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

Garrett Cooper gcooper at
Sun Mar 28 19:08:09 UTC 2010

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Garrett Cooper <gcooper at> wrote:
> Hi Ken,
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Garrett Cooper <gcooper at> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Garrett Cooper <gcooper at> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 1:50 AM,  <FreeBSD-gnats-submit at> 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:
>>>>>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:
>> release: 8.0-RELEASE-p2
>> version: FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE-p2 #0: Fri Mar 26 16:58:16 EDT 2010
>> root at
>> 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/ 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?

Forgot to actually CC ken :/...

More information about the freebsd-bugs mailing list