From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 29 21:09:05 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F401816A4CE; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 21:09:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pd2mo2so.prod.shaw.ca (shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net [24.71.223.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7652743D58; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 21:09:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk) Received: from pd4mr6so.prod.shaw.ca (pd4mr6so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.69])2004)) with ESMTP id <0I9I0024B5F4ZHF0@l-daemon>; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:09:04 -0700 (MST) Received: from pn2ml1so.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.121.145]) by pd4mr6so.prod.shaw.ca (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0I9I00GDW5F45G90@pd4mr6so.prod.shaw.ca>; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:09:04 -0700 (MST) Received: from [192.168.0.60] (S0106006067227a4a.vc.shawcable.net [24.87.233.42])2003)) with ESMTP id <0I9I00M3K5F3O4@l-daemon>; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:09:04 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:09:02 -0800 From: Colin Percival In-reply-to: <41D31B8E.7030305@portaone.com> To: Maxim Sobolev Message-id: <41D31CEE.5040803@wadham.ox.ac.uk> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=KOI8-U Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-us, en X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <41D31B8E.7030305@portaone.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041107) cc: re@freebsd.org cc: "current@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Building 4.x releases on 5.x and 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 21:09:05 -0000 Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Does anybody knows if subject is possible? I guess that it is not due to > usage of vn(4) in the release building process, has anybody any insights > about actual state of things and/or another potential problems in mind. > If the only problem is vn(4) vs. md(4), I think it can be solved quite > easily, while providing a good way to avoid having separate test > machines for oldest branches. I'm fairly certain that this is possible; certainly what I do on my FreeBSD Update buildbox (building 4.x worlds and kernels inside jails while running a 5.x kernel) is pretty much equivalent. One problem you may encounter involves /dev -- you'll need to mount a devfs inside the 4.x chroot rather than trying to MAKEDEV everything. I'm not sure if the `make release` code handles this. Colin Percival