Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 21:12:51 -0400 From: Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@FreeBSD.org>, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org>, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net>, freebsd-current Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Problems building FreeBSD 9.2 on FreeBSD 10 Message-ID: <20140624011251.GN1218@hub.FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <2063888D-CCAE-431B-A409-F17AA4422006@bsdimp.com> References: <CAG=rPVd4evnkJoz1rVeMjP7YNKOW0BWF0MvSrFQ3u2xCiVEtmw@mail.gmail.com> <690CE378-D7D9-49A6-BC20-13FD540E63A2@FreeBSD.org> <CAG=rPVfanU=FVWPd768_G5NjXRHnUH5o05%2BKwFeLaTQqU3Ux8w@mail.gmail.com> <FC1B2983-4B49-4480-855E-6BD09B148F31@bsdimp.com> <CAG=rPVd5XGz8hfuBtcOuuZp8ND1ssWoTkVNn0Hg6Li_2-NrgcA@mail.gmail.com> <1ED3AC7E-0F74-46A7-BAAA-E30600DC23BB@bsdimp.com> <CAG=rPVeP32=y3VZgn0MXFPrr8tevL=jOsCow=rvpxRevmvoLqA@mail.gmail.com> <8CD24B0A-DF45-4437-BEBE-8C67B241DE93@bsdimp.com> <CAG=rPVcrJpP_1VcKZnsxAugBywJBXg63p2piX7nPndTunPEWDQ@mail.gmail.com> <2063888D-CCAE-431B-A409-F17AA4422006@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--GvDmwISikgK05D7L Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 06:57:15PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > On Jun 23, 2014, at 6:15 PM, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > So, I guess that stable/9 can build properly on a stable/10 box. > > For FreeBSD 9.2, there is no easy way out. >=20 > You=E2=80=99ll have to back port the patch then. We don=E2=80=99t guarant= ee forward > compatibility like this since 9.2 is frozen in time now. >=20 I'd really like to discuss rethinking our forward-compatibility policies, since we have (now) 3 active stable/ branches, plus head/.=20 What I would like to see, with my RE hat on, is a "best effort" backwards compatibility to being able to build the lowest-numbered supported stable/ branch on head/. Sure, this won't always work, but "best effort" is better than "no effort", which the latter is why we do not have stable/8 snapshot builds, to be honest. I won't spend the time on the stable/8/release/ code nor the snapshot build scripts to waste the time. Building stable/9 on head/ is annoying alone. Glen --GvDmwISikgK05D7L Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTqNCTAAoJELls3eqvi17QntUP/A2D8sHndvrksIjw0FNHbOjX 4OPUve1EGKKXf5BArpijvUx/sfpBCiR4bWGSIb5ayOxunPnavmPbQJQIHCVrsmZj u9lzDaaM3rJSwHD9iZYDBEJ0/YMJzjK3z/lPN8xRutQ4E1HHIa4wmCW64rFI0tG9 qOTBtdrZYEW538c86CVYgL81M9uZhFEY/j1wNXyktMo82aF2watrgeKatJGzXXEJ VDjLCWWkfM78kLrAAAqNeUwb5jccCPlyKS0yLpAt2TxgQTtSItyzqCvsIAxCI9Kn NcMiup8qz9k/uQ4Ec59iz+oz6vCWmAo4y75BkfexiWYcR1P6J96QKunMSRnp2rcl Vl0l1kcvvuKdgiRnGs+4KHOeylPRNlTbXDxXyUG/tSMGtMSTMLTEJ/FAzFCEsWXi 2HF0hu1ORLTm29pwIMogOJa+ucmNpheUL3AHmsBvN3BMklOhloMkT3nFobIVBEOM 8WkfigMacjfsrJ0ZtxQmn43BFjsRdEiwMk9LyPc0YTzLx9MgH02i3hHAR6MhACc2 PaLinv5OlxJ/lh95bCYp9GSSqlp5Ao4NNKELpczgVlvJTv4m3+PUH8tJSrDk0xxI Q/wUg3Mfh7DEuAMubPc8wzvfCTxtN/oBGsK5G3FRCPz2GZ25BsDmUEgtJzWifemh aDmRokwn93PXyL2dLLPU =1zlG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GvDmwISikgK05D7L--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140624011251.GN1218>