On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 05:44:07AM -0800, Mark Millard wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2025, at 03:06, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > bob prohaska <[email protected]> writes:
> >> Is the sanctioned approach to delete everything and start
> >> over once the host system identifies itself as 16 rather
> >> than 15? In hindsight it looks like less work.
> >
> > You know that poudriere does not build on the host, right? What matters
> > is the OS version in your poudriere jail (the host just needs to be the
> > same version as or newer than your newest jail), and you're not supposed
> > to upgrade a poudriere jail from one ABI to another, you're supposed to
> > create a new jail with the new ABI.
To my ancient thinking, a host is a piece of machinery with a name and IP number
that can be handled. The idea of subdividing it into "virtual" hosts remains
alien.
To me a "jail" is a subdivision within that hardware, of which I'm only dimly
aware
and in this case forgot completely. The difference between jail and virtual
host is
even less clear.
The forgetting is entirely my fault.
>
> Bob provided evidence that he has a FreeBSD:16:aarch64
> jail as I understand it: a log message's text lines
> that he quoted included
>
> QUOTE
> [main-default-job-03] Installing autoconf-switch-20220527...
> pkg-static: wrong architecture: FreeBSD:15:* instead of FreeBSD:16:aarch64
> END QUOTE
>
> That would not be produced in a FreeBSD:15:aarch64
> poudriere jail as I understand things.
>
> I also do not know if Bob uses METHOD null and builds
> his own poudriere jails or not these days. The output
> from
>
> # poudriere jail -l
>
root@nemesis:/usr/local/poudriere # poudriere jail -l
JAILNAME VERSION ARCH METHOD TIMESTAMP PATH
main 15.0-CURRENT arm64.aarch64 null 2023-08-29 11:22:20
/usr/local/poudriere/poudriere-system
root@nemesis:/usr/local/poudriere #
> would answer such questions. (null mounted jail updates
> do not necessarily report VERSION and OSVERSION accurately
> when the jail is updated outside poudriere unless
> something more is done, such as deletion and recreation
> of the jail afterwords or the files for tracking such
> for the jail are manually updated.)
>
Poudriere was set up under 14-current with a single jail, main.
>
> But the original message also had a quoted line about
> FreeBSD-ports-kmods that I've not dealt with at all.
> It did say:
>
> QUOTE
> pkg: repository FreeBSD-ports-kmods contains packages for wrong OS version:
> FreeBSD:16:aarch64
> END QUOTE
>
> That reads to me like the context was not FreeBSD:16:aarch64
> but FreeBSD-ports-kmods was for FreeBSD:16:aarch64 .
>
> Bob should probably report the output of:
>
> # pkg repos -e
>
Maybe that's the culprit:
root@nemesis:/usr/local/poudriere # pkg repos -e
FreeBSD-ports: {
url : "pkg+https://pkg.FreeBSD.org/FreeBSD:16:aarch64/latest";,
enabled : yes,
priority : 0,
mirror_type : "SRV",
signature_type : "FINGERPRINTS",
fingerprints : "/usr/share/keys/pkg"
}
FreeBSD-ports-kmods: {
url :
"pkg+https://pkg.FreeBSD.org/FreeBSD:16:aarch64/kmods_latest";,
enabled : yes,
priority : 0,
mirror_type : "SRV",
signature_type : "FINGERPRINTS",
fingerprints : "/usr/share/keys/pkg"
}
custom: {
url : "file:///usr/local/poudriere/data/packages/main-default/",
enabled : yes,
priority : 0
}
root@nemesis:/usr/local/poudriere #
All three priorities are the same. The custom one was meant to be the highest
priority. Would that be 1, or -1 ?
> I do wonder if he has some explicit :15: text
> in some *.conf file(s).
I've tampered with poudriere.conf and repos, but think that's all.
Besides the need to fix repository priorities listed above, it appears
the expected course of action by poudriere was delete and re-make the jail
in use when kernel and world incremented major version.
There are some "notes to self" at
http://www.zefox.net/~fbsd/poudriere_on_rpi4
Obviously, I forgot my note about "...Freebsd's version will increment...",
though it's not the only mistake revealed in the present discussion.
It looks as if fixing those two errors (duplicate repository priorities and
failure to update the jail on major version increments) should put things right.
If anybody's willing to offer improvement please do.
I'm still hazy on what happens when the jail is re-created with a new major
version number. Are old package repositories deleted, or simply left behind?
Thanks for everyone's attention and help!
bob prohaska
