HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
56 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

Ade Lovett
With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.

The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completely
at random) assuming that FreeBSD would never jump to a double-digit
major version number, and as such, various regexps for "freebsd1*" (ie:
FreeBSD 1.1.x) are now matching "freebsd10".

This is going to be some fairly fundamental breakage.

However, until such time as 9.0-RELEASE is completely out of the door,
with autotools hat on, I will _not_ be committing any changes to
infrastructural ports to "fix" this.

That is to say, until 9.0-R happens, and for some considerable period
afterwards, ya'll can pretty much expect ports/ to be non-functional on
HEAD.  PRs mentioning this will be gleefully closed referencing this
message.

-aDe

Reply-To set to me.  Please honor it.


_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

Kevin Oberman-3
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
> expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
>
> The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completely
> at random) assuming that FreeBSD would never jump to a double-digit
> major version number, and as such, various regexps for "freebsd1*" (ie:
> FreeBSD 1.1.x) are now matching "freebsd10".
>
> This is going to be some fairly fundamental breakage.
>
> However, until such time as 9.0-RELEASE is completely out of the door,
> with autotools hat on, I will _not_ be committing any changes to
> infrastructural ports to "fix" this.
>
> That is to say, until 9.0-R happens, and for some considerable period
> afterwards, ya'll can pretty much expect ports/ to be non-functional on
> HEAD.  PRs mentioning this will be gleefully closed referencing this
> message.

aDe,

Could an entry to this effect be added to UPDATING (with a matching
entry when ports/ is "unbroken").

Anyone running CURRENT should be reading your message, but I'm a "belt
and suspenders" type of
guy on this sort of thing. Backing out of CURRENT and moving to
9-STABLE can be a REAL pain that
will likely rapidly get worse as HEAD gets less and less frozen.
--
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer - Retired
E-mail: [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

Garrett Cooper
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Kevin Oberman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
>> expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
>>
>> The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completely
>> at random) assuming that FreeBSD would never jump to a double-digit
>> major version number, and as such, various regexps for "freebsd1*" (ie:
>> FreeBSD 1.1.x) are now matching "freebsd10".
>>
>> This is going to be some fairly fundamental breakage.
>>
>> However, until such time as 9.0-RELEASE is completely out of the door,
>> with autotools hat on, I will _not_ be committing any changes to
>> infrastructural ports to "fix" this.
>>
>> That is to say, until 9.0-R happens, and for some considerable period
>> afterwards, ya'll can pretty much expect ports/ to be non-functional on
>> HEAD.  PRs mentioning this will be gleefully closed referencing this
>> message.
>
> aDe,
>
> Could an entry to this effect be added to UPDATING (with a matching
> entry when ports/ is "unbroken").

Being a pessimist, ports will never be fully unbroken unless all the
thousands of autotools based ports as fixed, due to unfortunately code
duplication. That being said, I think that a note in
/usr/ports/UPDATING as well as /usr/src/UPDATING is a VERY good idea.

> Anyone running CURRENT should be reading your message, but I'm a "belt
> and suspenders" type of
> guy on this sort of thing. Backing out of CURRENT and moving to
> 9-STABLE can be a REAL pain that
> will likely rapidly get worse as HEAD gets less and less frozen.

It's not the FreeBSD dev's fault. Unfortunately the autotools folks
were microoptimizing and didn't consider that the future would come
sooner than it actually did.

Thanks,
-Garrett
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

Kevin Oberman-3
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Garrett Cooper <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It's not the FreeBSD dev's fault. Unfortunately the autotools folks
> were microoptimizing and didn't consider that the future would come
> sooner than it actually did.

Garrett,

First, I'm not complaining or criticizing any of the developers and I
am very grateful to
aDe for maintaining them as I get a headache every time I start looking at them.

I am baffled in my attempts to parse "didn't consider that the future
would come sooner
than it actually did". Is that what you really meant, because it's
self-contradictory? Or
am I just confused.
--
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer - Retired
E-mail: [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

Garrett Cooper
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Kevin Oberman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Garrett Cooper <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> It's not the FreeBSD dev's fault. Unfortunately the autotools folks
>> were microoptimizing and didn't consider that the future would come
>> sooner than it actually did.
>
> First, I'm not complaining or criticizing any of the developers and I
> am very grateful to
> aDe for maintaining them as I get a headache every time I start looking at them.
>
> I am baffled in my attempts to parse "didn't consider that the future
> would come sooner
> than it actually did". Is that what you really meant, because it's
> self-contradictory? Or
> am I just confused.

