On 2014-08-18 18:15, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > On 08/14/14 13:40, olli hauer wrote: >> On 2014-08-14 21:42, Bryan Drewery wrote: >>> On 8/14/2014 2:38 PM, olli hauer wrote: >>>> On 2014-08-14 17:35, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >> ... >> >>> Something I've mentioned to Bapt a few times is that pkg needs a way to >>> have a list of accepted ABI strings. Then we could add both the old and >>> the new style as accepted (internally) so that old and new repositories >>> will continue to work. >>> >> Ups, rollback is not possible after the client database was updated. >> >> Even by rollback and rebuild the package metadata the following error pops >> up. >> >> ~/pkg-static.old_ABI update -f >> Updating repository catalogue >> pkg-static: Repository str has a wrong packagesite, need to re-create >> database >> Fetching meta.txz: 100% of 584 B >> Fetching digests.txz: 100% of 43 kB >> Fetching packagesite.txz: 100% of 138 kB >> >> Adding new entries: 34% >> pkg-static: wrong architecture: FreeBSD:8:amd64 instead of freebsd:8:x86:64 >> >> pkg-static: repository str contains packages with wrong ABI: FreeBSD:8:amd64 >> Adding new entries: 100% >> pkg-static: Unable to update repository str > > > Hm. I'm not sure how to handle this. There are two places that emit hard > errors in such cases: pkg-add, which is fine since we have a workaround > there, and here. The check is at line 446 of libpkg/repo/binary/update.c (you > can comment it out for testing). For this one, there does not seem to be any > good solution and we need to find one since this is the same issue you ran > into the upgrade path. > > Here are the two options I see. They are similar to each other, and we could > do both for some time. > 1. Make an intermediate pkg that is otherwise unaltered but doesn't have this > check during updates and keep it in the tree for some substantial length of > time so most people have it by the time we want upgrades to the new ABI > strings. > 2. Set PKGNG_ALTABI globally on the ports tree for i386 and amd64 for some > period of time so that all built packages get the current ABI identifiers > rather than the new ones. > > Any preference here? Or other options?
Hi Nathan, Your suggestion 2) could do the trick, at last for current ports. I will see if I can do some additional tests the next days, specially with mixed ABI strings in the packages. -- olli _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
