Change in layout / removal of older releases...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Change in layout / removal of older releases...

Ken Smith-11

Two quick notes.

For those of you who actually check what gets transferred, the bits that
are being uploaded on ftp-master for 9.0-BETA2 are in slightly different
places for at least some of the architectures (amd64 and i386 so far).
We didn't miss the target when uploading, the change was intentional.
With 9.0 there is support in the "make release" infrastructure to handle
a wider variety of architectures per machine type.  As things stand
now that is most visible in architectures we don't normally do builds
for as part of formal releases.  But the new installer needed to be
set up to handle differentiating among the architectures.  For now the
only "visible" place you would be able to see it is with the "powerpc"
machine type.  Support for 32-bit powerpc will be in:

        .../releases/powerpc/powerpc

while support for 64-bit powerpc will be in:

        .../releases/powerpc/powerpc64

when the shift is complete.  Note that this will only be for 9.X and
later branches.  When we do 8.3 it will use the old layout.

And I'm somewhat overdue for removing the 7.3-RELEASE and 8.1-RELEASE
bits from ftp-master.  I'll do that September 4th, 2011 (this Sunday).
If you do anything special to keep the older releases around please do
it before then.

Thanks.

--
                                                Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to      |       [hidden email]
  there, funny things are everywhere.   |
                      - Theodor Geisel  |

signature.asc (203 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Change in layout / removal of older releases...

Alexandr Kovalenko-4
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Ken Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Support for 32-bit powerpc will be in:
>
>        .../releases/powerpc/powerpc
>
> while support for 64-bit powerpc will be in:
>
>        .../releases/powerpc/powerpc64
>
> when the shift is complete.  Note that this will only be for 9.X and
> later branches.  When we do 8.3 it will use the old layout.

Maybe it would be good idea to make symlinks in
FreeBSD/releases/amd64/ISO-IMAGES like

9.0 -> FreeBSD/releases/amd64/amd64/ISO-IMAGES/9.0

so people who tries to download ISO will find them in usual place?
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hubs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Change in layout / removal of older releases...

Ken Smith-11
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 13:16 +0300, Alexandr Kovalenko wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Ken Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Support for 32-bit powerpc will be in:
> >
> >        .../releases/powerpc/powerpc
> >
> > while support for 64-bit powerpc will be in:
> >
> >        .../releases/powerpc/powerpc64
> >
> > when the shift is complete.  Note that this will only be for 9.X and
> > later branches.  When we do 8.3 it will use the old layout.
>
> Maybe it would be good idea to make symlinks in
> FreeBSD/releases/amd64/ISO-IMAGES like
>
> 9.0 -> FreeBSD/releases/amd64/amd64/ISO-IMAGES/9.0
>
> so people who tries to download ISO will find them in usual place?
>
We're still discussing what to do, there is no particularly good
answer to any of it.

For example here, what you suggest above works fine for amd64
but fails for powerpc.  The amd64 architecture under the new
scheme is known as "amd64-amd64" (`uname -m`-`uname -p`).  But
for powerpc as of 9.0 we have both 32-bit powerpc (powerpc-powerpc)
and 64-bit powerpc (powerpc-powerpc64).  So what should the symlink
in FreeBSD/releases/powerpc/ISO-IMAGES point to?

If you really want to shoe-horn the old directory layout into the
new directory layout you could say "use `uname -p` instead of
`uname -m` for where the symlinks in the old directory layout
go" (solving the powerpc issue mentioned above by creating
FreeBSD/releases/powerpc64/ISO-IMAGES).  But if pc98 comes
back for future releases (we're not doing pc98 builds for 9.0)
that causes problems because under the new naming scheme its
name is "pc98-i386".  Now go through the above exercise to see
where symlinks for it would need to go if we use `uname -p`.

Bottom line is that there is no good solution to backwards
compatibility based on anything sensible (using something
concrete like deciding on `uname -m` versus `uname -p`) for
the mapping once you start to factor in more than just the
set of architectures we are currently building.  Things like
having pc98 creep back in break anything we might put in place
now.  So it's possible we're just best off inflicting some pain
now to re-train people rather than put off the pain until some
seemingly arbitrary point in the future.  Now is when the
installer infrastructure is changing to rely on both the
hardware platform and processor architecture.  We could try to
put in compatibility symlinks as you suggest because the current
set of architectures can be shoe-horned into it by saying that
we're using `uname -p` to decide where to put the symlinks.
But then we're running the risk of that breaking due to us
picking up a new architecture (or having pc98 builds return
for 9.1, etc.) at some seemingly arbitrary point in the
future.

--
                                                Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to      |       [hidden email]
  there, funny things are everywhere.   |
                      - Theodor Geisel  |

signature.asc (203 bytes) Download Attachment