From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Feb 9 16:44:15 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A50ECD6299 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:44:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E5E31DB6 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:44:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 0AB42CD6297; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:44:15 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A60FCD6296 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:44:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA7C81DB0 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:44:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3FD8284CA; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:44:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from illbsd.quip.test (ip-86-49-16-209.net.upcbroadband.cz [86.49.16.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFE87284F9; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:44:09 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: Install of pkg fuse-ntfs fails because of undefined symbol in pkg!?! To: Kurt Jaeger , Konstantin Belousov Cc: freebsd-ports References: <1c6cccac-b151-d13c-c763-b336c4680118@freebsd.org> <35a953e3-918b-fc32-d990-51f7da16c884@FreeBSD.org> <20170209161249.GL2092@kib.kiev.ua> <20170209162600.GP13006@home.opsec.eu> From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Message-ID: <589C9C59.4050705@quip.cz> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:44:09 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0 SeaMonkey/2.39 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170209162600.GP13006@home.opsec.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:44:15 -0000 Kurt Jaeger wrote on 2017/02/09 17:26: > Hi! > >> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:30:20PM +0100, Franco Fichtner wrote: >>> FreeBSD package management makes an ABI promise in the form of >>> "FreeBSD:10:amd64", but not even pkg code itself adheres to this, >>> and thus we have had subtle and yet fatal breakage in 10.2 and 10.3. >> Stop spreading FUD. There is no ABI breakage on stable/10 branch, >> nor there is a breakage in the package sets. > > On the one hand: > > Maybe we can agree that the pkg binary breaking between different > 10.x versions was unfortunate ? I understand that it was not a > break of the ABI promises per se, but I can tell you, I was surprised > as well, when it bite me 8-} > > On the other hand: > > Getting the ports/pkg tree moving with the velocity necessary > to cope with the fast-changing world, sometimes things break > and we all try to prevent this. Sometimes, mistakes happen... I don't have a problem with pkg / ports but I see the point from some others perspective. Why don't add some check in to "pkg" to deny (or warn user) upgrade or install on unsupported / EOLed system? Just check version on current system against some metadata info in repository. Is it too much to ask? Miroslav Lachman