Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:44:31 +0200 From: "Luchesar V. ILIEV" <luchesar.iliev@gmail.com> To: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current Message-ID: <4EBD7B1F.4070906@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4EBD728D.3040206@gmail.com> References: <CAOgwaMv=wUb11AYwJ_RN1x1p0DGtZb6pJ4cb8R6v0ySYiNTjRw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1111111226010.882@multics.mit.edu> <CAOgwaMuaddUjtXY_9%2B71H-876S%2B4oJfkOaOAZQS0fjSsycSxoQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EBD728D.3040206@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/11/2011 21:07, Luchesar V. ILIEV wrote: > On 11/11/2011 20:33, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: >>> >>> Dear all , >>>> >>>> Instead of using Current and then renaming everything for a new version >>>> number , >>>> is it not possible to use the newest version number in place of Current >>>> when it is branched . >>>> >>>> Such a change will prevent unnecessary renaming problems . >>>> >>>> >>>> For everyone , it i very easy to understand that 10.0 is the latest , >>>> therefore the current one . >>>> >>>> The current may be used as a symbolic link to the newest version number , >>>> such as used by Debian . >>>> >>>> >>>> For example , for FreeBSD 9.0 RC1 , the ports directory name was >>>> >>>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-current/Latest/ >>>> >>>> >>>> which is NOT available now , and >>>> >>>> >>>> pkg_add -r * >>>> >>>> is giving error about directory not found . >>>> >>>> >>>> This is preventing testing and / or using efforts . >>>> >>>> >>>> I know , it is possible to rename local link names , but >>>> everyone is not so much knowledgeable . >>>> >>> >>> I'm not sure I understand your proposal. >>> In a month (er, two. well, maybe three) when 9.0 is released, do you >>> propose that the svn HEAD be called: >>> (a) 10.0 >>> (b) 9-CURRENT >>> (c) CURRENT >>> (d) something else >>> >>> I do not realy care for either (a) or (b), since (a) would imply that the >>> version is not changing, even as incompatible KBI/ABI changes are made. >>> Likewise for (b), once the KBI/ABI changes, HEAD is decidedly no longer a >>> form of '9'. >>> >>> -Ben Kaduk >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> During development of Version 9 , the name of directory was >> >> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-current/Latest/ >> >> During the 9.0 Release RC1 , the above name was used . >> >> Before releasing the 9.0 Release RC2 , the above has been changed . >> >> This change has broke the links in 9.0 Release RC1 . >> >> When we look at the ftp sites ( including mirrors ) all of them >> has changed . >> >> This naming structure is requiring re-structuring all of the directories >> over all ftp , and other sites . >> >> This is a wasted effort . >> >> Instead of doing this , a scheme like the following >> may be used : >> >> >> Instead of using /*-9-Current/ , use 10.0 for current . >> >> Assume our main directory is the following : >> >> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ >> >> As next directory , use 8.1 , 8.2 , 9.0 for current . >> >> >> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/8.1/ >> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/8.2/ >> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/ >> >> All of the directories , for example , >> ... ports >> ... release >> ... snapshot >> ... whatever is related to 8.2 , 9.0 will be under 8.2 or 9.0 , >> in such a way that nowhere else a directory with name , for example , >> 9.0 will exist ... >> >> For example : >> >> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/ports/ >> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/packages/ >> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/snapshot/ >> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/release/ >> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/stable/ >> >> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/ >> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/handbook/ >> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/man/ >> >> >> >> >> .... >> >> >> >> Explain to the people that 9.0 is the "Development" branch , >> NOT for production use . >> >> A single sentence to learn . >> >> Another step may be to insert an explicit >> warning message into current motd file about "Development" status of 9.0 . >> >> >> When time comes to make a release of 9.0 , which a new development >> branch will be generated , >> >> take a copy of 9.0 , and rename this directory as 10.0 . >> >> By using suitable find/replace scripts , >> >> find all occurrences of 9.0 with strict match and replace them by 10.0 . >> >> >> After generating directory 10.0 , propagate it to mirrors . >> >> Please , notice that , NOTHING is changed for the 9.0 , >> and NOTHING is broken with respect to generation of a new branch , >> all over the world .... >> >> >> Then start to work on 10.0 ... >> Continue in that way . >> >> Apply the similar steps to 9.0 for 9.1 : >> >> Take a copy of 9.0 , rename it as 9.1 , ... >> >> >> Thank you very much . >> >> Mehmet Erol Sanliturk >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > Why do I have the feeling that this whole problem is simply a matter of > r225757 not being MFC-ed to stable/9? > > http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/usr.sbin/pkg_install/add/main.c?r1=222035&r2=225757 > > Cheers, > Luchesar I've filed a PR for this... http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=162490 Hopefully, I'm not getting it entirely wrong. :) Cheers, Luchesar P.S. The PR is not yet online.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EBD7B1F.4070906>