Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 21:41:28 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick <jdc@koitsu.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: culot@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Andrej Zverev <az@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Recent Mk/bsd.perl.mk changes (r320679) Message-ID: <20130706044128.GA21103@icarus.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20130626102306.GA71709@icarus.home.lan> References: <20130626001406.GA63314@icarus.home.lan> <CAD5bB%2BgMrttUuxcGGKUxCvP2No-y%2B8JzBRHLW51f%2BAUtMaTJoQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130626061219.GA68398@icarus.home.lan> <20130626064051.GG93612@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20130626071537.GA69414@icarus.home.lan> <20130626102306.GA71709@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:23:06AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:15:37AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 08:40:52AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:12:19PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:42:37AM +0400, Andrej Zverev wrote: > > > > > Hello, and first please accept my apologies for this situation. > > > > > > > > Understood, I just hope this can get addressed/fixed sooner than later, > > > > because what we have right now is reproducible breakage. :-) > > > > > > > > > > pkg_add -r perl (this will install perl-5.14.2_3.tbz) > > > > > > svn up /usr/ports > > > > > > cd /usr/ports/whatever/p5-whatever > > > > > > make install > > > > > > pkg_delete p5-whatever > > > > > > > > > > As I know we are never supported mixing of ports and packages. > > > > > If you initially installed something from package and decide to use > > > > > ports in this case better to rebuild all or stay with packages. > > > > > > > > And here is where you are sadly mistaken. While I cannot find any sort > > > > of official statement on the "mixing of the two", the fact of the matter > > > > is (and possibly you did not know this -- I'm not sure) that packages > > > > are built **from** ports ("make package" does the magic). This is > > > > confirmed as well: > > > > > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/linux-users/software.html > > > > > > > > Please be aware when I say "package" I am talking about the .tbz balls > > > > utilised by the base system's pkg_* tools (not pkg(8)) and used by the > > > > OS installer and so on. For pkg(8) I believe poudriere is used to make > > > > the packages. I don't use/can't speak about pkg(8) et al. > > > > > > Wrong and totally wrong, the way the ports tree works with pkg(8) is exactly the > > > same way it works with pkg_install (make package does the same). > > > > > > poudriere is just some script to make sure everything is done in the right > > > order, cleanly and works transparently with both pkg(8) and pkg_install. > > > > Thanks for the clarification and the education on this point -- like I > > said, I have no experience with pkg(8) and its kin. > > > > > > For both pkg_* tools and ports, both use the same default base path > > > > (/usr/local), **and** both register their bits in /var/db/pkg. > > > > > > Wrong and wrong, ports knows nothing about /var/db/pkg, ports ask the package > > > tool to register a package may that be pkg_install or pkg(8) this tool will > > > register the package where ever it seems suitable to itself meaning /var/db/pkg > > > in the case of both pkg(8) and pkg_install. > > > > Please go look at Mk/bsd.port.mk and look up PKG_DBDIR. Just go look > > for it throughout the entire file and look at how/where it's used. It's > > used *heavily* throughout dependency checking and actual installation > > (think "Registering installation of ..." messages and what happens under > > the hood, if I remember right -- otherwise you have a port installed > > that you cannot pkg_delete). > > > > > > Package installation does not utilise any part of the ports/Mk/* > > > > framework, but that isn't anything new -- it's been like that since at > > > > least the 2.2.x days, possibly earlier. > > > > > > > > So in summary, when making changes to ports/Mk/*, you really have to > > > > think about the combination of the two, and make sure you don't break > > > > anything when changing key pieces of those framework bits. > > > > > > That is exactly what has been done in the case of the change. > > > > But only when looking forward, not when looking at existing > > installations or new installations. I will repeat my instructions for > > how to reproduce the problem: > > > > pkg_add -r perl (this will install perl-5.14.2_3.tbz) > > svn up /usr/ports > > cd /usr/ports/whatever/p5-whatever > > make install > > pkg_delete p5-whatever > > > > Please go do it on a fresh FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE system and watch what > > happens -- it breaks, and that breakage results in leftover shit in > > LOCALBASE. > > > > > > > > What I'd like to know: > > > > > > > > > > > > - Why the major.minor.patchlevel --> major.minor path change in the > > > > > > first place. I have never, ever seen this done anywhere on any *IX > > > > > > system I've used. Where's the justification? Was this discussed on > > > > > > some perl mailing list somewhere as a "new and better way"? It's > > > > > > essentially saying "x.y.z is always going to be compatible with x.y.z+1" > > > > > > which is not true (particularly with XS, as I understand it). Where > > > > > > was this discussed publicly? > > > > > > > > > > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=26605+0+archive/2013/freebsd-perl/20130609.freebsd-perl > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to start yet another bikeshed here. Maybe link above will > > > > > make some things more clear to you. > > > > > > > > Thanks -- I wasn't aware of the freebsd-perl mailing list. > > > > > > > > I just finished reading the entire thread. The justification seems to > > > > be "because Fedora and Debian do it" (that's the best I can find). > > > > Okay, fine/great/whatever -- I guess that's a form of justification, > > > > just not one I was hoping for. I won't dwell on this at this point -- I > > > > got the answer I was looking for. > > > > > > No the justification is that we use to have a perl-after-upgrade script to > > > workaround the fact that we used major.minor.patchlevel my bypassing the package > > > tool to modify directly the content of the package database and more some files > > > on the file system each time a new perl update comes (like perl 5.12.2 -> > > > 5.12.4) without this script being run every single minor update of perl was > > > requiring manual intervention to fix up all the installed packages whereever > > > they came from ports or package etc. > > > > That sounds like a mess, and I agree getting rid of that sounds great. > > I wasn't aware of that piece. But my stand on the breakage due to the > > backwards compatibility shims not being there stands. > > > > > The reference concerning Fedora/Debian was just when some asked if we were doing > > > something exotic to say no this is a "normal way" of doing things, look others > > > do and the perl build system is extecting use to do that. > > > > On the Solaris systems I use to administrate, I remember the paths > > containing major.minor.patchlevel. I doubt I'll find anything out about > > this in any of the perl documentation online though. > > > > > > I see no actual harm in moving to major.minor, but the issue here is > > > > that backwards compatibility in Mk/bsd.perl.mk for existing perl > > > > installations. > > > > > > > > Many people, for example, do not want to build X.org from source -- so > > > > they pkg_add -r X, then build other bits/pieces related to X from > > > > ports/source. Even more people do this for OpenOffice/LibreOffice or > > > > whatever it's called today ( :-) ). > > > > > > > > This "combination" needs to be supported. I know it hurts to have to > > > > retain backwards compatibility, but it's necessary given how all of this > > > > was designed. > > > > > > This has never been supported neither been unsupported, this commit doesn't > > > changed anything here. > > > > See above, re: what the commit has broken. > > > > > > Such backwards compatibility could be removed, as I said, once > > > > sufficient time has passed, particularly once the FreeBSD versions > > > > shipping with a ports tree snapshot with perl versions older than those > > > > in r320679 have been EOL'd. After that you could remove the framework > > > > and cite EOL on such support. This is normal too -- for example on > > > > occasion FreeBSD [67].x people show up on -ports and complain that > > > > something won't build/some part of the Mk/* framework is broken for > > > > them, and EOL is the proper response to that. > > > > > > Such compatibility hasn't been removed but improved with this patch: > > > old behaviour update from perl-X.Y.Z -> perl-X.Y.Z+1 then the perl path was > > > changed and all compatibility was broken. > > > new behaviour update from perl-X.Y.Z -> perl-X.Y.Z+1: nothing to do > > > > See above, re: only looking forward, not looking at existing support and > > what happens if someone does what I said. > > > > > > I know this probably won't hold any ground because I'm not one any > > > > longer, but I was a FreeBSD ports committer myself some years ago (~5), > > > > so please don't think that I'm just flying off the handle without some > > > > existing familiarity with things. > > > > > > > > If there is truly going to be a "split" between ports and packages > > > > in this way, then someone needs to start doing SVN tagging/branches > > > > for major changes like this. > > > > > > This has never been the matter of the patch and noone said that their will be a > > > split like this in the futur. > > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong here -- and god do I hope I am -- but the > > short version sounds to me like you're saying "nothing is wrong with the > > commit, nothing is broken, there is no problem, what are you complaining > > about?" I want to make sure I understand if that's what you're saying > > before I react past this point. But I would urge you to go do what I > > said, re: those 5 commands, and watch the breakage for yourself. > > > > Of course, I guess the alternate "solution" would be to have whoever > > maintains the official package sites (not for pkg, but pkg_*) update all > > the packages in Latest/ so that they refer to the new path convention... > > And it just occurred to me: thanks to your tip about perl-after-upgrade, > the below works. It should be crystal clear the methodology. > > I tested this on a bare 9.1-RELEASE system using devel/p5-Config-Record > as a test subject (since it has no dependencies and builds fast), with > both pkg_add -r perl (i.e. package with the old pathing scheme in > place), and then alternately lang/perl5.14 from ports (at r320679). No > more errors, no more cruft, no more issues. > > And like I said earlier: once all the FreeBSD releases get EOL'd and the > packages which make use of the major.minor.patchlevel scheme are > gone/nuked from orbit, this simple code can be removed. > > -- > | Jeremy Chadwick jdc@koitsu.org | > | UNIX Systems Administrator http://jdc.koitsu.org/ | > | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB | > > Index: bsd.perl.mk > =================================================================== > --- bsd.perl.mk (revision 321789) > +++ bsd.perl.mk (working copy) > @@ -50,7 +50,14 @@ Perl_Pre_Include= bsd.perl.mk > PERL_Include_MAINTAINER= perl@FreeBSD.org > > PERL_VERSION?= 5.14.4 > + > +# Legacy support for old perl packages which use the deprecated > +# (as of r320679) major.minor.patchlevel pathing scheme. > +.if exists(${LOCALBASE}/bin/perl-after-upgrade) > +PERL_VER?= ${PERL_VERSION} > +.else > PERL_VER?= ${PERL_VERSION:C/\.[0-9]+$//} > +.endif > > .if !defined(PERL_LEVEL) && defined(PERL_VERSION) > perl_major= ${PERL_VERSION:C|^([1-9]+).*|\1|} PR 180340 has been filed for this matter to ensure it does not disappear off people's radar: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=180340 -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc@koitsu.org | | UNIX Systems Administrator http://jdc.koitsu.org/ | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130706044128.GA21103>