50:11PM +0200, Martin Schr?der wrote:
> Installing from source also needs a jdk, while installing binaries
> only needs the runtime environment.
>
> Leave installing the source as an option to the user, and install
> binaries as a default.
RUN_DEPENDS = jre
BUILD_DEPEND
2006/7/20, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Leave installing the source as an option to the user, and install
> binaries as a default.
And in 5 years noone will make source available.
Better: Install the source where possible (and warn if there is no
source) but don't install from source a
> Leave installing the source as an option to the user, and install
> binaries as a default.
And in 5 years noone will make source available.
* Christian Weisgerber [2006-07-20]:
> We need some sort of policy how to deal with software written in Java.
> We have a number of ports that are basically just wrappers that
> install pre-compiled Java byte code. Additional ports in this style
> have been proposed. Actual Java source may or may
Installing from source also needs a jdk, while installing binaries
only needs the runtime environment.
Leave installing the source as an option to the user, and install
binaries as a default.
Best
Martin
> How about using the source if it's available and using the binary
> when it's not?
Right. And in 5 years, how much source will you have?
> Don't forget, having the source also means being able to patch it
> as well.
Duh.
The point of Christian's mail was is that we all understand how these
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 06:12:54PM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> We need some sort of policy how to deal with software written in
> Java. We have a number of ports that are basically just wrappers
> that install pre-compiled Java byte code. Additional ports in this
> style have been propos
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Will Maier wrote:
Works great; cute program.
Thanks!
Is is indeed is nice little software, I just discovered it and I knew I
had to make a port for it ;)
--
Antoine
On Jul 20, 2006, at 10:12 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
Some preliminary discussion at the last hackathon produced the
opinion that even Java ports should be built from source by all
means. However, that discussion didn't include any of our porters
who are interested in Java... The source
We need some sort of policy how to deal with software written in
Java. We have a number of ports that are basically just wrappers
that install pre-compiled Java byte code. Additional ports in this
style have been proposed. Actual Java source may or may not be
available, but it is certainly not u
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 10:10:04AM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> qRFCView is a viewer for IETF RFCs. Advantages are:
> * automatic table of content, with direct opening of section;
> * handling of RFC internal cross-references;
> * automatic downloading of a referenced RFC from the IETF web s
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 08:09:20AM -0700, Mathieu Sauve-Frankel wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 04:39:22PM +0200, Aleksander Piotrowski wrote:
> > danz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Please test and comment.
> > > DBIx::Class description from CPAN:
>
> I would just like to note that I have
Hi...
As usual, please test, report and commit ^^
Tested under amd64.
qRFCView is a viewer for IETF RFCs. Advantages are:
* automatic table of content, with direct opening of section;
* handling of RFC internal cross-references;
* automatic downloading of a referenced RFC from the IETF web sit
35 matches
Mail list logo
