On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 02:12:50PM +0000, Sergey A. Osokin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:52:50PM +0000, Glen Barber wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 01:44:18PM +0000, Sergey A. Osokin wrote:
> > > At the moment we have graphics/drm-fbsd12.0-kmod port for 12.0.
> > > I hope in most cases it's enough for RELENG_12 branch, however
> > > just to avoid a potential confusion I see the following options
> > > we can do:
> > >
> > > - create a new port for 12.1 only
> > > - rename the existing port to drm-fbsd12-kmod
> > > - rename the existing port to drm-fbsd12.1-kmod (in case of 12.0 EoL)
> >
> > What about using the meta-port and keying off of OSVERSION? (Personally
> > I have no real preference either way, nor with any of the solutions you
> > propose above.)
>
> Actually we have one, graphics/drm-kmod, and it depends on the following one:
>
> .elif ${OSVERSION} >= 1200058 && ${OSVERSION} < 1300000
> RUN_DEPENDS= ${KMODDIR}/drm.ko:graphics/drm-fbsd12.0-kmod
> ...
>
> So, in case we don't expect an API/ABI changes in 12.x branch we can
> just rename it to drm-fbsd12-kmod, or create a specific version of
> the port for 12.1 - drm-fbsd12.1-kmod and update the meta-port as well.
> We should never expect this type of ABI/KBI breakage along a stable branch. (That is our definition of "stable", technically, but sometimes there are unexpected breakages that occasionally go undetected.) > > > Also, since this is repeatable thing for every upcoming release > > > we can add this point to the check list and release scheduling. > > > > Yes, good idea. Just let us know how you want to proceed, and we can > > add a note to the documentation. > > I mean I believe we should that (create a new port, update the meta-port, > etc.) in advance, in the beginning of the first phase of release cycle. > This seems like a reasonable approach. Glen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
