On 19/9/17 6:15PM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:> Hi! > >> Now that we are on a faster upgrade policy for minor branches, it is expected that we'll upgrade from 11.0 to 11.1 to 11.2 much faster than in the old days. I can cope with that, but it appears that functional changes are also being made within the stable branch as seen here: >> >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221672 >> >> A new fdatasync() method is available in 11.1 but not in 11.0 which means that I now need to maintain separate ports trees for each minor update. I've never done this before, assuming (correctly for me until now) that all ports build on the latest minor release within the stable branch would work on older releases until I was ready to upgrade them. > > I think it was the other way around: All ports build on the .0 of > a RELEASE work on all later .x of that RELEASE. Which makes it a bit > difficult, if a .0 is no longer supported/patched by the secteam. > > A pointer to the official policy would be nice 8-}Then we have a problem since https://pkg.freebsd.org/freebsd:11:x86:64/latest/All/ has been built on 11.1, not on 11.0 (I just tested it with csync2 which I know fails). Packages there may fail to run on 11.0, but there is no clear indication, just random failures at runtime. Maybe we'd need specific 11.0, 11.1, 11.2 releases instead of quarterly releases? Ari -- --------------------------> Aristedes Maniatis CEO, ish https://www.ish.com.au GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
Hi all,> Am 19.09.2017 um 10:32 schrieb Aristedes Maniatis <ari at ish.com.au>: > Then we have a problem since https://pkg.freebsd.org/freebsd:11:x86:64/latest/All/ has been built on 11.1, not on 11.0 (I just tested it with csync2 which I know fails). Packages there may fail to run on 11.0, but there is no clear indication, just random failures at runtime. > > Maybe we'd need specific 11.0, 11.1, 11.2 releases instead of quarterly releases?This is precisely what we do on our own poudriere - build the quarterly ports branches on various FreeBSD release versions. Patrick -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20170919/e97a3664/attachment.sig>
On 19/09/2017 09:32, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:> On 19/9/17 6:15PM, Kurt Jaeger wrote: >> Hi! >> >>> Now that we are on a faster upgrade policy for minor branches, it is expected that we'll upgrade from 11.0 to 11.1 to 11.2 much faster than in the old days. I can cope with that, but it appears that functional changes are also being made within the stable branch as seen here: >>> >>> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221672 >>> >>> A new fdatasync() method is available in 11.1 but not in 11.0 which means that I now need to maintain separate ports trees for each minor update. I've never done this before, assuming (correctly for me until now) that all ports build on the latest minor release within the stable branch would work on older releases until I was ready to upgrade them. >> >> I think it was the other way around: All ports build on the .0 of >> a RELEASE work on all later .x of that RELEASE. Which makes it a bit >> difficult, if a .0 is no longer supported/patched by the secteam. >> >> A pointer to the official policy would be nice 8-} > > Then we have a problem since https://pkg.freebsd.org/freebsd:11:x86:64/latest/All/ has been built on 11.1, not on 11.0 (I just tested it with csync2 which I know fails). Packages there may fail to run on 11.0, but there is no clear indication, just random failures at runtime. > > Maybe we'd need specific 11.0, 11.1, 11.2 releases instead of quarterly releases?Ports are still being built according to the same policy -- on the earliest still-supported release of each major branch. It's just that now, for 11.x and subsequent, 11.0 goes out of support a month or so after 11.1-RELEASE comes out. You're meant to have upgraded by now. The 11.0 -> 11.1 upgrade is intended to be a pretty routine thing that you can do about as freely as you can apply a security patch or other update within the 11.0 series. Yes, there should be some sort of warning about your system being older than what the package was built for. Ideally it would be intelligent enough to understand about things like the new fdatasync meaning libc was incompatible. Once we do finally get base system packages this problem should largely disappear, as the normal pkg(8) dependency handling should pull in an updated libc as a dependnecy of anything expecting the new fdatasync(). Cheers, Matthew