[I need to be more careful about identifying the context I'm referring to.]
On 2018-Jan-4, at 7:13 PM, Mark Millard <markmi at dsl-only.net> wrote: > Mark Heily mark at heily.com wrote on > Thu Jan 4 14:06:18 UTC 2018 : > >> the build system for CURRENT can be changed in >> ways that make it incompatible with building STABLE. This is normal and >> expected behavior for a development branch. It has never been a *supported* >> option to mix and match source code from different branches on a single >> host. The original material below was tied to buildworld buildkernel activity of itself. This is somewhat different than having COMPAT_FREEBSD*'s in the live kernel and running an already correctly built, older world in a jail based on such a newer kernel and world. > If I understand right, at the transition from > stable/11 to release/12.0 and stable/12, > stable/11 is supposed to be able to build 12 > as part of a source based upgrade. (Normally > the most recent release/11.? should be able > to as well? The oldest supported release/11.? > as well?) > > So at certain times one direction of mixing > seems to be supported for specific versions > in order to allow progressing forward. > > That does not mean that the other direction > is supported. This can have implications for poudriere, needing to use "pre-built distribution options" instead of "build from source options". There would be source around that "will not be built from" but for which the source tree is used in the jail, at least to build ports that contain modules. (This is another case of having sources from multiple branches on a single host. But the usage is not for buildworld buildkernel in this context.) For custom configurations, one might have to use, say, stable/11/ to build a world that is then to be put in a head/ context for use in poudriere. This avoids building stable/11/ from a head/ context. More direct jail use may be similar. (I've only used jails via poudriere.) Unlike for, say, stable/11/ vs. stable/10/ there could be temporary periods for head/ for which some COMPAT_FREEBSD*'s might not work, even if such is normally avoided. This is a risk vs., say, stable/11/ running a jail that has a stable/10/ world. > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 6:17 AM, O. Hartmann <ohartmann at walstatt.org> wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 09:33:08 -0500 >> Shawn Webb <shawn.webb at hardenedbsd.org> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 05:14:00PM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: >>>> Since lint was removed from 12.0-CURRENT, it is not possible to build >>>> 11.1-STABLE on a 12.0-CURRENT host > The below is tied to buildworld buildkernel activity of itself. > It does seem to me that having a head/ based > system set up to do the stable/?? builds is > backwards generally under the normal principles > of operation. The other direction seems to be > the general intent. > > Even having stable/11 try to build, say, > stable/10 would seem to be backwards on > the general principles if I've understood > right. head/ is not actually essential to > the issue. === Mark Millard markmi at dsl-only.net _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"