From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Thu Jan 11 14:13:49 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@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 A1517E650A2 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:13:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from theraven@FreeBSD.org) Received: from theravensnest.org (xvm-110-62.dc2.ghst.net [46.226.110.62]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "theravensnest.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4454072BAB; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:13:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from theraven@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.1.65] (host86-154-8-90.range86-154.btcentralplus.com [86.154.8.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by theravensnest.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w0BEDdOU018961 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:13:40 GMT (envelope-from theraven@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: mail: Host host86-154-8-90.range86-154.btcentralplus.com [86.154.8.90] claimed to be [192.168.1.65] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: Re: [self base packages] pkg: packages for wrong OS version: FreeBSD:12:amd64 From: David Chisnall In-Reply-To: <20180110185336.nlwkwhxu574kybvi@ivaldir.net> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:13:34 +0000 Cc: Boris Samorodov , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9C046B68-0F45-432C-96A9-4A4B2AEAED24@FreeBSD.org> References: <20180110185336.nlwkwhxu574kybvi@ivaldir.net> To: Baptiste Daroussin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 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: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:13:49 -0000 On 10 Jan 2018, at 18:53, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >=20 > I need to figure out a mechanism to make this simpler to handle to = upgrade of > base system while keeping this safety belt for users. >=20 > Any idea is welcome I believe the apt approach to this is to have a different verb = (distupgrade vs upgrade) to perform complete version upgrades. Ideally, = the proper fix would probably be to depend on a base package version, = rather than OSVERSION, and if the base packages are not being used to = synthesise a phantom set of base package metadata based on OSVERSION. David