Re: i386 packages - snapshot 23/12/2015

[Alexander Hall]

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 01:08:47PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2015/12/26 13:45, Alexander Hall wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:19:22PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > On 2015-12-25, Alexander Hall  wrote:
> > > > On December 24, 2015 4:45:06 PM GMT+01:00, "soko.tica" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > Already installed packages should work fine after an upgrade
> > > 
> > > I'd add "usually" here - there are still quite a few times we need to
> > > make changes across the ports tree to cope with a change in base.
> > 
> > While I have my guesses, care to give an example or two for the good of
> > the community (me included)? :)
> 
> Recent examples include the tun(4) "link0" to tap(4) conversion,
> switching ifmedia to 64 bit values (done a few months ago in prep for
> 802.11n), changes to some ports to stop fetching addresses by libkvm as
> they were removed from the returned structures. Going further back there
> are things like some of the libressl changes, kvm_getproc api changes,
> 64-bit time_t/ino_t/etc, route message layout changes etc.
> 
> Additionally inter-library dependencies in X can mean that sometimes old
> packages stopping working (liba 1.0 depends on libb 1.0 and a package
> uses functions from both liba and libb. now libb is updated to 2.0 with
> a majorly incompatible ABI change, maybe a change to struct layout; this
> means the packages must be updated to cope, otherwise they will expect
> the old libb ABI but liba will expect the new one, and you can't have
> both at the same time).

Good examples, thanks!

/Alexander

Re: i386 packages - snapshot 23/12/2015

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2015-12-25, Alexander Hall  wrote:
> On December 24, 2015 4:45:06 PM GMT+01:00, "soko.tica"  
> wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>I've succesfully installed today the latest i386 snapshot on a usb
>>flash
>>disk (on amd64 box), but the packages (e.g. links+, xfe ) report
>>unresolved
>>dependencies and bad major. This is strange, since it is supposed that
>>older packages run on fresh -current install.
>
> Already installed packages should work fine after an upgrade

I'd add "usually" here - there are still quite a few times we need to
make changes across the ports tree to cope with a change in base.

Re: i386 packages - snapshot 23/12/2015

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2015/12/26 13:45, Alexander Hall wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:19:22PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2015-12-25, Alexander Hall  wrote:
> > > On December 24, 2015 4:45:06 PM GMT+01:00, "soko.tica" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > Already installed packages should work fine after an upgrade
> > 
> > I'd add "usually" here - there are still quite a few times we need to
> > make changes across the ports tree to cope with a change in base.
> 
> While I have my guesses, care to give an example or two for the good of
> the community (me included)? :)

Recent examples include the tun(4) "link0" to tap(4) conversion,
switching ifmedia to 64 bit values (done a few months ago in prep for
802.11n), changes to some ports to stop fetching addresses by libkvm as
they were removed from the returned structures. Going further back there
are things like some of the libressl changes, kvm_getproc api changes,
64-bit time_t/ino_t/etc, route message layout changes etc.

Additionally inter-library dependencies in X can mean that sometimes old
packages stopping working (liba 1.0 depends on libb 1.0 and a package
uses functions from both liba and libb. now libb is updated to 2.0 with
a majorly incompatible ABI change, maybe a change to struct layout; this
means the packages must be updated to cope, otherwise they will expect
the old libb ABI but liba will expect the new one, and you can't have
both at the same time).

Re: i386 packages - snapshot 23/12/2015

[Alexander Hall]

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:19:22PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2015-12-25, Alexander Hall  wrote:
> > On December 24, 2015 4:45:06 PM GMT+01:00, "soko.tica" 
> >  wrote:
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>I've succesfully installed today the latest i386 snapshot on a usb
> >>flash
> >>disk (on amd64 box), but the packages (e.g. links+, xfe ) report
> >>unresolved
> >>dependencies and bad major. This is strange, since it is supposed that
> >>older packages run on fresh -current install.
> >
> > Already installed packages should work fine after an upgrade
> 
> I'd add "usually" here - there are still quite a few times we need to
> make changes across the ports tree to cope with a change in base.

While I have my guesses, care to give an example or two for the good of
the community (me included)? :)

/Alexander

Re: i386 packages - snapshot 23/12/2015

[Alexander Hall]

On December 24, 2015 4:45:06 PM GMT+01:00, "soko.tica"  
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I've succesfully installed today the latest i386 snapshot on a usb
>flash
>disk (on amd64 box), but the packages (e.g. links+, xfe ) report
>unresolved
>dependencies and bad major. This is strange, since it is supposed that
>older packages run on fresh -current install.

Already installed packages should work fine after an upgrade, assuming you 
don't remove the old libs, but you cannot install new packages without the 
matching libs. When base and packages snapshots are slightly out of sync, that 
can happen. 

/Alexander 

>
>Either I messed something or there is something wrong with the
>snapshot.
>
>Regards

Re: i386 packages - snapshot 23/12/2015

[Peter Hessler]

On 2015 Dec 24 (Thu) at 22:53:24 -0600 (-0600), Amit Kulkarni wrote:
:Ugh, that wasn't worded properly. Proposed diffs of new versions of ports,
:which might break other ports, are also built, in a bulk build. This might
:cause mismatches...
:

Those are *not* done on the real build clusters.  Those builds are done
elsewhere, as to not damage the ftp mirrors.

-- 
(1) Everything depends.
(2) Nothing is always.
(3) Everything is sometimes.

Re: i386 packages - snapshot 23/12/2015

[soko.tica]

Thank you guys.

