Re: 15* jails to build base packages

Graham Perrin <grahamperrin_at_gmail.com> wrote on
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2025 01:40:43 UTC :

> If I'm not mistaken: when the 15.0-ALPHA1 installer uses base packages 
> from FreeBSD Project-provided repos,

pkg gets pkgbase *.pkg files from the likes of:

https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:*:*/base_*_[0-9]/ <https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:*:*/base_*_/>

For example:

https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:14:aarch64/base_release_3/

I expect the likes of (but do not know for sure):

https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:amd64/base_alpha_1/
and:
https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:armv7/base_beta_3/
and:
https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:powerpc64/base_rc_2/
and:
https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:aarch64/base_release_0/

None of the like for FreeBSD:15:* have been published yet,
not even as empty places.

I expect *.pkg files to have naming conventions that indicate
the likes of: ALPHA , BETA , and RC with the digit
indicated as well. There is logic in:

https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/blame/Makefile.inc1?h=stable%2F15

from which some of the existing *.pkg naming convention
structure is derivable. ALPHA, BETA, and RC will get
.TIMESTAMP in the naming but "snap" is not part of the
naming as stands.

I've been told that the *.dtb files will be factored out
of the kernel *.pkg files so that the various types of
kernels will not have file conflicts for installation.
(14 has some *.dtb file conflicts across some kernel
types.) Note: *.dtb are aarch64 and armv7 files but are
not arm64 files, for example. So aarch64 and armv7
will have FreeBSD-dtb*.pkg files.

> the result is inferior 
> 15.0-PRERELEASE, for which there is (still) a 
> `FreeBSD-kernel-generic-nodebug` package, and so on.

Be warned, FreeBSD-kernel-generic is the name of the NODEBUG
content kernel for builds built from stable/15 and later
releng/15.*/ materials. For main that naming is for
DEBUG content.

I do not know if there will be FreeBSD-kernel-generic-debug
package for a DEBUG content based kernel. (Being able to test
official DEBUG builds without private building of them could
be handy when problems show up --but such adds to the
resource use.)

> Seeking 15 at <https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/builds?type=package> finds 
> no jail name that begins with 15.

https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/ is only port-package build
status. No pkgbase build status before distribution is
public that I know of.

The existing https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/ displays do
not seem to make much sense for pkgbase builds. Such may
not fit together well if at some point both exist.

FYI:

System builds need not involve poudriere or poudriere jails
or other jails/chroots . https://ci.freebsd.org/ would likely
be more analogous in some respects. (But, for days,
I've been seeing "Error 503 Backend fetch failed".)

> Do we need additional builders, for alphas, betas, and release candidates?

The resource usage for pkgbase building is not public that
I know of. None of the port-package builders build pkgbase
materials (ignoring pkg). Other builders are used.

> Maybe already work in progress; Colin's hope of "soon" at 
> <https://www.reddit.com/r/freebsd/comments/1naxy9v/comment/nd1dfui/> 
> with regard to pkgbase packages shipping on the install images.

I do not expect that there are resources for most "nice to
have but not essential" things to get very far during the
15.0 release cycle: more like a potential future development
list will accumulate that will probably take years to get
through for "nice to have but not essential".


===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com