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

Garrett Cooper gcooper at
Sun Mar 28 19:10:15 UTC 2010

The following reply was made to PR bin/145100; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Garrett Cooper <gcooper at>
To: Garrett Cooper <gcooper at>
Cc: bug-followup at, freebsd-bugs at, kensmith at
Subject: Re: bin/145100: [patch] pkg_add(1) - remove hardcoded versioning data 
	from add/main.c
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 12:08:07 -0700

 On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Garrett Cooper <gcooper at> wrot=
 > Hi Ken,
 > On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Garrett Cooper <gcooper at> wro=
 >> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Garrett Cooper <gcooper at> wr=
 >>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 1:50 AM, =A0<FreeBSD-gnats-submit at> =
 >>>> 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: =A0 =A0 =A0 bin
 >>>>>Responsible: =A0 =A0freebsd-bugs
 >>>>>Synopsis: =A0 =A0 =A0 [patch] pkg_add(1) - remove hardcoded versioning=
  data from add/main.c
 >>>>>Arrival-Date: =A0 Sun Mar 28 08:50:02 UTC 2010
 >>> Supported hierarchies are done like:
 >>> =A0 =A0/<machine>/packages-<release-lowercase>
 >>> Corrected with this diff.
 >> =A0 =A0One 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[])
 >> {
 >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0struct utsname un;
 >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0if (uname(&un)) {
 >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0perror("uname");
 >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0exit (1);
 >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0}
 >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0printf("sysname: %s\n", un.sysname);
 >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0printf("nodename: %s\n", un.nodename);
 >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0printf("release: %s\n", un.release);
 >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0printf("version: %s\n", un.version);
 >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0printf("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
 >> =A0/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. =A0For example during the 7.3 release cycle
 >> the stable/7 branch was named 7.3-PRERELEASE during the entire
 >> cycle. =A0Once it got created the releng/7.3 branch was named
 >> 7.3-RC1, and progressed to 7.3-RC2. =A0And 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. =A0The 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! =A0Why does
 >> a machine updated today on RELENG_7 say it's *BETA1*???")
 >> during release cycles; the PRERELEASE thing is an attempt
 >> to avoid that...). =A0If 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. =A0And that's
 >> the source of what uname gives as the release field.
 > =A0 =A0Ouch. 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.
 > =A0 =A0Here 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