From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 8 15:14:24 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBDD431D; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:14:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:75::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD70D2A2F; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:14:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E90BB939; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:14:23 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn error during 'make buildkernel'? Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:14:05 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p28; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <20130803210348.GA715@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20130806181107.GR34979@over-yonder.net> <20130806183054.GB2190@glenbarber.us> In-Reply-To: <20130806183054.GB2190@glenbarber.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201308081114.05978.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Thu, 08 Aug 2013 11:14:23 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Glen Barber , Steve Kargl , Peter Wemm , "Matthew D. Fuller" X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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, 08 Aug 2013 15:14:24 -0000 On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 2:30:54 pm Glen Barber wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:11:07PM -0500, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 08:55:30PM -0400 I heard the voice of > > Glen Barber, and lo! it spake thus: > > > > > > The error generated is non-fatal, and once I receive response on a > > > proposed patch, will be suppressed if the svn version used to check > > > out the tree is not compatible with that used to check the version > > > of the tree with the kernel build. > > > > But not try the ports svn as well? I mean, as breakage goes, it's not > > even in the top 100; I'd _much_ rather have a kernel that I have to > > guess the revision of but boots, than one properly recorded that > > doesn't. But it's still unpleasant, and is one of those things you > > probably won't notice missing until suddenly you need it. > > > > And this isn't just a presentism. Sure, right _now_ devel/subversion > > and base svnlite get along, but what happens when ports moves to 1.9 > > which changes the WT format? Even if -CURRENT src gets upgraded > > simultaneously[0], the same surely can't be said of every back branch. > > > > I realize this is all still a WIP, and please don't read any anger > > into my words. But this _has_ been something I've found a little > > worrisome since the original import/newvers change. Heck, newvers can > > show me version info if I'm getting my source tree from git or p4, but > > can't handle ports svn? By the time this works its way into a stable > > branch, I really think it should either handle svnversion from ports > > as well, or come with a big bright flashing warning that using svn > > from anything but base svnlite for /usr/src is a degraded experience. > > > > > > [0] Which still wouldn't really fix things, since > > /usr/bin/svnliteversion is arbitrarily old, not up to date with > > the source tree. > > > > I have this on my todo list, but right now I have bigger things to deal > with. As soon as I can, I will fix the logic. Right now, it is not "as > easy as checking which svn works", because the more I look at the logic > for newvers.sh, the more I dislike how it all works. BTW, I was totally surprised by this recent error on my laptop which still has 1.7 installed. I don't rebuild ports all the time because it's a PITA. I think the fact that svnliteversion is used in preference to svnversion is a huge POLA violation and completely agree with Steve on this one. It shouldn't be that hard to just check $? and fallback to svnliteversion if svnversion fails. I have much more complex hacks in place at work where we have active 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8 clients. :( -- John Baldwin