Stuart Henderson <stu.li...@spacehopper.org> wrote:
> On 2022/06/04 15:23, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Stuart Henderson <stu.li...@spacehopper.org> wrote:
> >
> > > If you are running -current and have not updated base recently, you
> > > may run inTO "pkg_add: Unknown option: always-update <hash>".
> > > To fix it, just update to a newer base snapshot.
> >
> >
> >
> > What happened is that a developer made a change to the pkg tools which
> > creates completely incompatible package files.
> >
> > Noone knew this was happening beforehands. An email was circulated
> > after-the-fact to ports@ list (which is mostly read by developers, and
> > not read by users). It has now been weeks, and it still hasn't been
> > clearly communicated.
>
> People can decide for themselves about that,
>
> First commit enabling parsing in pkg_add
> https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/5cb7aebf4211294fd2891b0bc45c383ab7fd66af
That commit message does not say:
There will be no backwards compatiblity.
> "REMINDER: snapshots go with -current"
> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=165355109123377&w=2
That message says:
There is zero effort being made for backwards compatiblity.
It also says it is going to be FUN. Are we having fun? We are not
having fun. This is the case of one developer (who did not even
explain what was happening to any non-ports developer) making a decision
in their own bubble, without communicating the impact in a way that
everyone can understand.
> Second commit, after base is updated with this subsequent package builds
> use the new annotation
> https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/c2e596a17ac45689d758df0d67597fef94480ebe
That commit message does not say:
No effort has been made for backwards compatibility.
> (Then it takes time for new packages to be built on the various archs
> and it's not until *then* that errors would show up for people who
> haven't updated base yet)
So here we are:
There is no backwards compatibility, and users are starting to
encounter the problem, and the answer for them is that they must reboot.
No it's not just that, they are being told the PROCESS WAS GREAT, and
what is wrong here is *THEIR* process of using snapshots.
It has also been pointed out that current.html has no information about this
change. I have been saying for a while we should delete current.html
because it seems to always contain useless information, and here we see
it lacks crucial information.