    It just means that folks didn't plan ahead and didn't think up
proper contingency plans.
    FWIW FreeBSD has developed faster in the last couple of years than
most folks would have expected -- including myself -- and the release
cycles reflect that change. That's more of what I was addressing in my
previous reply.
    Corner cases are the bane of all software developers.
-Garrett
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

Ade Lovett

> It just means that folks didn't plan ahead and didn't think up
> proper contingency plans.

First off, apologies to Garrett, I'm not picking on you directly, but I
kinda knew this would come up.

The undeniable fact is that configure scripts in general have chosen to
do things a certain way.  Unfortunately for us (us being FreeBSD), we
have now broken these conceptions by moving to a dual-digit major
release.

Emails have been passed around (somewhere starting around the 7.x
series when it became obvious we would be hitting 10.x a lot sooner
than expected).  It is no-one's fault that 23,000+ third party
applications couldn't be tweaked prior to a trivial change
in /sys/conf/newvers.sh that resulted in this "oops".

The message I wanted to set across is that until such time as us ports
folks have had a chance to really work out the damage, and start on
fixing it, then for those running 10-CURRENT, things are likely to be
non-linear for a while.

Our primary responsibility right now is to ensure that a proper set of
packages gets built for the impending 9.0-RELEASE.  We haven't
forgotten you bleeding edge folks, it's just that right now, you're
somewhat down the food chain.

Make no mistake.  This move to a double-digit major version number is
going to cause serious pain.  We will do our best to fix, hack, slash,
and whatever around it, but right now the focus is the last of our
remaining single-digit releases.  Until that is out the door, do not be
expecting tree-wide commits to fix things.

-aDe
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
h h
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

h h
In reply to this post by Kevin Oberman-3
Kevin Oberman <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
>> expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
>>
>> The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completely
>> at random) assuming that FreeBSD would never jump to a double-digit
>> major version number, and as such, various regexps for "freebsd1*" (ie:
>> FreeBSD 1.1.x) are now matching "freebsd10".
[...]
>
> aDe,
>
> Could an entry to this effect be added to UPDATING (with a matching
> entry when ports/ is "unbroken").

Also mention a workaround, e.g.

  $ export UNAME_r='9.9-BLAH'
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

Daniel O'Connor-3
In reply to this post by Ade Lovett

On 27/09/2011, at 13:33, Ade Lovett wrote:
> That is to say, until 9.0-R happens, and for some considerable period
> afterwards, ya'll can pretty much expect ports/ to be non-functional on
> HEAD.  PRs mentioning this will be gleefully closed referencing this
> message.

I imagine you can work around it by setting UNAME_r=9.0-CURRENT before building stuff.

--
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au
"The nice thing about standards is that there
are so many of them to choose from."
  -- Andrew Tanenbaum
GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C






_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

Garrett Cooper
In reply to this post by h h
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, h h wrote:

> Kevin Oberman <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
>>> expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
>>>
>>> The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completely
>>> at random) assuming that FreeBSD would never jump to a double-digit
>>> major version number, and as such, various regexps for "freebsd1*" (ie:
>>> FreeBSD 1.1.x) are now matching "freebsd10".
> [...]
>>
>> aDe,
>>
>> Could an entry to this effect be added to UPDATING (with a matching
>> entry when ports/ is "unbroken").
>
> Also mention a workaround, e.g.
>
>  $ export UNAME_r='9.9-BLAH'

Assuming that a script's detection algorithm is simple. Please see
http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/current/2007-07/msg00597.html 
for a more complete masquerading algorithm.p
-Garrett
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

O. Hartmann-4
In reply to this post by h h
On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:

> Kevin Oberman<[hidden email]>  writes:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>> With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
>>> expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
>>>
>>> The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completely
>>> at random) assuming that FreeBSD would never jump to a double-digit
>>> major version number, and as such, various regexps for "freebsd1*" (ie:
>>> FreeBSD 1.1.x) are now matching "freebsd10".
> [...]
>>
>> aDe,
>>
>> Could an entry to this effect be added to UPDATING (with a matching
>> entry when ports/ is "unbroken").
>
> Also mention a workaround, e.g.
>
>    $ export UNAME_r='9.9-BLAH'


Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for
their tenth version of their operating system ...
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

Anton Shterenlikht
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:28:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:

> On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
> >Kevin Oberman<[hidden email]>  writes:
> >
> >>On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett<[hidden email]>  wrote:
> >>
> >>>With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be
> >>>expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
> >>>
> >>>The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completely
> >>>at random) assuming that FreeBSD would never jump to a double-digit
> >>>major version number, and as such, various regexps for "freebsd1*" (ie:
> >>>FreeBSD 1.1.x) are now matching "freebsd10".
> >[...]
> >>
> >>aDe,
> >>
> >>Could an entry to this effect be added to UPDATING (with a matching
> >>entry when ports/ is "unbroken").
> >
> >Also mention a workaround, e.g.
> >
> >   $ export UNAME_r='9.9-BLAH'
>
>
> Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for
> their tenth version of their operating system ...

