Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 18:31:12 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: current@freebsd.org, pkgbase@freebsd.org, bofh@freebsd.org, bapt@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pkgbase breakage in main due to libucl upgrade Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmo=o9hWNfRi7sfMJ37q5RiOjsX2C%2B8ygbayfE=D6%2Bg9Cow@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <adO-7XKNIoSr0AaM@amaryllis.le-fay.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
hi! On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 at 07:11, Lexi Winter <ivy@freebsd.org> wrote: > > hello, > > as a couple of people already reported[0][1] the pkgbase build is > currently broken in main. this affects building packages for any > version of FreeBSD when the build host is main abda442d92fd[2] or > later. > > this is not trivial to fix. the issue is that libucl changed the > lua bindings in an incompatible way, specifically to disable use > of macros (which includes ".include") by default[3]. that breaks > the API that the pkgbase build scripts rely on, and those scripts > use the host flua. > > as an immediate fix, i have three diffs for review: > > - "packages: Fix build with libucl 0.9.3" > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D56266 > > this change, which is backward-compatible with previous versions > of lua libucl, fixes the ABI breakage. > > - "flua: Always build as a bootstrap tool" > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D56270 > "packages: Always use the bootstrap flua" > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D56271 > > these changes mean we'll use the version of flua and libucl from > the source tree to build packages, instead of the host versions, > which protects us from future API breaks. > > if you're running into this issue right now, you can apply the patch > from D56266 to fix your build, and optionally the other two diffs if > you like (but they aren't required). this has to be done on the src > tree being built, *not* the build system. > > unfortunately, none of these changes fix the general problem which is > that we can't build FreeBSD 15.0 on FreeBSD 16-CURRENT. i'm open to > other suggestsions here, but i think the best approach is to revert the > libucl commit that changed the ABI; while this is a security fix, the > only things using flua are in the base system, and none of them should > be affected by the issue being fixed. > > any thoughts? > > [0] https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current/2026-April/010080.html > [1] https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-pkgbase/2026-April/001284.html > [2] https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/?id=abda442d92fdbadcf81c79bc9ddba001d133c429 > [3] https://github.com/vstakhov/libucl/commit/8a0294f9eaa4e70342e562cb92792bbe3df90e70 *reads* * I think your diffs / approach is good; * I honestly don't think we should revert the libucl change; it'll just end up making future work less fun as other random flua/libucl shenanigans happen; * I think we should document in the 15.0 errata that building 15.0 on 16.0 after date X is a known broken thing, and to either build on 15.x or apply a workaround (eg a patch to disable the check, explaining what it does and the security risk) * and I think we should figure out what to backport to stable/15 to unbreak things. -adrianhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmo=o9hWNfRi7sfMJ37q5RiOjsX2C%2B8ygbayfE=D6%2Bg9Cow>