Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:00:24 +0100 From: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> To: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de>, Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, bapt@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Newer FreeBSD version for package breaks binary updates Message-ID: <c0045723-7fec-0982-4b83-3c5d112ce27b@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CDA28861-A8EF-4696-87A6-8DA21A603817@grem.de> References: <20180115155518.78223869@bsd64.grem.de> <398ccb7e-6d47-9566-eed6-230953ba903e@FreeBSD.org> <CDA28861-A8EF-4696-87A6-8DA21A603817@grem.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Le 15/01/2018 =C3=A0 16:39, Michael Gmelin a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: > >> On 15. Jan 2018, at 16:16, Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> >>> Le 15/01/2018 =C3=A0 15:55, Michael Gmelin a =C3=A9crit : >>> Hi Bapt, >>> >>> I can't get binary updates anymore, because: >>> >>> pkg: Newer FreeBSD version for package ....: >>> - package: 1200055 >>> - running kernel: 1200054 >>> pkg: repository FreeBSD contains packages for wrong OS version: >>> FreeBSD:12:amd64 >>> >>> >>> Am I misunderstanding this, or does this mean that pkg forces me to >>> update my system before I can install any package updates (even super= >>> small ones). This seems like a bad idea that potentially will break m= any >>> deployments/workflows. >> >> pkg is telling you "this package was built with 1200055, you are runin= g >> 1200054, it will probably break" and refuses to install the package. >> >> If you want to force it, overwrite OSVERSION to 1200055, something lik= e >> `pkg -o OSVERSION=3D1200055 upgrade`. But this will probably break th= e >> packages you install at one point. >> > I understand that message, but besides that this was hardly a problem i= n the past (especially for minor version differences), it also forces peo= ple to update at the same time as FreeBSD package builders, which has con= sequences. Is adding this dependency really what we want, will package bu= ilder updates scheduled in a predictable way, so system update cycles of = users can be aligned, etc.? Otherwise this just adds another way to cut = users from updating packages/forces them back to building packages themse= lves. It has been a big problem in the past. When 10.1 and 10.2 went out of support, the package builds were switched to 10.3, and users running 10.1 and 10.2 who ran pkg upgrade got a broken pkg saying it could not find open_at or something. With this change, it could have told you "hey, you're running 100100, and this was built with 100300" or something, and they could have had time to upgrade before breaking their systems. --=20 Mathieu Arnold
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c0045723-7fec-0982-4b83-3c5d112ce27b>