At least there will be a long rest after
the move to 10 is complete.. until FreeBSD 100.

--
Anton Shterenlikht
Room 2.6, Queen's Building
Mech Eng Dept
Bristol University
University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK
Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944
Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

Eduardo Morras
At 11:18 27/09/2011, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> > Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for
> > their tenth version of their operating system ...
>
>At least there will be a long rest after
>the move to 10 is complete.. until FreeBSD 100.


Or move to hexadecimal

$ export UNAME_r='A.0-CURRENT'


_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

outside the box (Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT)

Perry Hutchison
In reply to this post by Ade Lovett
Ade Lovett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The undeniable fact is that configure scripts in general have
> chosen to do things a certain way.  Unfortunately for us (us
> being FreeBSD), we have now broken these conceptions by moving
> to a dual-digit major release.

I don't suppose

  REVISION="A.1"

i.e. using a single hex digit instead of two decimal digits,
would work any better :)

(IIRC alphas do sort after numerics, at least in the C locale.)
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: outside the box (Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT)

O. Hartmann-4
On 09/27/11 16:46, [hidden email] wrote:

> Ade Lovett<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> The undeniable fact is that configure scripts in general have
>> chosen to do things a certain way.  Unfortunately for us (us
>> being FreeBSD), we have now broken these conceptions by moving
>> to a dual-digit major release.
>
> I don't suppose
>
>    REVISION="A.1"
>
> i.e. using a single hex digit instead of two decimal digits,
> would work any better :)
>

... it will only postpone the agony ... better to deal now than shifting
it to the future ...
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

krad-3
In reply to this post by Anton Shterenlikht
On 27 September 2011 10:18, Anton Shterenlikht <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:28:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote:
> > >Kevin Oberman<[hidden email]>  writes:
> > >
> > >>On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett<[hidden email]>  wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to
> be
> > >>>expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while.
> > >>>
> > >>>The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completely
> > >>>at random) assuming that FreeBSD would never jump to a double-digit
> > >>>major version number, and as such, various regexps for "freebsd1*"
> (ie:
> > >>>FreeBSD 1.1.x) are now matching "freebsd10".
> > >[...]
> > >>
> > >>aDe,
> > >>
> > >>Could an entry to this effect be added to UPDATING (with a matching
> > >>entry when ports/ is "unbroken").
> > >
> > >Also mention a workaround, e.g.
> > >
> > >   $ export UNAME_r='9.9-BLAH'
> >
> >
> > Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for
> > their tenth version of their operating system ...
>
> At least there will be a long rest after
> the move to 10 is complete.. until FreeBSD 100.
>
> --
> Anton Shterenlikht
> Room 2.6, Queen's Building
> Mech Eng Dept
> Bristol University
> University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK
> Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944
> Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423
> _______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
>


we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
h h
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

h h
In reply to this post by Anton Shterenlikht
Eduardo Morras <[hidden email]> writes:

> At 11:18 27/09/2011, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
>
>> > Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for
>> > their tenth version of their operating system ...
>>
>>At least there will be a long rest after
>>the move to 10 is complete.. until FreeBSD 100.
>
>
> Or move to hexadecimal
>
> $ export UNAME_r='A.0-CURRENT'

Wouldn't this fail if version is parsed with regex?

    # from mysql
    ELSEIF(CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME MATCHES "FreeBSD")
      STRING(REGEX MATCH "[0-9]+\\.[0-9]+"  VER "${CMAKE_SYSTEM_VERSION}")
      SET(DEFAULT_PLATFORM "${CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME}${VER}")
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

Robert Huff
In reply to this post by krad-3

krad writes:
>  we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)

        Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?


                                                Robert Huff

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

Erik Trulsson
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 08:22:54AM -0400, Robert Huff wrote:
>
> krad writes:
> >  we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
>
> Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?

Not quite.  There they mostly said "No way that this program will still
be in use when two-digit years becomes a problem!"  




--
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

Adrian Chadd-2
In reply to this post by Robert Huff
On 27 September 2011 20:22, Robert Huff <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> krad writes:
>>  we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
>
>        Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?

Our children will be dealing with Y2038. :-)



Adrian
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT

Doug Rabson-2
On 27 September 2011 13:57, Adrian Chadd <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 27 September 2011 20:22, Robert Huff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > krad writes:
> >>  we can leave that to our grand children to figure out though 8)
> >
> >        Wasn't that what people said about two-digit years?
>
> Our children will be dealing with Y2038. :-)
>
>
I'm sure some of us old-timers will be looking for high-paid 2038
consultancy work to fund our lavish retirement plans...
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
123