Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:30:45 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [Patch] Using MACHINE_ARCH identifiers in pkg Message-ID: <20140626213045.GF24440@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <53A31C56.90401@freebsd.org> References: <5383EEB6.6010703@freebsd.org> <538614AB.4070803@freebsd.org> <20140528170440.GA80273@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <53A31C56.90401@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--GLp9dJVi+aaipsRk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:22:30AM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 05/28/14 10:04, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 09:54:03AM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > >> The following was in a deep and increasingly branched thread on the SVN > >> list. I've forwarded the relevant part here. The discussion was on usi= ng > >> MACHINE_ARCH codes for package architectures in pkg instead of the > >> existing ones (which are equivalent) to make script-writing easier and > >> improve consistency with the way the src and ports trees work. The > >> patches below are designed to make transitioning the architecture > >> identifiers as painless as possible. > >> -Nathan > >> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------= -- > >> > >> I've written two patches today. The first > >> (http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/pkg_machinearch.diff) is to pkg > >> itself and the second > >> (http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/pkg_bootstrap_machinearch.diff) > >> is to the pkg bootstrapper in base. These switch pkg from using > >> identifiers like "freebsd:11:arm:32:eb:eabi:softfp" to identifiers like > >> "FreeBSD:11:armeb", matching the canonical FreeBSD platform identifier= s. > >> The strings it uses can be predicted easily from scripts, as they are > >> identical in all cases to the output of `uname -s`:`uname -r | cut -f 1 > >> -d .`:`uname -p`. > >> > >> I tried to avoid changing much, so the patches are pretty short. > >> Internally, the patch introduces a translation table to pkg that > >> contains all extant FreeBSD and Dragonfly BSD architectures and moves > >> between the ELF-based coding and MACHINE_ARCH values. This is kind of > >> gross, but has the least possibility for regression, and can easily be > >> changed behind the scenes later. Platform detection uses the same > >> ELF-parsing code as before. The current/previous values are also kept = so > >> that the patched pkg can install a package marked either with an x86:64 > >> or amd64-type architecture ID (symlinks will be needed for a little bit > >> on the package server to allow both clients to work). Limited testing > >> suggests it works well -- I can fetch and install packages fine. More > >> testing would be great. > >> > >> One small issue is how to bootstrap the change for existing binary > >> package users. The modified pkg can use packages with either > >> architecture ID just fine, but the current one will barf on the > >> FreeBSD:11:amd64 package containing its own update. There are a couple > >> of options: manual instructions, marking that one package with the > >> old-style architecture ID, etc. None should be more than slightly > >> irritating, though. The least bumpy route, I think, is making > >> directories with both the old and new names, but putting only one > >> package in the old-named directory: a special intermediate version of > >> pkg marked with the old architecture ID but able to install from the n= ew > >> one. Then you just have to deal with two rounds of updates without any > >> other intervention, which is not so bad. > >> -Nathan > >> > >> > >> > > Thanks I'll be away for a couple of days, but I'll have a look and test= your > > patch in all situation we need to support and come back to you if neede= d or > > directly commit; > > > > regards, > > Bapt >=20 > Have you had a chance to look at this yet? I'm happy to help with any=20 > testing if you need. > -Nathan I do like the appraoch but I haven't yet had time to study the side effect,= it is already complicated to get pkg 1.3 out, I are quite close now so this wi= ll wait for 1.4, but I'll push it on top of my TODO list for 1.4. regards, Bapt --GLp9dJVi+aaipsRk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlOskQUACgkQ8kTtMUmk6ExLjgCePcyvIOqTdVyrxUm2lwYwc8ZF M48An3mgaQ32iiU+1J+kD6UrAX1MW9Lo =TFuJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GLp9dJVi+aaipsRk--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140626213045.GF24440>