My box updated on the same -current is running with no hasle (it has been
like that for years). The problem just appeared with the new usb stick
installs, amed at presents to introduce OpenBSD/UNIX to elementary and high
school kids.

Happy holidays to all and wishing you a healthy, happy and succesfull
forthcomming year. To those celebrating today, I also politically
incorrectly wish a Merry Christmas.

Regards,

On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Alexander Hall  wrote:

>
>
> On December 24, 2015 4:45:06 PM GMT+01:00, "soko.tica" <
> soko.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >I've succesfully installed today the latest i386 snapshot on a usb
> >flash
> >disk (on amd64 box), but the packages (e.g. links+, xfe ) report
> >unresolved
> >dependencies and bad major. This is strange, since it is supposed that
> >older packages run on fresh -current install.
>
> Already installed packages should work fine after an upgrade, assuming you
> don't remove the old libs, but you cannot install new packages without the
> matching libs. When base and packages snapshots are slightly out of sync,
> that can happen.
>
> /Alexander
>
> >
> >Either I messed something or there is something wrong with the
> >snapshot.
> >
> >Regards

Re: i386 packages - snapshot 23/12/2015

[Mark Carroll]

On 25 Dec 2015, soko tica wrote:

> My box updated on the same -current is running with no hasle (it has been
> like that for years). The problem just appeared with the new usb stick
> installs, amed at presents to introduce OpenBSD/UNIX to elementary and high
> school kids.

That sounds interesting -- are there any good online guides for such
introductory courses for schoolchildren, or do you adapt a more general
UNIX one to include what's particular to BSDs and OpenBSD?

> Happy holidays to all and wishing you a healthy, happy and succesfull
> forthcomming year. To those celebrating today, I also politically
> incorrectly wish a Merry Christmas.

As do I. (-:

-- Mark

Re: i386 packages - snapshot 23/12/2015

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2015-12-24, soko.tica  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've succesfully installed today the latest i386 snapshot on a usb flash
> disk (on amd64 box), but the packages (e.g. links+, xfe ) report unresolved
> dependencies and bad major. This is strange, since it is supposed that
> older packages run on fresh -current install.

It's normal that this happens from time to time with snapshots after a
library update, it takes time to build packages, sign them and get them
out to the mirrors.

If you want to avoid this, watch source-changes and hold off on updating
for a couple of days after a shared-library bump in base or X (commits
involving shlib_version files). Increase "couple of days" in relation
to the machine speed for slower arches.

Re: i386 packages - snapshot 23/12/2015

[Amit Kulkarni]

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Amit Kulkarni  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Stuart Henderson 
> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-12-24, soko.tica  wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I've succesfully installed today the latest i386 snapshot on a usb flash
>> > disk (on amd64 box), but the packages (e.g. links+, xfe ) report
>> unresolved
>> > dependencies and bad major. This is strange, since it is supposed that
>> > older packages run on fresh -current install.
>>
>> It's normal that this happens from time to time with snapshots after a
>> library update, it takes time to build packages, sign them and get them
>> out to the mirrors.
>>
>> If you want to avoid this, watch source-changes and hold off on updating
>> for a couple of days after a shared-library bump in base or X (commits
>> involving shlib_version files). Increase "couple of days" in relation
>> to the machine speed for slower arches.
>>
>>
> Additionally, packages go through bulk builds before committing to the
> ports tree. This might also cause a mismatch in the library versions. So
> the bottom line is: the packages can be out of sync, try again later...
>
>
Ugh, that wasn't worded properly. Proposed diffs of new versions of ports,
which might break other ports, are also built, in a bulk build. This might
cause mismatches...

Re: i386 packages - snapshot 23/12/2015

[Amit Kulkarni]

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Stuart Henderson 
wrote:

> On 2015-12-24, soko.tica  wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've succesfully installed today the latest i386 snapshot on a usb flash
> > disk (on amd64 box), but the packages (e.g. links+, xfe ) report
> unresolved
> > dependencies and bad major. This is strange, since it is supposed that
> > older packages run on fresh -current install.
>
> It's normal that this happens from time to time with snapshots after a
> library update, it takes time to build packages, sign them and get them
> out to the mirrors.
>
> If you want to avoid this, watch source-changes and hold off on updating
> for a couple of days after a shared-library bump in base or X (commits
> involving shlib_version files). Increase "couple of days" in relation
> to the machine speed for slower arches.
>
>
Additionally, packages go through bulk builds before committing to the
ports tree. This might also cause a mismatch in the library versions. So
the bottom line is: the packages can be out of sync, try again later...

Re: i386 packages - snapshot 23/12/2015

[Peter N. M. Hansteen]

On 12/24/15 16:45, soko.tica wrote:

I've succesfully installed today the latest i386 snapshot on a usb flash
disk (on amd64 box), but the packages (e.g. links+, xfe ) report unresolved
dependencies and bad major. This is strange, since it is supposed that
older packages run on fresh -current install.


Check whether you have the exact libraries referencend in those messages 
anywhere. My guess is that you hit a point right after a version bump 
and the new snapshot only has newer libraries.



Either I messed something or there is something wrong with the snapshot.


Not necessarily. Give it a few hours and try again.

--
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/
"Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic"
delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.

i386 packages - snapshot 23/12/2015

[soko.tica]

Hello,

I've succesfully installed today the latest i386 snapshot on a usb flash
disk (on amd64 box), but the packages (e.g. links+, xfe ) report unresolved
dependencies and bad major. This is strange, since it is supposed that
older packages run on fresh -current install.

Either I messed something or there is something wrong with the snapshot.

Regards