bin/145100: [patch] pkg_add(1) - remove hardcoded versioning data from add/main.c

[Garrett Cooper]

Hi Ken,

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Garrett Cooper <gcooper at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Garrett Cooper <gcooper at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 1:50 AM,  <FreeBSD-gnats-submit at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> Thank you very much for your problem report.
>>> It has the internal identification `bin/145100'.
>>> The individual assigned to look at your
>>> report is: freebsd-bugs.
>>>
>>> You can access the state of your problem report at any time
>>> via this link:
>>>
>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=145100
>>>
>>>>Category:       bin
>>>>Responsible:    freebsd-bugs
>>>>Synopsis:       [patch] pkg_add(1) - remove hardcoded versioning data from add/main.c
>>>>Arrival-Date:   Sun Mar 28 08:50:02 UTC 2010
>>
>> Supported hierarchies are done like:
>>
>>    /<machine>/packages-<release-lowercase>
>>
>> Corrected with this diff.
>
>    One other minor sidenote: this patch requires minor a basename(3)
> addition to pkg_add(1) as described in bin/121165 . It's relatively
> trivial to add, and only needs to be done for lib/lib.h and add/main.c
> ; so either I can yank the diagnostic message, or add the minor change
> to the diff -- whichever is more preferred.

> There are a couple of issues this patch doesn't seen to address.
> Here is an example of what's in the uname structure on a machine
> that's had two patches applied to it (SA/EN as published by the
> Security Team):
>
> bauer 11 % cat uname.c
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <sys/utsname.h>
>
> int
> main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
>        struct utsname un;
>
>        if (uname(&un)) {
>                perror("uname");
>                exit (1);
>        }
>        printf("sysname: %s\n", un.sysname);
>        printf("nodename: %s\n", un.nodename);
>        printf("release: %s\n", un.release);
>        printf("version: %s\n", un.version);
>        printf("machine: %s\n", un.machine);
> }
> bauer 12 % ./uname
> sysname: FreeBSD
> nodename: bauer.cse.buffalo.edu
> release: 8.0-RELEASE-p2
> version: FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE-p2 #0: Fri Mar 26 16:58:16 EDT 2010
> root at bauer.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/FIREWALL
> machine: amd64
> bauer 13 %
>
> So unless I'm mis-reading your patch it would be looking for
> packages in
>
>  /ftp/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-8.0-release-p2
>
> which doesn't exist.
>
> That problem isn't too hard to solve but the other problem is.
> There are times during release cycles that branches wind up
> with even weirder names than just tacking -p<something> on to
> the end of the name.  For example during the 7.3 release cycle
> the stable/7 branch was named 7.3-PRERELEASE during the entire
> cycle.  Once it got created the releng/7.3 branch was named
> 7.3-RC1, and progressed to 7.3-RC2.  And take a look at what
> a system installed from one of the Monthly Snapshots gives for
> uname output, I don't have one handy at the moment but if I
> recall correctly it has the snapshot's name embedded in the
> uname output.  The mechanism that does that is what I use to
> name the BETA releases as well, I never actually commit the
> BETA1, BETA2, etc. names to a stable branch because it tends
> to freak out people using those branches (we wind up getting
> mail saying "Hey, RELENG_7 is a stable branch!  Why does
> a machine updated today on RELENG_7 say it's *BETA1*???")
> during release cycles; the PRERELEASE thing is an attempt
> to avoid that...).  If you do a release build specifying
> BUILDNAME on the command line it will use that as what gets
> put into sys/conf/newvers.sh as the $RELEASE.  And that's
> the source of what uname gives as the release field.

    Ouch. You pointed out a flaw in my assumptions that would
definitely invalidate this proposed change. Now I'm teetering between
whether or not it's wise to actually make this change.

    Here are some questions though:

1. What happens if compat libraries are used with a specifically built
copy of pkg_install? Game over, right -- because the __FreeBSD_version
is encoded in the binary?
2. Should prereleases really be allowed to use release-based packages?
Probably not right -- generally the functionality is fixed in each
release, but it can change dramatically before the official release is
made, correct (take the 7.0-RELEASE for example...)?
3. What also happens if FreeBSD developer goes and messes up a package
before the release 7.2-RC2, but it was working in 7.2-RC1 -- the
individual will be toast right because they'll `automatically upgrade'
to the latest version and can't go back to the earlier version without
grabbing the CD, correct?

Thanks,
-Garrett